Alkylating agents (ALKY) are the main chemotherapies used for advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). O6-Methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) status, as proficient (p) or deficient (d), may predict the response to ALKY.

MGMT-NET (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03217097) was a phase II trial randomly assigning 1:1 for pMGMT or 2:1 for dMGMT-NETs to either ALKY or oxaliplatin (Ox). Inclusion criteria were a confirmed advanced pancreatic, thoracic, or unknown primary NETs with an indication for chemotherapy and tissue available. The primary aim was to detect a difference of 35% between the 3-month objective response rate (ORR) in pMGMT-NETs versus in dMGMT-NETs when treated with ALKY. A biomarker-stratified design was performed to compare ALKY and Ox in the dMGMT and pMGMT strata for the secondary end points. dMGMT was defined using pyrosequencing (PSQ; methylated MGMT ≥9%) and using immunochemistry (H-score of MGMT <50) when PSQ was not interpretable.

From October 2018 to October 2021, 105 patients (55 pancreas, 38 thorax, 12 unknown) started either ALKY (n = 62) or Ox (n = 43). The median age was 63 years (range, 30-84), and 59% were males. NETs were G1 (19%), G2 (69%), or G3 (10%). Among patients with interpretable MGMT status, 56.9% (58 of 102) had a dMGMT-NET. The primary end point was not reached; the 3-month ORR was 10 (29.4%) versus 2 (8%), and the odds ratio was 3.5 (0.58-21.16), P = .172. However, best ORR (18 [52.9%] v 3 [11.5%]) and median progression-free survival (14.6 [95% CI, 7.2 to 22.1] v 11.3 [9.4 to 13.2] months) were higher for dMGMT-NETs versus pMGMT-NETs. MGMT status does not seem to affect the Ox efficacy.

Despite the fact that the primary end point was not reached, ALKY has clinical activity in patients with dMGMT-NETs.

Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy showed an overall median survival improvement in wild type Ras metastatic colorectal cancer. Maintenance with anti EGFR in metastatic colorectal cancer wild type Ras was studied in many trials with promising results and many of these trials gave combined chemo with the target therapy and this combination had shown benefit in the form of synergistic effect and in delaying the resistance to the anti EGFR.

In our study patients received 6 cycles of 5-FU based chemotherapy with Panitumumab and patients who had partial response, complete response or stationary disease received metronomic Capecitabine with Panitumumab every 2 weeks for one year. The primary end point was progression free survival (PFS) and the secondary end points were safety, toxicity and overall survival (OS).

The median PFS for all patients was 18 ± 1.4 months and the median OS was 45 months. Patients with synchronous metastasis and those who received Oxaliplatin based regimen with Panitumumab were found to have longer PFS compared to those with metachronous metastasis or those who received other chemotherapy regimen with accepted toxicity profile to the maintenance therapy.

Using Panitumumab with metronomic Capecitabine is considered an accepted maintenance regimen in wild type Ras metastatic colorectal cancer regardless of the primary site.

The management of patients with diffuse liver metastases remains a significant clinical challenge. In many cancer patients, metastatic disease may be isolated to the liver or the liver may be the dominant site of progressive metastatic cancer. In this setting, progression of disease in the liver generally is the most significant cause of morbidity and mortality.

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is mainly treated with 5-Fluoro-Uracil (5-FU), Oxaliplatin and Irinotecan chemotherapies and anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) or anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) targeted therapies. Due to chemotherapy-related toxicity, patients receive induction treatment to achieve tumour response followed by maintenance therapy with less cytotoxic molecules or a chemotherapy-free interval to reduce chemotherapy-related toxicity. In this study, the aim was to determine the patient, cancer and treatment factors that influence the duration of maintenance therapy (DMT).

We collected retrospective data on a cohort of 133 patients treated at the Centre Georges François Leclerc (CGFL) cancer centre in Dijon between March 2014 and June 2022. Patients had unresectable or potentially resectable diseases. They received first-line induction treatment with chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy and maintenance treatment, defined as the interruption of at least one chemotherapy agent.

In the multivariate analysis, age (HR: 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04, p = 0.031), N2 nodal status (HR: 1.78, 95% CI 1.09-2.89, p = 0.021) and the presence of peritoneal metastases (HR: 2.05, 95% CI 1.25-3.36, p = 0.004), as well as baseline carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA) level (HR: 1.10, 95% CI 1.00-1.20, p = 0.052), were significantly associated to poor DMT. Local treatment of liver metastases also significantly reduced the DMT (HR: 0.49, 95% CI 0.28-0.86, p = 0.013). In our cohort, induction triplet chemotherapy significantly increased the CEA delta (70% vs. 44%, p = 0.047) compared to doublet chemotherapy and led to a higher rate of liver surgery (40% vs. 21%, p = 0.014) and a trend for a higher rate of local treatment of metastases (62% vs. 45%, p = 0.059).

