Front-Line Therapeutic Strategy in Metastatic Hormone Sensitive Prostate Cancer: An Updated Therapeutic Algorithm.

Prostate carcinoma (PC), the second most diagnosed cancer globally, saw approximately 1,414,000 new cases in 2020, with 17% being de novo metastatic. In these cases, the 5-year relative survival rate is 32%. Metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) includes those with metastatic disease at initial diagnosis or after initial therapy without long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), eventually progressing to castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). The established therapeutic principle of ADT has persisted for 80 years, with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists like leuprorelin being commonly used. LHRH antagonists, such as degarelix, have also emerged. Recent advances in mHSPC treatment involve combination strategies with drugs proven effective in CRPC, considering prognostic factors like disease volume and presentation. This review outlines pivotal trials leading to drug approvals in mHSPC and proposes a treatment decision algorithm for the same, based on statement from the Tuscan Interdisciplinary Uro-Oncological Group. A multidisciplinary approach is crucial to tailor treatment intensity and weigh risks and benefits effectively.

Irinotecan- vs. Oxaliplatin-Based Doublets in KRASG12C-Mutated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer-A Multicentre Propensity-Score-Matched Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: KRASG12C-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has recently been recognized as a distinct druggable molecular entity; however, there are limited data on its sensitivity to standard chemotherapy. In the near future, the combination of chemotherapy plus a KRASG12C-inhibitor might become the standard of care; however, the optimal chemotherapy backbone is unknown. METHODS: A multicentre retrospective analysis was conducted including KRASG12C-mutated mCRC patients treated with first-line FOLFIRI or FOLFOX +/- bevacizumab. Both unmatched and propensity-score-matched analysis (PSMA) were conducted, with PSMA controlling for: previous adjuvant chemotherapy, ECOG PS, use of bevacizumab in first line, timing of metastasis appearance, time from diagnosis to first-line start, number of metastatic sites, presence of mucinous component, gender, and age. Subgroup analyses were also performed to investigate subgroup treatment-effect interactions. KRASG12D-mutated patients were analysed as control. RESULTS: One hundred and four patients treated with irinotecan-(N = 47) or oxaliplatin-based (N = 57) chemotherapy were included. In the unmatched population, objective response rate (ORR) and median (m) progression-free and overall survival (mPFS and mOS) were comparable between the treatment arms. However, a late (>12 months) PFS advantage was observed with irinotecan (HR 0.62, p = 0.02). In the PSMA-derived cohort, a significant improvement with irinotecan vs. oxaliplatin was observed for both PFS and OS: 12- and 24-month PFS rates of 55% vs. 31% and 40% vs. 0% (HR 0.40, p = 0.01) and mOS 37.9 vs. 21.7 months (HR 0.45, p = 0.045), respectively. According to the subgroup analysis, interaction effects between the presence of lung metastases and treatment groups were found in terms of PFS (p for interaction = 0.08) and OS (p for interaction = 0.03), with a higher benefit from irinotecan in patients without lung metastases. No difference between treatment groups was observed in the KRASG12D-mutated cohort (N = 153). CONCLUSIONS: First-line irinotecan-based regimens provided better survival results in KRASG12C-mutated mCRC patients and should be preferred over oxaliplatin. These findings should also be considered when investigating chemotherapy plus targeted agent combinations.

Primary tumour side as a driver for treatment choice in RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review and pooled analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective subgroup analyses of previous trials in the first-line therapy of RAS wt metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) suggested a predictive impact of primary tumour side on the efficacy of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents. Recently, new head-to-head trials of doublets/bevacizumab versus doublets/anti-EGFR, PARADIGM and CAIRO5 were presented. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We searched for phase II and III trials comparing doublet chemotherapy plus an anti-EGFR or bevacizumab as the first-line treatment for RAS wt mCRC patients. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and radical resection rate result in the overall study populations and, according to the primary side, were pooled together in a two-stage analysis with random effects and fixed effect models. The interaction between sidedness and treatment effect was then analysed. RESULTS: We identified five trials (PEAK, CALGB/SWOG 80405, FIRE-3, PARADIGM and CAIRO5), including 2739 patients, 77% left- and 23% right-sided. Among patients with left-sided mCRC, the use of anti-EGFRs was associated with higher ORR (74% versus 62%, OR = 1.77 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.39-2.26-0.88], p < 0.0001), longer OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.77 [95% CI 0.68-0.88], p < 0.0001) and not significantly longer PFS (HR = 0.92, p = 0.19). Among patients with right-sided mCRC, the use of bevacizumab was associated with longer PFS (HR = 1.36 [95% CI 1.12-1.65], p = 0.002) and not significantly longer OS (HR = 1.17, p = 0.14). A subgroup analysis confirmed a significant interaction effect between the primary tumour side and treatment arm in terms of ORR (p = 0.02), PFS (p = 0.0004) and OS (p = 0.001). No differences in the radical resection rate were found according to treatment and sidedness. CONCLUSIONS: Our updated metanalysis corroborates the role of the primary tumour location in the choice of the upfront therapy for RAS wt mCRC patients, leading to strongly recommend anti-EGFRs in left-sided tumours and to prefer bevacizumab in the right-sided.

Surgery combined with intra-operative microwaves ablation for the management of colorectal cancer liver metastasis: A case-matched analysis and evaluation of recurrences.

Background: Hepatic resection is the only chance of cure for a subgroup of patients with colorectal cancer liver metastasis. As the oncologic outcomes of intra-operative microwaves ablation combined with hepatic resection still remain uncertain in this setting, we aimed to compare this approach with surgery alone in patient's candidate to metastases resection with radical intent. Methods: Using a case-matched methodology based on age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiology score, Body Mass Index, and burden that take in consideration the number and maximum size of lesions, 20 patients undergoing hepatic resection plus intra-operative microwaves (SURG + IMW group) and 20 patients undergoing hepatic resection alone (SURG group), were included. Relapse-free Survival and post-resection Overall Survival were compared between patients of two groups. Results: At the median follow up of 22.4 ± 17.8, 12/20 patients (60%) in SURG +IMW group and 13/20 patients (65%) in the SURG group experienced liver metastasis recurrence (p=0.774). None of them had recurrence at the same surgical or ablation site of the first hepatic treatment. 7/12 patients in the SURG+IMW group and 7/13 patients in the SURG group underwent at least one further surgical treatment after relapse (p = 1.000). No difference was reported between the two groups in terms of Relapse-free Survival (p = 0.685) and post-resection Overall Survival (p = 0.151). The use of intra-operative microwaves was not an independent factor affecting Relapse-free Survival and post-resection Overall Survival at univariate and multivariate analysis. Conclusions: Patients with colorectal cancer liver metastasis undergoing surgery plus intra-operative microwaves have similar post-operative results compared with surgery alone group. The choice between the two approaches could be only technical, depending on the site, number, and volume of the metastases. This approach could also be used in patients with liver metastasis relapse who have already undergone hepatic surgery.