scholarly journals Colorectal Cancer Biomarkers in the Era of Personalized Medicine

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jai Patel ◽  
Mei Fong ◽  
Megan Jagosky
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Therapy Response ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Cancer Biomarkers ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Test Results ◽  
First Line ◽  
Genomic Markers ◽  
Generation Sequencing

The 5-year survival probability for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer has not drastically changed over the last several years, nor has the backbone chemotherapy in first-line disease. Nevertheless, newer targeted therapies and immunotherapies have been approved primarily in the refractory setting, which appears to benefit a small proportion of patients. Until recently, rat sarcoma (RAS) mutations remained the only genomic biomarker to assist with therapy selection in metastatic colorectal cancer. Next generation sequencing has unveiled many more potentially powerful predictive genomic markers of therapy response. Importantly, there are also clinical and physiologic predictive or prognostic biomarkers, such as tumor sidedness. Variations in germline pharmacogenomic biomarkers have demonstrated usefulness in determining response or risk of toxicity, which can be critical in defining dose intensity. This review outlines such biomarkers and summarizes their clinical implications on the treatment of colorectal cancer. It is critical that clinicians understand which biomarkers are clinically validated for use in practice and how to act on such test results.

scholarly journals Multicenter phase II clinical study of the efficiency and safety of capecitabine plus intermittent oxaliplatin with bevacizumab as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: the VOICE trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chihiro Kosugi ◽  
Keiji Koda ◽  
Tadamichi Denda ◽  
Keiichiro Ishibashi ◽  
Hideyuki Ishida ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Induction Therapy ◽  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
First Line

Abstract Background: In the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with CAPOX plus bevacizumab, the optimal duration of maintenance treatment without oxaliplatin to avoid discontinuation of therapy due to peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN) remains unknown. The aim of this phase II study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with five-cycle CAPOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) plus bevacizumab, followed by five-cycle maintenance therapy with capecitabine plus bevacizumab and reintroduction of CAPOX plus bevacizumab for five cycles, with a preplanned oxaliplatin intermittent strategy in mCRC.Methods: Patients with untreated mCRC were administered CAPOX [oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 and capecitabine (2000 mg/m2 daily) as intermittent treatment for 14 days, followed by a 7-day treatment-free interval, every 3 weeks] + bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg) every 3 weeks for five cycles, maintenance treatment without oxaliplatin for five cycles, and CAPOX + bevacizumab reintroduction for five cycles or upon tumor progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints were the time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival, response rate (RR), and safety.Results: Forty-seven patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the evaluation of efficacy and safety. The relative dose intensity and the cumulative dose of oxaliplatin during the overall treatment period were 649.1 mg/m2 and 1132.5 mg, respectively. Median PFS was 14.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.6–19.5), and median TTF was 12.3 months (95% CI, 10.3–14.3). The objective RRs were 51.1% (24/47) during induction therapy, 58.3% (21/36) during maintenance therapy, and 63.6% (14/22) during reintroduction therapy. The frequency of patients with neutropenia, diarrhea, PSN, venous thromboembolism, or grade ≥ 3 allergic reactions was 2.1%.Conclusion: CAPOX plus bevacizumab therapy with a preplanned intermittent oxaliplatin strategy consisting of brief five-cycle induction therapy, five-cycle maintenance therapy with capecitabine plus bevacizumab, and five-cycle reintroduction therapy consisting of CAPOX plus bevacizumab is safe and effective for mCRC patients.Trial registration: This trial was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network on 7 June 2011 (UMIN ID: 000005732).

The study of efficacy and safety of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab with oxaliplatin stop-and-go strategy in first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 761-761
Author(s):  
Nao Takano ◽  
Goro Nakayama ◽  
Yasuhiro Kodera
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Sensory Neuropathy ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
First Line ◽  
Peripheral Sensory Neuropathy ◽  
Stop And Go ◽  
Peripheral Sensory

761 Background: In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the benefit of the molecular targeted drugs added to chemotherapy has been reported and a combination therapy of capecitabine (CAP) and oxaliplatin (CapeOX) plus bevacizumab (BEV) is an established first-line therapy for mCRC. However, the management of the cumlateve neurotoxicity of oxaliplatin still remains. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of CapeOX plus BEV with oxaliplatin stop and go strategy. Methods: Two prospective clinical trials of previously untreated unresectable mCRC were analyzed. Fifty four patients were treated with CapeOX plus BEV with oxaliplatin stop and go strategy (CCOG-0902). They were treated 4 cycles of CapeOX plus BV therapy followed by maintenance therapy of 8 cycles of Capecitabine plus BV and oxaliplatin reintroduction was scheduled after maintenance therapy or upon tumor progression. On the other group, forty seven patients were treated with mFOLFOX6 plus BEV (CCOG-0801). Progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), disease control rate (DCR), relative dose intensity (RDI), and frequency of peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN) were evaluated. Results: Patient characteristics were balanced between the two groups. The median RDI of oxaliplatin in CCOG-0902 group was significantly higher, 92% than in CCOG-0801 group, 80%. RR and DCR were 61.5% and 96.3% respectively, in CCOG-0902 group, compared with 61.7% and 89.4% respectively, in CCOG-0801 group. Median PFS was 13.6 and 30.5 months, respectively, compared with 11.7 and 31.6 months, respectively, in CCOG-0801 group (p=not significant). The frequency of peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN) was 19.0% (>Grade3: 1.9%) of patients in CCOG-0902 group compared with 72.3% (>grade 3: 17.0%) in CCOG-0801 group. Conclusions: CapeOX plus BV with oxaliplatin stop and go strategy could have same efficacy as continuing oxaliplatin with avoiding PSN. Clinical trial information: UMIN000006478.