Duration of maintenance therapy is determined by the initial patient and colorectal cancer characteristics. However, it is significantly increased by local treatment of liver metastases. By reducing the tumour burden, a triplet induction chemotherapy regimen increases the rate of liver metastase resection.

Metastatic CRC is considered as a heterogenous disease. Its management is therefore complex and dynamic. In order the give a ready reference to community oncologists, we developed this real world recommendations.

A group of experts with academic background and real world experience in mCRC got together. We reviewed the current literature and the insights gained from our real world experience. Based on the same we put together these recommendations.

Molecular testing should be done wherever possible. Most of these patients will be treated with a palliative approach. Doublet chemotherapy is a long-standing standard of care. Triplet therapy may be offered where a more aggressive approach is indicated. Combination with anti -vascular endothelial growth factor antibodies and/or anti EGFR antibodies is also considered standard. In the first-line setting, pembrolizumab can be used for patients with mCRC and microsatellite instability-high or deficient mismatch repair tumours; Left and right sided tumours are distinct entities. Combination of chemotherapy and targeted therapy is used as per individual patient and tumour characteristics.Oligometastatic disease can be approached with potentially curative intent. Cytoreductive surgery plus chemotherapy can be offered to selected patients with peritoneal only metastases. Stereotactic body radiation therapy can be used as local therapy for patients with oligometastatic liver only disease who cannot be taken up for surgery. New strategies include induction-maintenance chemotherapy and perioperative chemotherapy. All drugs/ regimen included as standard of care in the first line can also be used in subsequent lines. Specific targetable driver mutation tumours can be treated accordingly with their complementary biological therapy.

Multidisciplinary team management and shared decision making are possible when patient and caregivers choose to become active participants.

Colorectal cancer remains the third most common cancer worldwide and the second cause of cancer-related death. Treatment advances and precision oncological medicine for these tumours have been stalled in comparison to those for other common tumours such as lung and breast cancer. However, the recent publication of the SUNLIGHT trial results with the trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102)-bevacizumab combination and the irruption of new molecular targets with guided treatments have opened new possibilities in third-line metastatic colorectal cancer management. Anti-EGFR rechallenge, anti-HER2 targeted therapies or the promising results of Pressurised Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy (PIPAC), are some of the available options that may modify what is presumably third-line colorectal treatment. Hereby, we present the evidence of the different treatment options in third-line colorectal cancer and beyond, as well as the possibilities of sequencing them.

Oxaliplatin, a major drug in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), is responsible for cumulative, dose-limiting peripheral neuropathy (PN). Whether the hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) route can limit oxaliplatin-induced PN in comparison with the intravenous (IV) route has not been specifically explored so far.

We compared the frequency and severity of PN in oxaliplatin-naive patients with mCRC included in trials that evaluated treatment with oxaliplatin administered either by HAI (ACCORD 04, CHOICE, OSCAR, and PACHA-01 trials) or by IV route (FFCD 2000-05 trial). We retrieved anonymized, prospectively collected data from trial databases for the ACCORD 04, CHOICE, and FFCD 2000-05 trials and through a review of Gustave Roussy patients' electronic medical records for PACHA-01 and OSCAR trials. The primary endpoint was the incidence of clinically significant PN (grades 2 to 4) according to the cumulative dose of oxaliplatin received. Secondary endpoints were time to onset of neuropathy as a function of the cumulative dose of oxaliplatin, discontinuation of oxaliplatin for neurotoxicity, and safety.

A total of 363 patients were included (IV, 300; HAI, 63). In total, 180 patients in the IV group (60%) and 30 patients in the HAI group (48%) developed clinically significant PN, with no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.23). No difference was shown in the time to onset of PN either (p = 0.23).

The administration of oxaliplatin HAI rather than IV in the treatment of mCRC does not reduce the incidence, precocity, and severity of PN.

The sampling of circulating biomarkers provides an opportunity for non-invasive evaluation and monitoring of cancer activity. In modern day practice, this has typically been in the form of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) detected in plasma. The field of ctDNA has been a burgeoning technology, with prominent applications for blood-based cancer screening and in disease status assessment, especially after curative-intent surgery to evaluate for minimal residual disease (MRD). Clinical applications for the latter show an incredibly high sensitivity in certain cancer types with a need for additional studies to determine how much clinical decision-making should be adapted based on ctDNA results and which cancer types, stages, and treatments are best informed by ctDNA results. This chapter provides an overview of ctDNA detection as tool for cancer screening, detecting MRD, and/or molecularly characterizing a cancer, highlighting the rapidly amassing research as a prognostic biomarker and emerging data on ctDNA as a predictive biomarker.

Predictive markers of LV5FU2 maintenance benefit after first-line induction with FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer are necessary to select patients who will not be harmed by this strategy.

