scholarly journals Molecular targeted therapy of BRAF-mutant colorectal cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 175883591985649 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michel Ducreux ◽  
Ali Chamseddine ◽  
Pierre Laurent-Puig ◽  
Cristina Smolenschi ◽  
Antoine Hollebecque ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Poor Prognosis ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Braf Inhibitor ◽  
Braf V600e ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Braf Inhibitors ◽  
First Line ◽  
Braf Mutations

Over the past two decades, the molecular characterization of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been revolutionized by the routine implementation of RAS and BRAF tests. As a result, it is now known that patients with mCRC harboring BRAF mutations experience a poor prognosis. Although it accounts for only 10% of mCRC, this group is heterogeneous; only the BRAF-V600E mutation, also observed in melanoma, is associated with a very poor prognosis. In terms of treatment, these patients do not benefit from therapeutics targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). In first-line chemotherapy, there are two main options; the first one is to use a triple chemotherapy combination of 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin, with the addition of bevacizumab, because post hoc analysis of randomized trials have reported interesting results. The other option is to use double chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, since anti-EGFR seems to have modest activity in these patients. Only a small percentage of patients who experience failure of this first-line treatment receive second-line treatment. Monotherapy with BRAF inhibitors has failed in this setting, and different combinations have also been tested. Using the rationale that BRAF inhibitor monotherapy fails due to feedback activation of the EGFR pathway, BRAF inhibitors have been combined with anti-EGFR agents plus or minus MEK inhibitors; however, the results did not live up to the hopes raised by the concept. To date, the best results in second-line treatment have been obtained with a combination of vemurafenib, cetuximab, and irinotecan. Despite these advances, further improvements are needed.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Second-Line Treatment in RAS Wild-Type/Mutated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the Precision Medicine Era

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (14) ◽  
pp. 7717
Author(s):  
Guido Giordano ◽  
Pietro Parcesepe ◽  
Giuseppina Bruno ◽  
Annamaria Piscazzi ◽  
Vincenzo Lizzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Mutational Status ◽  
First Line Treatment

Target-oriented agents improve metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) survival in combination with chemotherapy. However, the majority of patients experience disease progression after first-line treatment and are eligible for second-line approaches. In such a context, antiangiogenic and anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) agents as well as immune checkpoint inhibitors have been approved as second-line options, and RAS and BRAF mutations and microsatellite status represent the molecular drivers that guide therapeutic choices. Patients harboring K- and N-RAS mutations are not eligible for anti-EGFR treatments, and bevacizumab is the only antiangiogenic agent that improves survival in combination with chemotherapy in first-line, regardless of RAS mutational status. Thus, the choice of an appropriate therapy after the progression to a bevacizumab or an EGFR-based first-line treatment should be evaluated according to the patient and disease characteristics and treatment aims. The continuation of bevacizumab beyond progression or its substitution with another anti-angiogenic agents has been shown to increase survival, whereas anti-EGFR monoclonals represent an option in RAS wild-type patients. In addition, specific molecular subgroups, such as BRAF-mutated and Microsatellite Instability-High (MSI-H) mCRCs represent aggressive malignancies that are poorly responsive to standard therapies and deserve targeted approaches. This review provides a critical overview about the state of the art in mCRC second-line treatment and discusses sequential strategies according to key molecular biomarkers.