scholarly journals Artificial Intelligence Can Cut Costs While Maintaining Accuracy in Colorectal Cancer Genotyping

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alec J. Kacew ◽  
Garth W. Strohbehn ◽  
Loren Saulsberry ◽  
Neda Laiteerapong ◽  
Nicole A. Cipriani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Next Generation Sequencing ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
High Specificity ◽  
Next Generation ◽  
First Line ◽  
Generation Sequencing

Rising cancer care costs impose financial burdens on health systems. Applying artificial intelligence to diagnostic algorithms may reduce testing costs and avoid wasteful therapy-related expenditures. To evaluate the financial and clinical impact of incorporating artificial intelligence-based determination of mismatch repair/microsatellite instability status into the first-line metastatic colorectal carcinoma setting, we developed a deterministic model to compare eight testing strategies: A) next-generation sequencing alone, B) high-sensitivity polymerase chain reaction or immunohistochemistry panel alone, C) high-specificity panel alone, D) high-specificity artificial intelligence alone, E) high-sensitivity artificial intelligence followed by next generation sequencing, F) high-specificity artificial intelligence followed by next-generation sequencing, G) high-sensitivity artificial intelligence and high-sensitivity panel, and H) high-sensitivity artificial intelligence and high-specificity panel. We used a hypothetical, nationally representative, population-based sample of individuals receiving first-line treatment for de novo metastatic colorectal cancer (N = 32,549) in the United States. Model inputs were derived from secondary research (peer-reviewed literature and Medicare data). We estimated the population-level diagnostic costs and clinical implications for each testing strategy. The testing strategy that resulted in the greatest project cost savings (including testing and first-line drug cost) compared to next-generation sequencing alone in newly-diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer was using high-sensitivity artificial intelligence followed by confirmatory high-specificity polymerase chain reaction or immunohistochemistry panel for patients testing negative by artificial intelligence ($400 million, 12.9%). The high-specificity artificial intelligence-only strategy resulted in the most favorable clinical impact, with 97% diagnostic accuracy in guiding genotype-directed treatment and average time to treatment initiation of less than one day. Artificial intelligence has the potential to reduce both time to treatment initiation and costs in the metastatic colorectal cancer setting without meaningfully sacrificing diagnostic accuracy. We expect the artificial intelligence value proposition to improve in coming years, with increasing diagnostic accuracy and decreasing costs of processing power. To extract maximal value from the technology, health systems should evaluate integrating diagnostic histopathologic artificial intelligence into institutional protocols, perhaps in place of other genotyping methodologies.

scholarly journals Intensive first-line FIr-C/FOx-C association of triplet chemotherapy plus cetuximab in RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients: preliminary phase II data and prediction of individual limiting toxicity syndromes by pharmacogenomic biomarkers

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 175883591984642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gemma Bruera ◽  
Silvia Massacese ◽  
Francesco Pepe ◽  
Umberto Malapelle ◽  
Antonella Dal Mas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Nucleotide Polymorphisms ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Triplet Chemotherapy

Background: Intensive triplet chemotherapy/bevacizumab significantly increased metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) outcome. This phase II study investigated the safety/activity of FIr-C/FOx-C triplet/cetuximab (CET) in first-line RAS wild-type and the prediction of individual limiting toxicity syndromes (LTS) by pharmacogenomic biomarkers. Methods: A Simon two-step design was used: p0 70%, p1 85%, power 80%, α5%, β20%; projected objective response rate (ORR) I step 14/19. FIr-C/FOx-C: 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 12h-timed flat infusion 900 mg/m2 d1–2, 8–9, 15–16, 22–23; irinotecan (CPT-11) 160 mg/m2 d1 and 15, oxaliplatin 80 mg/m2 d8 and 22; CET 400mg/m2 then 250 mg/m2 d1, 8, 15, 22; every 28 days. Toxicity, and individual LTS were evaluated, compared by a Chi-square test; and activity/efficacy by log-rank. 5-FU/CPT-11 pharmacogenomic biomarkers, 5-FU degradation rate (5-FUDR), single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) ABCB1, CYP3A4, DYPD, UGT1A1 were evaluated in patients with LTS and at a recommended dose. Results: A total of 29 patients <75 years, with a primary/intermediate Cumulative Index Rating Scale were enrolled; the median age was 59 years; there were 7 young-elderly (yE; 24%). Recommended CPT-11/5-FU doses were 120/750 mg/m2. In the intent-to-treat analysis, the ORR was 58.6%. The primary endpoint was met in patients who received the planned three treatment cycles: the objective response (OR) was 14/18 (78%). At a median follow up of 18 months, progression-free survival (PFS) was 12, and overall survival (OS) was 23 months. At the recommended doses (received dose intensity >80%), grade 3–4 toxicities were: diarrhea 23%, asthenia 15%, vomiting 8%, hypertransaminasemy 8%; LTS 19 (65.5%), with 83% in yE patients. LTS prevalently multiple (ms) versus single site were 59% versus 7% ( p = 0.006). The prevalence of reduced FUDR was 56%, SNPs CYP3A4 22%, UGT1A1 71%, and of >2 positive pharmacogenomics biomarkers was 78%, prevalently reported in patients who developed gastrointestinal LTS. Conclusions: FIr-C/FOx-C is highly active and tolerable at recommended doses in non-elderly RAS wild-type MCRC patients. LTS provided an evaluation of the toxicity burden in individual patients. Reduced FUDR, CYP3A4, and UGT1A1 SNPs may predict individual LTS-ms in patients at risk of limiting gastrointestinal toxicity. Trial registration: The trial was registered at Osservatorio Nazionale sulla Sperimentazione Clinica dei Medicinali (OsSC) Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) Numero EudraCT 2009-016793-32.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document