We focused on patients who received 12 cycles of FOLFIRINOX (arm A, N = 88) or 8 cycles of FOLFIRINOX followed by LV5FU2 maintenance in controlled patients (arm B, N = 91) from the PRODIGE-35 trial. Prognostic factors and predictors of efficiency were identified by using Cox regression. Median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and time to deterioration of quality of life (TTD-QoL) were evaluated.

Poor independent prognostic factors were primary tumor in place, age <65 years and the presence of liver metastases for PFS, a baseline neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≥5 and CA19.9 ≥500 UI/L for OS, independent of the treatment arm. Patients with one metastatic site had a longer PFS in arm A, whereas patients with ≥2 metastatic sites had a longer PFS in arm B. We also identified predictors of OS and TTD-QoL in arm B but these differences were not statistically significant.

Except for patients with one metastatic site who benefited more from 12 cycles of FOLFIRINOX, a maintenance strategy with LV5FU2 should be widely offered to mPC patients whose survival and QoL are preserved after 4 months of FOLFIRINOX. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02352337).

There is interest in using treatment breaks in oncology, to reduce toxicity without compromising efficacy.

A Phase II/III multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial assessing treatment breaks in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

Patients with locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma, starting tyrosine kinase inhibitor as first-line treatment at United Kingdom National Health Service hospitals.

At trial entry, patients were randomised (1 : 1) to a drug-free interval strategy or a conventional continuation strategy. After 24 weeks of treatment with sunitinib/pazopanib, drug-free interval strategy patients took up a treatment break until disease progression with additional breaks dependent on disease response and patient choice. Conventional continuation strategy patients continued on treatment. Both trial strategies continued until treatment intolerance, disease progression on treatment, withdrawal or death.

To determine if a drug-free interval strategy is non-inferior to a conventional continuation strategy in terms of the co-primary outcomes of overall survival and quality-adjusted life-years.

For non-inferiority to be concluded, a margin of ≤ 7.5% in overall survival and ≤ 10% in quality-adjusted life-years was required in both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. This equated to the 95% confidence interval of the estimates being above 0.812 and -0.156, respectively. Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated using the utility index of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions questionnaire.

Nine hundred and twenty patients were randomised (461 conventional continuation strategy vs. 459 drug-free interval strategy) from 13 January 2012 to 12 September 2017. Trial treatment and follow-up stopped on 31 December 2020. Four hundred and eighty-eight (53.0%) patients [240 (52.1%) vs. 248 (54.0%)] continued on trial post week 24. The median treatment-break length was 87 days. Nine hundred and nineteen patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (461 vs. 458) and 871 patients in the per-protocol analysis (453 vs. 418). For overall survival, non-inferiority was concluded in the intention-to-treat analysis but not in the per-protocol analysis [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) intention to treat 0.97 (0.83 to 1.12); per-protocol 0.94 (0.80 to 1.09) non-inferiority margin: 95% confidence interval ≥ 0.812, intention to treat: 0.83 > 0.812 non-inferior, per-protocol: 0.80 < 0.812 not non-inferior]. Therefore, a drug-free interval strategy was not concluded to be non-inferior to a conventional continuation strategy in terms of overall survival. For quality-adjusted life-years, non-inferiority was concluded in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses [marginal effect (95% confidence interval) intention to treat -0.05 (-0.15 to 0.05); per-protocol 0.04 (-0.14 to 0.21) non-inferiority margin: 95% confidence interval ≥ -0.156]. Therefore, a drug-free interval strategy was concluded to be non-inferior to a conventional continuation strategy in terms of quality-adjusted life-years.

The main limitation of the study is the fewer than expected overall survival events, resulting in lower power for the non-inferiority comparison.

Future studies should investigate treatment breaks with more contemporary treatments for renal cell carcinoma.

Non-inferiority was shown for the quality-adjusted life-year end point but not for overall survival as pre-defined. Nevertheless, despite not meeting the primary end point of non-inferiority as per protocol, the study suggested that a treatment-break strategy may not meaningfully reduce life expectancy, does not reduce quality of life and has economic benefits. Although the treating clinicians' perspectives were not formally collected, the fact that clinicians recruited a large number of patients over a long period suggests support for the study and provides clear evidence that a treatment-break strategy for patients with renal cell carcinoma receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy is feasible.

This trial is registered as ISRCTN06473203.