Efficacy and Toxicity of Addition of Bevacizumab to Chemotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 718-724 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wen-Cong Ruan ◽  
Yue-Ping Che ◽  
Li Ding ◽  
Hai-Feng Li
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Clinical Prognosis ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Pre-treated patients with first-line treatment can be offered a second treatment with the aim of improving their poor clinical prognosis. The therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who did not respond to first-line therapy has limited treatment options. Recently, many studies have paid much attention to the efficacy of bevacizumab as an adjuvant treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy compared with bevacizumab-naive based chemotherapy as second-line treatment in people with metastatic CRC. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for eligible studies updated to March 2018. Randomized-controlled trials comparing addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy without bevacizumab in MCRC patients were included, of which, the main interesting results were the efficacy and safety profiles of the addition of bevacizumab in patients with MCRC as second-line therapy. Result: Five trials were eligible in the meta-analysis. Patients who received the combined bevacizumab and chemotherapy treatment in MCRC as second-line therapy showed a longer overall survival (OS) (OR=0.80,95%CI=0.72-0.89, P<0.0001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (OR=0.69,95%CI=0.61-0.77, P<0.00001). In addition, there was no significant difference in objective response rate (ORR) (RR=1.36,95%CI=0.82-2.24, P=0.23) or severe adverse event (SAE) (RR=1.02,95%CI=0.88-1.19, P=0.78) between bevacizumab-based chemotherapy and bevacizumabnaive based chemotherapy. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the addition of bevacizumab to the chemotherapy therapy could be an efficient and safe treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer as second-line therapy and without increasing the risk of an adverse event.

scholarly journals Patient profiles as an aim to optimize selection in the second line setting: the role of aflibercept

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. González Astorga ◽  
F. Salvà Ballabrera ◽  
E. Aranda Aguilar ◽  
E. Élez Fernández ◽  
P. García-Alfonso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Effective Therapeutic Option ◽  
Line Setting ◽  
First Line Treatment

AbstractColorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. For metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients, it is recommended, as first-line treatment, chemotherapy (CT) based on doublet cytotoxic combinations of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) and fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX). In addition to CT, biological (targeted agents) are indicated in the first-line treatment, unless contraindicated. In this context, most of mCRC patients are likely to progress and to change from first line to second line treatment when they develop resistance to first-line treatment options. It is in this second line setting where Aflibercept offers an alternative and effective therapeutic option, thought its specific mechanism of action for different patient’s profile: RAS mutant, RAS wild-type (wt), BRAF mutant, potentially resectable and elderly patients. In this paper, a panel of experienced oncologists specialized in the management of mCRC experts have reviewed and selected scientific evidence focused on Aflibercept as an alternative treatment.

First-line treatment with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor combined with an aromatase inhibitor for hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative metastatic breast cancer: Population-based outcomes for patients treated in Alberta, Canada.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13020-e13020
Author(s):  
Carla Pires Amaro ◽  
Atul Batra ◽  
Sasha M. Lupichuk
Keyword(s):  
Hormonal Therapy ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Hormone Receptor Positive ◽  
Targeted Agent ◽  
First Line Treatment

e13020 Background: Cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) in combination with an aromatase inhibitor (AI) has emerged as the standard first line treatment in patients with hormone receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER-2) negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). In this analysis, we describe population-based outcomes for first-line treatment with a CDK4/6i combined with an AI. Methods: All patients who were prescribed CDK4/6i + AI from January 2016 through June 2019 in a large Canadian province were included. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient demographics, tumor and treatment characteristics. Survival distributions were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate analysis (MVA) using a Cox proportional hazards model was constructed to examine associations between potentially prognostic clinical variables and progression free survival (PFS). Results: A total of 316 patients were included. Median age was 61 years (interquartile range, 53-70 years), 82% were postmenopausal women, 39% had de novo MBC, and 48% had non-visceral disease. Palbociclib was prescribed in 94% of patients and the remaining patients received ribociclib. The CDK4/6i was dose-reduced upfront or during treatment in 47%. While 70% of the patients discontinued treatment due to progression, 30% stopped due to toxicity/patient preference/physician recommendation. With a median follow-up of 28.1 months, the median PFS was 37.9 months (95% CI, 26.7-NR). In the MVA, PR-negative tumour (HR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.45-3.88; P = 0.001) and dose reduction of the CDK4/6i (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.06-2.16; P = 0.022) predicted worse PFS. Median overall survival (OS) was not reached. The 30-month and 36-month OS rates were 74% and 68%, respectively. Of patients who progressed (n = 131), 89% received second-line treatment (chemotherapy in 46%, single agent hormonal therapy in 35%, hormonal therapy plus a targeted agent in 15%, and other in 4%). Median time to progression on second line chemotherapy was 9.0 (5.8-17.6) months and second line hormonal therapy +/- targeted agent was 4.0 (3.4-8.6) months (P = 0.012). Conclusions: The real-world outcomes of first-line use of CDK4/6i and AI are encouraging. PR negative tumors and dose reduction appear to be negative prognostic markers. CDK4/6i + AI as first-line treatment for HR-positive, HER2-negative MBC in Alberta is justified based on favorable PFS and early OS outcomes.

