Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Immune-inflammatory biomarkers (IIBs) showed a prognostic relevance in patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC). We aimed at evaluating the prognostic power of a new comprehensive biomarker, the Pan-Immune-Inflammation Value (PIV), in patients with mCRC receiving first-line therapy. Methods In the present pooled-analysis, we included patients enrolled in the Valentino and TRIBE trials. PIV was calculated as: (neutrophil count × platelet count × monocyte count)/lymphocyte count. A cut-off was determined using the maximally selected rank statistics method. Generalised boosted regression (GBR), the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox hazards regression models were used for survival analyses. Results A total of 438 patients were included. Overall, 208 patients (47%) had a low-baseline PIV and 230 (53%) had a high-baseline PIV. Patients with high PIV experienced a worse PFS (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.36–2.03, P  < 0.001) and worse OS (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.57–2.57; P  < 0.001) compared to patients with low PIV. PIV outperformed the other IIBs in the GBR model and in the multivariable models. Conclusion PIV is a strong predictor of survival outcomes with better performance than other well-known IIBs in patients with mCRC treated with first-line therapy. PIV should be prospectively validated to better stratify mCRC patients undergoing first-line therapy.

In patients with metastatic colon cancer, fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan plus bevacizumab, as compared with fluorouracil and irinotecan plus bevacizumab, improved progression-free and overall survival, with an increase in some side effects.

In a previous phase 3 trial, treatment with trifluridine-tipiracil (FTD-TPI) prolonged overall survival among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Preliminary data from single-group and randomized phase 2 trials suggest that treatment with FTD-TPI in addition to bevacizumab has the potential to extend survival. We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, adult patients who had received no more than two previous chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer to receive FTD-TPI plus bevacizumab (combination group) or FTD-TPI alone (FTD-TPI group). The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points were progression-free survival and safety, including the time to worsening of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance-status score from 0 or 1 to 2 or more (on a scale from 0 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater disability). A total of 246 patients were assigned to each group. The median overall survival was 10.8 months in the combination group and 7.5 months in the FTD-TPI group (hazard ratio for death, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 0.77; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the combination group and 2.4 months in the FTD-TPI group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.54; P<0.001). The most common adverse events in both groups were neutropenia, nausea, and anemia. No treatment-related deaths were reported. The median time to worsening of the ECOG performance-status score from 0 or 1 to 2 or more was 9.3 months in the combination group and 6.3 months in the FTD-TPI group (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.67). Among patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, treatment with FTD-TPI plus bevacizumab resulted in longer overall survival than FTD-TPI alone. (Funded by Servier and Taiho Oncology; SUNLIGHT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04737187; EudraCT number, 2020-001976-14.).

In the TRIBE study, FOLFOXIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab significantly improved progression-free survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer compared with FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab. In this updated analysis, we aimed to provide mature results for overall survival—a secondary endpoint—and report treatment efficacy in RAS and BRAF molecular subgroups. TRIBE was an open-label, multicentre, phase 3 randomised study of patients (aged 18–70 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status of 2 or less and aged 71–75 years with an ECOG performance status of 0) with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer who were recruited from 34 Italian oncology units. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a web-based procedure to receive FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab or FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab. Bevacizumab was given as a 5 mg/kg intravenous dose. FOLFIRI consisted of a 180 mg/m2 intravenous infusion of irinotecan for 60 min followed by a 200 mg/m2 intravenous infusion of leucovorin for 120 min, a 400 mg/m2 intravenous bolus of fluorouracil, and a 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 46 h. FOLFOXIRI consisted of a 165 mg/m2 intravenous infusion of irinotecan for 60 min, followed by an 85 mg/m2 intravenous infusion of oxaliplatin given concurrently with 200 mg/m2 leucovorin for 120 min, followed by a 3200 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h. Tissue samples for RAS and BRAF mutational status analyses were centrally collected. In this updated analysis, we assessed the secondary endpoint of overall survival in the main cohort and treatment efficacy in RAS and BRAF molecular subgroups. All analyses were by intention to treat. TRIBE was concluded on Nov 30, 2014. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00719797. Between July 17, 2008, and May 31, 2011, 508 patients were randomly assigned. At a median follow-up of 48·1 months (IQR 41·7–55·6), median overall survival was 29·8 months (95% CI 26·0–34·3) in the FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab group compared with 25·8 months (22·5–29·1) in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·65–0·98; p=0·03). Median overall survival was 37·1 months (95% CI 29·7–42·7) in the RAS and BRAF wild-type subgroup compared with 25·6 months (22·4–28·6) in the RAS-mutation-positive subgroup (HR 1·49, 95% CI 1·11–1·99) and 13·4 months (8·2–24·1) in the BRAF-mutation-positive subgroup (HR 2·79, 95% CI 1·75–4·46; likelihood-ratio test p<0·0001). Treatment effect was not significantly different across molecular subgroups (pinteraction=0·52). FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab is a feasible treatment option for those patients who meet the inclusion criteria of the present study, irrespective of baseline clinical characteristics and RAS or BRAF mutational status. GONO (Gruppo Oncologico del Nord Ovest) Cooperative Group and ARCO Foundation.