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR award ref: 09/91/21) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 45. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The novel Oxathiazinane derivative GP-2250 (Misetionamide) displays antineoplastic activity in vitro and in vivo, as previously shown in pancreatic cancer cells and in patient-derived mouse xenografts (PDX). Currently, GP 2250 is under phase I clinical trial in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). GP-2250 in combination with Gemcitabine displays a high synergistic capacity in various primary and established pancreatic cancer cell lines. Additionally, in the eight PDX models tested, the drug combination was superior in reducing tumor volume with an aggregate tumor regression (ATR) of 74% compared to Gemcitabine alone (ATR: 10%). Similarly, in a PDX maintenance setting following two weeks of treatment with nab-Paclitaxel plus Gemcitabine, the combination of GP-2250 plus Gemcitabine resulted in outstanding tumor control (ATR: 79%) compared to treatment with Gemcitabine alone (ATR: 19%). Furthermore, GP-2250 reduced the ratio of tumor-initiating CD133+ markers on the surface of PDAC cells in spheroid cultures, indicating a possible mechanism for the synergistic effect of both substances. Considering the high tolerability of GP 2250, these results may open up a new approach to maintenance therapy with GP-2250/Gemcitabine combination following nab-Paclitaxel plus Gemcitabine as first-line treatment.

The key endpoints for the assessment of the effect of maintenance therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are survival and quality-of-life outcomes. We aimed to compare dermatology-related quality of life (DRQOL) in patients with RAS wild-type (wt) mCRC treated with fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) + panitumumab (Pmab) versus FU/FA alone as maintenance therapy after folinic acid, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin + Pmab induction.

The phase II randomized PanaMa (AIO KRK 0212; NCT01991873) trial included 387 patients at 70 community/academic sites in Germany. For this prespecified secondary analysis, DRQOL outcomes were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (FACT-EGFRI), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Skindex-16 questionnaires at every second cycle of therapy until disease progression/death.

At least one DRQOL questionnaire was completed by a total of 310/377 (82%) patients who received induction therapy, and by 216/248 (87%) patients who were randomized and received maintenance therapy. Patients who experienced skin toxicity according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) during induction therapy had significantly worse DRQOL according to all three measures, compared to those who did not [i.e. Skindex-16, mean difference at cycle 2 -12.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) -20.01 to -5.73; P < 0.001]. During maintenance therapy, significantly improved recovery was observed in all DRQOL measures for patients receiving FU/FA, compared to those receiving additional Pmab (i.e. Skindex-16, mean difference at cycle 6 -16.53; 95% CI -22.68 to -10.38; P < 0.001).

In this secondary analysis of a phase II randomized clinical trial, patient-reported DRQOL outcomes correlated with skin toxicity according to NCI-CTCAE during induction therapy. Maintenance therapy with FU/FA + Pmab was associated with deteriorated DRQOL versus FU/FA alone in patients with RAS wt mCRC.

We evaluated whether the addition of docetaxel (D) to a combination comprising 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) or capecitabine (C) plus oxaliplatin (O) (DOF/DOX) improved overall survival (OS) compared with 6 months of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine in combination with oxaliplatin (FOLFOX/CAPOX) alone in advanced HER2-negative gastroesophageal junction and gastric adenocarcinomas (G/GEJ).

This study was an investigator-initiated, open-label, multi-institutional, randomized phase III trial in adult patients with HER2-negative advanced G/GEJs. The primary endpoint of the study was a comparison of median OS by Kaplan-Meier method. Next-generation sequencing was performed on tissue.

Of the 324 patients randomly assigned between July 2020 and November 2022, 305 patients were evaluable for analysis (FOLFOX/CAPOX: 156; DOF/DOX: 149). With a median follow-up time of 19.2 months (95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 16.5 months to 21.9 months) for the entire cohort, the median OS was 10.1 months (95% CI = 9.2 to 10.9) for FOLFOX/CAPOX and 8.9 months (95% CI = 7.3 to 10.5) for DOF/DOX, and this difference was not statistically significant (P = .70). An increased proportion of grade 3 or grade 4 neutropenia (21% vs 3%; P < .001) and grade 2/3 neuropathy (17% vs 7%; P = .005) was seen in patients receiving DOF/DOX. Genomic profiling revealed a low incidence of microsatellite instability (1%) and a high incidence of BRCA1 (8.4%) and BRCA2 (7.5%) somatic alterations.

FOLFOX or CAPOX chemotherapy for 6 months remains one of the standards of care in advanced HER2-negative gastroesophageal junction and gastric adenocarcinomas, with no additional survival benefit seen with the addition of docetaxel. Genomic profiling of patients revealed a higher than previously known incidence of somatic BRCA alterations, which requires further evaluation.CTRI (Clinical Trial Registry of India: CTRI/2020/03/023944).