scholarly journals KRAS and BRAF Mutations as Prognostic and Predictive Biomarkers for Standard Chemotherapy Response in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Single Institutional Study

Cells ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuria Garcia-Carbonero ◽  
Javier Martinez-Useros ◽  
Weiyao Li ◽  
Alberto Orta ◽  
Nuria Perez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Predictive Biomarkers ◽  
Braf V600e ◽  
Chemotherapy Response ◽  
First Line ◽  
Standard Chemotherapy ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Kras Mutations ◽  
Line Standard

KRAS mutation is a confirmed predictive biomarker for anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy response for metastatic colorectal cancer. However, its prognosis impact and the predictive potential for first-line standard chemotherapy remains unclear. On the other hand, V600E mutation is the most frequent and studied mutation in the BRAF gene, and it has been associated with a poor outcome of patients and a low response to anti-EGFR treatment. Thus, the aim of this study is to evaluate the role of KRAS and BRAF mutations as prognosis factors and predictive biomarkers for 1st line standard chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. KRAS mutations and BRAF V600E mutations exhibited a poor outcome (p = 0.021 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Cox multivariate analysis showed that the presence of liver metastasis (HR = 1.595; 95% CI: 1.086–2.343; p = 0.017), KRAS mutation (HR = 1.643; 95% CI: 1.110–2.431; p = 0.013) and BRAF V600E mutation (HR = 5.861; 95% CI: 2.531–13.570; p < 0.0001) were statistically significant co-variables for progression-free survival. Interestingly, patients with KRAS mutations were associated with a poor response to first line standard chemotherapy (p = 0.008). In contrast, the BRAF V600E mutation did not have any impact on the first line standard chemotherapy response (p = 0.540). Therefore, in the present study, we provide new insight on the role of KRAS and BRAF, not only as prognosis biomarkers, but also as first line standard chemotherapy response biomarkers in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Irinotecan in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: Clinical Overview

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 1501-1518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Udo Vanhoefer ◽  
Andreas Harstrick ◽  
Wolf Achterrath ◽  
Shousong Cao ◽  
Siegfried Seeber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Topoisomerase I ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

PURPOSE AND METHODS: For more than three decades, the therapeutic options for patients with advanced colorectal cancer have almost exclusively been based on fluoropyrimidines. With the recognition that topoisomerase-I (TOP-I) is an important therapeutic target in cancer therapy, irinotecan, a semisynthetic TOP-I–interactive camptothecin derivative, has been clinically established in the treatment of colorectal cancer. RESULTS: Irinotecan was investigated as second-line chemotherapy after prior treatment with fluorouracil (FU)-based regimens in two large randomized phase III trials comparing irinotecan with either best supportive care or an infusional FU/leucovorin (LV) regimen. The outcomes of these trials established irinotecan as the standard therapy in the second-line treatment of colorectal cancer. The therapeutic value of irinotecan in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer was investigated in two large randomized phase III trials comparing the combination of irinotecan and FU/LV with FU/LV alone. Both trials demonstrated significant superior efficacy for the combination of irinotecan and FU/LV in terms of response rate, median time to disease progression, and median survival time. Consequently, the combination of irinotecan and FU/LV has been approved as first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and constitutes the reference therapy against which other treatment options must be tested in the future. CONCLUSION: In this review, the clinical rationale and update of the present clinical status of irinotecan in the treatment of colorectal cancer and future prospects of irinotecan-based combinations are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document