By monitoring ctDNA, the authors reveal the dynamic adaption of clonal populations in colorectal cancer patients treated with anti-EGFR therapy, suggesting that therapeutic re-challenge may have some benefit. Colorectal cancers (CRCs) evolve by a reiterative process of genetic diversification and clonal evolution. The molecular profile of CRC is routinely assessed in surgical or bioptic samples 1 . Genotyping of CRC tissue has inherent limitations; a tissue sample represents a single snapshot in time, and it is subjected to spatial selection bias owing to tumor heterogeneity. Repeated tissue samples are difficult to obtain and cannot be used for dynamic monitoring of disease progression and response to therapy. We exploited circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to genotype colorectal tumors and track clonal evolution during treatment with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-specific antibodies cetuximab or panitumumab. We identified alterations in ctDNA of patients with primary or acquired resistance to EGFR blockade in the following genes: KRAS , NRAS , MET , ERBB2 , FLT3 , EGFR and MAP2K1. Mutated KRAS clones, which emerge in blood during EGFR blockade, decline upon withdrawal of EGFR-specific antibodies, indicating that clonal evolution continues beyond clinical progression. Pharmacogenomic analysis of CRC cells that had acquired resistance to cetuximab reveals that upon antibody withdrawal KRAS clones decay, whereas the population regains drug sensitivity. ctDNA profiles of individuals who benefit from multiple challenges with anti-EGFR antibodies exhibit pulsatile levels of mutant KRAS . These results indicate that the CRC genome adapts dynamically to intermittent drug schedules and provide a molecular explanation for the efficacy of rechallenge therapies based on EGFR blockade.

Response to first-line therapy is a primary determinant of outcome in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In the past decade, the development of antiangiogenic and anti-EGFR biologic agents, doublet and triplet chemotherapy regimens, and combinations of these treatment modalities has created not only new first-line treatment options, but also new challenges for the management of this disease. In this Perspectives, these advances and the confusion surrounding their implications are discussed. The authors attempt to address some of the challenges in clinical decision-making and propose an algorithm for personalized allocation of first-line treatments in patients with mCRC. The response to first-line therapy is a primary determinant of outcome in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), for three main reasons: effective upfront therapy provides a unique opportunity to cure some patients; can be crucial in delaying disease progression and achieving symptom relief; and can improve patient eligibility for, and the effectiveness of, further treatments. In the past decade, decision-making regarding the choice of first-line therapy for mCRC has been complicated by the availability of many different options without a definitive consensus on a specific standard of care (despite major advances in categorizing predictive molecular disease subtypes). Most of the efforts of the scientific community have been directed at establishing the best biologic agent to be combined with a chemotherapy doublet, although a different branch of research has produced new data that underscore the importance of defining the optimal chemotherapy backbone. Herein, we review the key clinical trials completed in the past 10 years that have investigated and compared the use of chemotherapy doublets, triplets, and monotherapies, with or without molecularly targeted biologic agents, in the first-line treatment of patients with mCRC. Our examination of the literature led us to propose a new patient-oriented algorithm to guide clinicians' decisions on the best choice of upfront therapy for mCRC.

Anti-BRAF/EGFR therapy was recently approved for the treatment of metastatic BRAF V600E colorectal cancer (mCRC BRAF-V600E ). However, a large fraction of patients do not respond, underscoring the need to identify molecular determinants of treatment response. Using whole-exome sequencing in a discovery cohort of patients with mCRC BRAF-V600E treated with anti-BRAF/EGFR therapy, we found that inactivating mutations in RNF43 , a negative regulator of WNT, predict improved response rates and survival outcomes in patients with microsatellite-stable (MSS) tumors. Analysis of an independent validation cohort confirmed the relevance of RNF43 mutations to predicting clinical benefit (72.7% versus 30.8%; P  = 0.03), as well as longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio (HR), 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.12–0.75; P  = 0.01) and overall survival (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.10–0.71; P  = 0.008), in patients with MSS- RNF43 mutated versus MSS- RNF43 wild-type tumors. Microsatellite-instable tumors invariably carried a wild-type-like RNF43 genotype encoding p.G659fs and presented an intermediate response profile. We found no association of RNF43 mutations with patient outcomes in a control cohort of patients with MSS-mCRC BRAF-V600E tumors not exposed to anti-BRAF targeted therapies. Overall, our findings suggest a cross-talk between the MAPK and WNT pathways that may modulate the antitumor activity of anti-BRAF/EGFR therapy and uncover predictive biomarkers to optimize the clinical management of these patients. The presence of inactivating mutations in RNF43 , a negative regulator of WNT, in tumor cells predicts improved response rates and survival outcomes in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E colorectal cancer treated with anti-BRAF/EGFR therapy.