Ten new ergone derivatives (1-10) and five known analogues (11-15) were isolated from the deep-sea-derived fungus Aspergillus terreus YPGA10. The structures including the absolute configurations were established by detailed analysis of the NMR spectroscopic data, HRESIMS, ECD calculation, and coupling constant calculation. All the structures are characterized by a highly conjugated 25-hydroxyergosta-4,6,8(14),22-tetraen-3-one nucleus. Structurally, compound 2 bearing a 15-carbonyl group and compounds 5-7 possessing a 15β-OH/OCH3 group are rarely encountered in ergone derivatives. Bioassay results showed that compounds 1 and 11 demonstrated cytotoxic effects on human colon cancer SW620 cells with IC50 values of 8.4 and 3.1 μM, respectively. Notably, both compounds exhibited negligible cytotoxicity on the human normal lung epithelial cell BEAS-2B. Compound 11 was selected for preliminary mechanistic study and was found to inhibit cell proliferation and induce apoptosis in human colon cancer SW620 cells. In addition, compound 1 displayed cytotoxic activity against five human leukemia cell lines with IC50 values ranging from 5.7 to 8.9 μM. Our study demonstrated that compound 11 may serve as a potential candidate for the development of anticolorectal cancer agents.

More than 1.9 million new colorectal cancer (CRC) cases and 935000 deaths were estimated to occur worldwide in 2020, representing about one in ten cancer cases and deaths. Overall, colorectal ranks third in incidence, but second in mortality. More than half of the patients are in advanced stages at diagnosis. Treatment options are complex because of the heterogeneity of the patient population, including different molecular subtypes. Treatments have included conventional fluorouracil-based chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, etc. In recent years, with the development of genetic testing technology, more and more targeted drugs have been applied to the treatment of CRC, which has further prolonged the survival of metastatic CRC patients.

The optimal treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after the second line is still controversial. Regorafenib has been the standard of care in this setting as it improved overall survival (OS) compared to placebo. In real-world practice chemotherapy rechallenge is also a preferred option even though supporting evidence is not enough. We aim to compare the efficacy of regorafenib and 5-fluorouracil-based (5-FU) rechallenge treatment in the third line setting of mCRC.

In this retrospective multi-institutional trial, mCRC patients from 21 oncology centers who progressed after 2 lines of chemotherapy were analyzed. Patients who were treated with regorafenib or rechallenge therapy in the third-line setting were eligible. Rechallenge chemotherapy was identified as the re-use of the 5-FU based regimen which was administered in one of the previous treatment lines. OS, disease control rate (DCR), progression free survival (PFS) and toxicity were analyzed.

Three hundred ninety-four mCRC patients were included in the study. 128 (32.5%) were in the rechallenge, and 266 (67.5%) were in the regorafenib group. Median PFS was 5.82 months in rechallenge and 4 months in regorafenib arms (hazard ratio:1.45,95% CI, p = 0.167). DCR was higher in the rechallenge group than regorafenib (77% vs 49.5%, respectively, p =  < 0.001). Median OS after the third-line treatment was 11.99 (95% CI, 9.49-14.49) and 8.08 months (95% CI, 6.88-9.29) for rechallenge and regorafenib groups, respectively (hazard ratio:1.51, 95% CI, p < 0.001). More adverse effects and discontinuation were seen with regorafenib treatment.

Our study revealed that higher disease control and OS rates were achieved with rechallenge treatment compared to regorafenib, especially in patients who achieved disease control in one of the first two lines of therapy.

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology, to patients seen in their own clinical practice.Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States with more than half of the patients diagnosed being older than 65 years, and an expected further increase in older adults (OA) diagnosed with this cancer in the coming years as the population ages. Prospective data guiding the management of older patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) have been limited and treatment decisions for these patients are often guided by chronologic age, crude evaluation of performance status, and extrapolation from trials conducted in younger individuals. Recent evidence from randomized clinical trials specifically designed for OA supports treatment deintensification and dose modification to increase tolerability without compromising efficacy in older, frailer patients with mCRC. Additional studies support the incorporation of geriatric assessment (GA)-driven care to further improve the outcomes of OA with mCRC. Although the use of GA has not been validated in guiding specific treatment selection or modification for OA with mCRC, it provides a comprehensive and objective evaluation of a patient's functional status, comorbidities, risk of potential toxicities, effect on the quality of life, goals of care, and assists with personalizing therapy. With the increase in the number of OA we care for in our practices, it is time to stop extrapolating and define an evidence-based approach for this population that is based on data from prospective elderly specific clinical trials.

The journey of metastatic colorectal cancer patients is complex and challenging, requiring coordination and collaboration between multiple healthcare providers. Understanding patients' needs, fears, feelings, concerns, and behaviors is essential for providing individualized patient-centered care. In recent years, mCRC patients have experienced improvements in clinical outcomes, from 16 months of overall survival to 32 months, thanks to research. However, there is still room for improvement, and integrating clinical and translational research into routine practice can help patients benefit from treatments and techniques that would not be an option. In the Journey of mCRC patients, living well with cancer and quality of life becomes a priority given the outcomes of the disease. Patient reported outcomes (PRO) and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are becoming therefore new estimands in Oncology. Patient advocates represent important figures in this process by prioritizing issues and research questions; evaluating research designs and the performance of the research; the analysis and interpretation of data; and how results are disseminated. Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards and shared decision-making is essential for designing treatment strategies for individual patients. Quality of Life is often prioritized only when it comes to refractory advanced disease and end-of-life care, but it has to be integrated from the beginning, as the emotional impact of diagnosis leads to a vulnerable situation where patients' needs and preferences can be easily overseen. First-line treatment will be chosen among more treatment options than subsequent lines, with longer progression-free survival and a bigger impact on the outcomes. Practicing patient-centered care and optimizing first-line treatment for colorectal cancer patients requires a comprehensive understanding of patient experience and treatment outcomes, which can guide clinical practice and inform regulatory decisions for the benefit of patients.

For patients with advanced gastric cancer after chemotherapy, the optimal mode of maintenance therapy is not yet clear. This research aimed to compare the efficacy and adverse effects of S-1 maintenance therapy and follow-up observation in patients with advanced gastric cancer without disease progression after first-line combined chemotherapy. This study retrospectively analyzed 106 patients from January 2018 to December 2021. The primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival, the secondary endpoint was chemotherapy-related toxicity, and the curative effects and baseline characteristics of the patients were analyzed. Longer progression-free survival and overall survival were observed in the S-1 maintenance treatment group than in the follow-up observation group (p < 0.001). No obvious differences existed in the subgroup results regarding progression-free survival or overall survival (p > 0.05). In the maintenance treatment group, the occurrence of thrombocytopenia and hand-foot syndrome was significantly increased (p < 0.001). No toxicity-related deaths occurred. The included patients without disease progression after first-line combined chemotherapy can achieve significant survival benefits by receiving S-1 maintenance therapy. The patient's tolerance to S-1 maintenance therapy was good.

Anti-EGFR antibodies plus doublet chemotherapy is the standard of care in RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). No phase-3 level of evidence is available to guide treatment de-escalation after anti-EGFR-based first-line. Several randomised clinical trials investigated de-intensification strategies with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) and/or anti-EGFR.

We performed an individual patient data pooled analysis of Valentino, Panama, MACRO-2, COIN-B trials including RAS wild-type mCRC patients who received first-line therapy with FOLFOX plus panitumumab or cetuximab followed by pre-specified maintenance strategy. Only patients who started maintenance according to the assigned arm were included. Patients were categorised by type of maintenance (i.e. 5-FU/LV, anti-EGFR or 5-FU/LV + anti-EGFR). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the start of maintenance; toxicity was evaluated for the maintenance treatment period.

A total of 518 patients were included in the pooled analysis. Overall, 123, 185 and 210 patients received maintenance with 5-FU/LV, anti-EGFR, 5-FU/LV + anti-EGFR, respectively. Median PFS was 5.6, 6.0 and 9.0 (P = 0.009) and OS was 25.7, 24.0 and 28.0 months (P = 0.134) in 5-FU/LV, anti-EGFR and 5-FU/LV + anti-EGFR arms, respectively. Monotherapy maintenance (either 5-FU/LV or anti-EGFR) was inferior to combination in terms of PFS (hazard ratios [HR] 1.26, P = 0.016) and non-significantly trending also in OS (HR 1.20, P = 0.111). An increase of overall any grade and grade ≥ 3 AEs and selected AEs was reported in combination compared to either 5-FU/LV or anti-EGFR arms.

This pooled analysis including four randomised phase II supports the use of 5-FU/LV plus anti-EGFR as the preferred maintenance regimen. Data provide rational for a more individualised maintenance treatment approach based on tumour and patients features.

Oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is a standard treatment approach for colorectal cancer (CRC). However, oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (OIPN) is a severe dose-limiting clinical problem that might lead to treatment interruption. This neuropathy may be reversible after treatment discontinuation. Its complicated mechanisms are related to DNA damage, dysfunction of voltage-gated ion channels, neuroinflammation, transporters, oxidative stress, and mitochondrial dysfunction, etc. Several strategies have been proposed to diminish OIPN without compromising the efficacy of adjuvant therapy, namely, combination with chemoprotectants (such as glutathione, Ca/Mg, ibudilast, duloxetine, etc.), chronomodulated infusion, dose reduction, reintroduction of oxaliplatin and topical administration [hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC), and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC)]. This article provides recent updates related to the potential mechanisms, therapeutic strategies in treatment of OIPN, and pharmacokinetics of several methods of oxaliplatin administration in clinical trials.

Clinical trials in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are usually conducted irrespective of sex. Sex-associated differences relating to safety and efficacy in the treatment of mCRC, however, are gaining interest.

PanaMa investigated the efficacy of panitumumab (Pmab) plus fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) versus FU/FA alone after induction therapy with six cycles of FU/FA and oxaliplatin plus Pmab in patients with RAS wild-type mCRC. In this post hoc analysis, the study population was stratified for sex. Evaluated efficacy endpoints during maintenance treatment were progression-free survival (PFS, primary endpoint of the trial), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate during maintenance therapy. Safety endpoints were rates of any grade and grade 3/4 adverse events during maintenance therapy.