Immune checkpoint receptor signaling pathways constitute a prominent class of “immune synapse,” a cell-to-cell connection that represses T-lymphocyte effector functions. As a possible evolutionary countermeasure against autoimmunity, this strategy is aimed at lowering potential injury to uninfected cells in infected tissues and at minimizing systemic inflammation. Nevertheless, tumors can make use of these strategies to escape immune recognition, and consequently, such mechanisms represent chances for immunotherapy intervention. Recent years have witnessed the advance of pharmaceutical nanotechnology, or nanomedicine, as a possible strategy to ameliorate immunotherapy technical weaknesses thanks to its intrinsic biophysical properties and multifunctional modifying capability. To improve the long-lasting response rate of checkpoint blockade therapy, nanotechnology has been employed at first for the delivery of single checkpoint inhibitors. Further, while therapy via single immune checkpoint blockade determines resistance and a restricted period of response, strong interest has been raised to efficiently deliver immunomodulators targeting different inhibitory pathways or both inhibitory and costimulatory pathways. In this review, the partially explored promise in implementation of nanotechnology to improve the success of immune checkpoint therapy and solve the limitations of single immune checkpoint inhibitors is debated. We first present the fundamental elements of the immune checkpoint pathways and then outline recent promising results of immune checkpoint blockade therapy in combination with nanotechnology delivery systems.

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) reported remarkable achievements in several solid tumours. However, in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) promising results are limited to patients with deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-high) tumours due to their immune-enriched microenvironment. Combining cytotoxic agents and bevacizumab in mCRC with proficient mismatch repair/microsatellite stability (pMMR/MSS) could make ICIs efficacious by increasing the exposure of neoantigens, especially with highly active chemotherapy regimens, inducing immunogenic cell death, increasing the tumoral infiltration of CD8+ T-cells and reducing tumour-associated myeloid-derived suppressor cells. VEGF-blockade also plays an immunomodulatory role by inhibiting the expansion of T regulatory lymphocytes. Consistently with this rationale, a phase Ib study combined the anti-PDL-1 atezolizumab with FOLFOX/bevacizumab as first-line treatment of mCRC, irrespective of microsatellite status, and reported interesting activity and efficacy results, without safety concerns. Phase III trials led to identify FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as an upfront therapeutic option in selected mCRC patients. Drawing from these considerations, the combination of atezolizumab with an intensified upfront treatment (FOLFOXIRI) and bevacizumab could be worthy of investigation. Methods AtezoTRIBE is a prospective, open label, phase II, comparative trial in which initially unresectable and previously untreated mCRC patients, irrespective of microsatellite status, are randomized in a 1:2 ratio to receive up to 8 cycles of FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab alone or in combination with atezolizumab, followed by maintenance with bevacizumab plus 5-fluoruracil/leucovorin with or without atezolizumab according to treatment arm until disease progression. The primary endpoint is PFS. Assuming a median PFS of 12 months for standard arm, 201 patients should be randomized in a 1:2 ratio to detect a hazard ratio of 0.66 in favour of the experimental arm. A safety run-in phase including the first 6 patients enrolled in the FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab/atezolizumab arm was planned, and no unexpected adverse events or severe toxicities were highlighted by the Safety Monitoring Committee. Discussion The AtezoTRIBE study aims at assessing whether the addition of atezolizumab to an intensified chemotherapy plus bevacizumab might be an efficacious upfront strategy for the treatment of mCRC, irrespective of the microsatellite status. Trial registration AtezoTRIBE is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03721653 ), October 26th, 2018 and at EUDRACT (2017–000977-35), Februray 28th, 2017 .

Nat. Med.; doi:10.1038/nm.3870; corrected online 26 June 2015 In the version of this article initially published online, Alberto Bardelli's e-mail address was incorrect. The correct address is alberto.bardelli@unito.it. The error has been corrected in the print, PDF and HTML versions of this article.