In total, 165 male and 83 female patients were randomized and treated. Male and female patients showed numerically better objective response rates with Pmab, without reaching statistical significance. Male patients derived a significant benefit from the addition of Pmab to maintenance treatment with regard to PFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.88; P = 0.006] that was not observed in female patients (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.53-1.35; P = 0.491). The better PFS for male patients treated with Pmab did not translate into improved OS (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.55-1.30; P = 0.452). Female patients showed numerically improved OS when treated with Pmab. There was no difference in the total of grade ≥3 adverse events during maintenance regarding sex (P = 0.791). Female patients, however, had a higher rate of any grade nausea, diarrhea and stomatitis.

In the PanaMa trial, the addition of Pmab to maintenance treatment of RAS wild-type mCRC with FU/FA improved the outcome in terms of the primary endpoint (PFS) particularly in male patients. Female patients did not show the same benefit while experiencing higher rates of adverse events. Our results support the development of sex-specific protocols.

The PanaMa trial demonstrated significant benefit in progression-free survival with the addition of panitumumab (Pmab) to fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) as maintenance therapy following first-line induction therapy with FOLFOX/Pmab in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Here, we report health-related quality of life (HRQOL) analyses from the PanaMa trial.

HRQOL outcomes were evaluated using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) at every cycle of therapy until disease progression/death. HRQOL outcomes were mean and individual changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 from baselines (before induction therapy and before maintenance therapy) to each cycle of treatment. Comparative analyses were performed by randomisation status and treatment arm for induction- and maintenance-therapy, respectively. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01991873).

At least one HRQOL questionnaire was completed by a total of 349/377 (93%) patients who received induction therapy, and by 237/248 (96%) patients who were randomised and received maintenance therapy. During induction therapy, most HRQOL dimensions remained stable or showed improvement, while appetite loss and diarrhoea significantly deteriorated. During maintenance therapy, HRQOL dimensions remained stable, while those that deteriorated during induction therapy showed significant improvement, without significant differences between the treatment arms.

Maintenance therapy improves HRQOL dimensions that initially deteriorated during induction therapy while stabilising HRQOL in other dimensions. The addition of Pmab to FU/FA as maintenance therapy in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer prolongs progression-free survival without negative impact on HRQOL.

The optimal treatment strategy after first-line induction therapy in advanced HER2-positive oeso-gastric adenocarcinoma (OGA) remains challenging.

Patients treated with trastuzumab (T) plus platinum salts and fluoropyrimidine (F) as first-line chemotherapy between 2010 and 2020 for HER2-positive advanced OGA at 17 academic care centers in France, Italy, and Austria were included. The primary objective was the comparison of F + T vs T alone as maintenance regimen in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after a platinum-based chemotherapy induction + T. As secondary objective, PFS and OS between patients treated with reintroduction of initial chemotherapy or standard second-line chemotherapy at progression were assessed.

Among the 157 patients included, 86 (55%) received F + T and 71 (45%) T alone as a maintenance regimen after a median of 4 months of induction chemotherapy. Median PFS from start of maintenance therapy was 5.1 months in both groups (95% CI 4.2-7.7 for F + T and 95% CI 3.7-7.5 for T alone; p = 0.60) and median OS was 15.2 (95% CI 10.9-19.1) and 17.0 months (95% CI 15.5-21.6) for F + T and T alone, respectively (p = 0.40). Of 112/157 patients (71%) receiving systemic therapy after progression under maintenance, 26/112 (23%) were treated with a reintroduction of initial chemotherapy + T and 86/112 (77%) with a standard second-line regimen. Here, median OS was significantly longer with the reintroduction (13.8 (95% CI 12.1-19.9) vs 9.0 months (95% CI 7.1-11.9); p = 0.007) as confirmed by multivariate analysis (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.28-0.85; p = 0.01).

No additional benefit of adding F to T monotherapy as a maintenance treatment could be observed. Reintroduction of initial therapy at first progression may be a feasible approach to preserve later treatment lines.

Consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) were evaluated as prognostic and predictive biomarkers of patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) with or without panitumumab (Pmab) after Pmab + mFOLFOX6 induction within the randomized phase II PanaMa trial.

CMSs were determined in the safety set (ie, patients that received induction) and full analysis set (FAS; ie, randomly assigned patients who received maintenance) and correlated with median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) since the start of induction or maintenance treatment and objective response rates (ORRs). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CI were calculated by univariate/multivariate Cox regression analyses.

Of 377 patients of the safety set, 296 (78.5%) had available CMS data: CMS1/2/3/4: 29 (9.8%)/122 (41.2%)/33 (11.2%)/112 (37.8%) and unclassifiable: 17 (5.7%). The CMSs were prognostic biomarkers in terms of PFS (P < .0001), OS (P < .0001), and ORR (P = .02) since the start of induction treatment. In FAS patients (n = 196), with CMS2/4 tumors, the addition of Pmab to FU/FA maintenance therapy was associated with longer PFS (CMS2: HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.95], P = .03; CMS4: HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.38 to 1.03], P = .07) and OS (CMS2: HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.52 to 1.52], P = .66; CMS4: HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.30 to 0.96], P = .04). The CMS interacted significantly with treatment in terms of PFS (CMS2 v CMS1/3: P = .02; CMS4 v CMS1/3: P = .03) and OS (CMS2 v CMS1/3: P = .03; CMS4 v CMS1/3: P < .001).

The CMS had a prognostic impact on PFS, OS, and ORR in RAS wild-type mCRC. In PanaMa, Pmab + FU/FA maintenance was associated with beneficial outcomes in CMS2/4, whereas no benefit was observed in CMS1/3 tumors.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Clinical research results have provided more treatment opportunities for CRC patients, showing that an optimal combination of existing drugs and new drugs is needed to mitigate the burden of this disease. In this review, we have summarized recent advances in drug clinical research for CRC in 2022, including chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy, to find opportunities for substantial improvements in drug discovery and clinical development methods.

Temporary drug treatment cessation might alleviate toxicity without substantially compromising efficacy in patients with cancer. We aimed to determine if a tyrosine kinase inhibitor drug-free interval strategy was non-inferior to a conventional continuation strategy for first-line treatment of advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

This open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial was done at 60 hospital sites in the UK. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had histologically confirmed clear cell renal cell carcinoma, inoperable loco-regional or metastatic disease, no previous systemic therapy for advanced disease, uni-dimensionally assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours-defined measurable disease, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) at baseline to a conventional continuation strategy or drug-free interval strategy using a central computer-generated minimisation programme incorporating a random element. Stratification factors were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic group risk factor, sex, trial site, age, disease status, tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and previous nephrectomy. All patients received standard dosing schedules of oral sunitinib (50 mg per day) or oral pazopanib (800 mg per day) for 24 weeks before moving into their randomly allocated group. Patients allocated to the drug-free interval strategy group then had a treatment break until disease progression, when treatment was re-instated. Patients in the conventional continuation strategy group continued treatment. Patients, treating clinicians, and the study team were aware of treatment allocation. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the overall survival hazard ratio (HR) was 0·812 or higher and if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the marginal difference in mean QALYs was -0·156 or higher. The co-primary endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, which included all randomly assigned patients, and the per-protocol population, which excluded patients in the ITT population with major protocol violations and who did not begin their randomisation allocation as per the protocol. Non-inferiority was to be concluded if it was met for both endpoints in both analysis populations. Safety was assessed in all participants who received a tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The trial was registered with ISRCTN, 06473203, and EudraCT, 2011-001098-16.

Between Jan 13, 2012, and Sept 12, 2017, 2197 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 920 were randomly assigned to the conventional continuation strategy (n=461) or the drug-free interval strategy (n=459; 668 [73%] male and 251 [27%] female; 885 [96%] White and 23 [3%] non-White). The median follow-up time was 58 months (IQR 46-73 months) in the ITT population and 58 months (46-72) in the per-protocol population. 488 patients continued on the trial after week 24. For overall survival, non-inferiority was demonstrated in the ITT population only (adjusted HR 0·97 [95% CI 0·83 to 1·12] in the ITT population; 0·94 [0·80 to 1·09] in the per-protocol population). Non-inferiority was demonstrated for QALYs in the ITT population (n=919) and per-protocol (n=871) population (marginal effect difference 0·06 [95% CI -0·11 to 0·23] for the ITT population; 0·04 [-0·14 to 0·21] for the per-protocol population). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (124 [26%] of 485 patients in the conventional continuation strategy group vs 127 [29%] of 431 patients in the drug-free interval strategy group); hepatotoxicity (55 [11%] vs 48 [11%]); and fatigue (39 [8%] vs 63 [15%]). 192 (21%) of 920 participants had a serious adverse reaction. 12 treatment-related deaths were reported (three patients in the conventional continuation strategy group; nine patients in the drug-free interval strategy group) due to vascular (n=3), cardiac (n=3), hepatobiliary (n=3), gastrointestinal (n=1), or nervous system (n=1) disorders, and from infections and infestations (n=1).

Overall, non-inferiority between groups could not be concluded. However, there seemed to be no clinically meaningful reduction in life expectancy between the drug-free interval strategy and conventional continuation strategy groups and treatment breaks might be a feasible and cost-effective option with lifestyle benefits for patients during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma.

UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.