Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patients with microsatellite-instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch-repair-deficient (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer have poor outcomes with standard chemotherapy with or without targeted therapies. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab has shown clinical benefit in nonrandomized studies of MSI-H or dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer. In this phase 3 open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer and MSI-H or dMMR status according to local testing to receive, in a 2:2:1 ratio, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab alone, or chemotherapy with or without targeted therapies. The dual primary end points, assessed in patients with centrally confirmed MSI-H or dMMR status, were progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with chemotherapy as first-line therapy and progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with nivolumab alone in patients regardless of previous systemic treatment for metastatic disease. At this prespecified interim analysis, the first primary end point (involving nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy) was assessed. A total of 303 patients who had not previously received systemic treatment for metastatic disease were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab or chemotherapy; 255 patients had centrally confirmed MSI-H or dMMR tumors. At a median follow-up of 31.5 months (range, 6.1 to 48.4), progression-free survival outcomes (the primary analysis) were significantly better with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy (P<0.001 for the between-group difference in progression-free survival, calculated with the use of a two-sided stratified log-rank test); 24-month progression-free survival was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64 to 79) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with 14% (95% CI, 6 to 25) with chemotherapy. At 24 months, the restricted mean survival time was 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.4 to 12.9) longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy, a finding consistent with the primary analysis of progression-free survival. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 23% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in 48% of the patients in the chemotherapy group. Progression-free survival was longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy among patients who had not previously received systemic treatment for MSI-H or dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 8HW ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04008030.).

CheckMate 8HW prespecified dual primary endpoints, assessed in patients with centrally confirmed microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient status: progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with chemotherapy as first-line therapy and progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab compared with nivolumab alone, regardless of previous systemic treatment for metastatic disease. In our previous report, nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in first-line microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer in the CheckMate 8HW trial. Here, we report results from the prespecified interim analysis for the other primary endpoint of progression-free survival for nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab across all treatment lines. CheckMate 8HW is a randomised, open-label, international, phase 3 trial at 128 hospitals and cancer centres across 23 countries. Immunotherapy-naive adults with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer across different lines of therapy and microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient status per local testing were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (nivolumab 240 mg, ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, every 3 weeks for four doses; then nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks; all intravenously), nivolumab (240 mg every 2 weeks for six doses, then 480 mg every 4 weeks; all intravenously), or chemotherapy with or without targeted therapies. The dual independent primary endpoints were progression-free survival by blinded independent central review with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy (first line) and progression-free survival by blinded independent central review with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus nivolumab (all lines) in patients with centrally confirmed microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04008030). Between Aug 16, 2019, and April 10, 2023, 707 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=354) or nivolumab alone (n=353). 296 (84%) of 354 patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and 286 (81%) of 353 patients in the nivolumab group were centrally confirmed to have microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient status. At the data cutoff on Aug 28, 2024, median follow-up (from randomisation to data cutoff) was 47·0 months (IQR 38·4 to 53·2). Nivolumab plus ipilimumab treatment showed significant and clinically meaningful improvement in progression-free survival versus nivolumab (hazard ratio 0·62, 95% CI 0·48–0·81; p=0·0003). Median progression-free survival was not reached with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (95% CI 53·8 to not estimable) and was 39·3 months with nivolumab (22·1 to not estimable). Treatment-related adverse events of any grade occurred in 285 (81%) of 352 patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab and in 249 (71%) of 351 patients receiving nivolumab; grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 78 (22%) and 50 (14%) patients, respectively. There were three treatment-related deaths: one event of myocarditis and pneumonitis each in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group and one pneumonitis event in the nivolumab group. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed superior progression-free survival versus nivolumab across all treatment lines, with a manageable safety profile, in patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. These results, together with the first-line results of superior progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus chemotherapy, suggest nivolumab plus ipilimumab as a potential new standard of care for patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide and has a high mortality rate. We tested the hypothesis that only one flexible sigmoidoscopy screening between 55 and 64 years of age can substantially reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. This randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 14 UK centres. 170 432 eligible men and women, who had indicated on a previous questionnaire that they would accept an invitation for screening, were randomly allocated to the intervention group (offered flexible sigmoidoscopy screening) or the control group (not contacted). Randomisation by sequential number generation was done centrally in blocks of 12, with stratification by trial centre, general practice, and household type. The primary outcomes were the incidence of colorectal cancer, including prevalent cases detected at screening, and mortality from colorectal cancer. Analyses were intention to treat and per protocol. The trial is registered, number ISRCTN28352761. 113 195 people were assigned to the control group and 57 237 to the intervention group, of whom 112 939 and 57 099, respectively, were included in the final analyses. 40 674 (71%) people underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy. During screening and median follow-up of 11·2 years (IQR 10·7–11·9), 2524 participants were diagnosed with colorectal cancer (1818 in control group vs 706 in intervention group) and 20 543 died (13 768 vs 6775; 727 certified from colorectal cancer [538 vs 189]). In intention-to-treat analyses, colorectal cancer incidence in the intervention group was reduced by 23% (hazard ratio 0·77, 95% CI 0·70–0·84) and mortality by 31% (0·69, 0·59–0·82). In per-protocol analyses, adjusting for self-selection bias in the intervention group, incidence of colorectal cancer in people attending screening was reduced by 33% (0·67, 0·60–0·76) and mortality by 43% (0·57, 0·45–0·72). Incidence of distal colorectal cancer (rectum and sigmoid colon) was reduced by 50% (0·50, 0·42–0·59; secondary outcome). The numbers needed to be screened to prevent one colorectal cancer diagnosis or death, by the end of the study period, were 191 (95% CI 145–277) and 489 (343–852), respectively. Flexible sigmoidoscopy is a safe and practical test and, when offered only once between ages 55 and 64 years, confers a substantial and longlasting benefit. Medical Research Council, National Health Service R&D, Cancer Research UK, KeyMed.

Therapeutic antibodies targeting EGFR have activity in advanced colorectal cancer, but results from clinical trials are inconsistent and the population in which most benefit is derived is uncertain. Our aim was to assess the addition of panitumumab to irinotecan in pretreated advanced colorectal cancer. In this open-label, randomised trial, we enrolled patients who had advanced colorectal cancer progressing after fluoropyrimidine treatment with or without oxaliplatin from 60 centres in the UK. From December, 2006 until June, 2008, molecularly unselected patients were recruited to a three-arm design including irinotecan (control), irinotecan plus ciclosporin, and irinotecan plus panitumumab (IrPan) groups. From June 10, 2008, in response to new data, the trial was amended to a prospectively stratified design, restricting panitumumab randomisation to patients with KRAS wild-type tumours; the results of the comparison between the irinotcan and IrPan groups are reported here. We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence (stratified by previous EGFR targeted therapy and then minimised by centre, WHO performance status, previous oxaliplatin, previous bevacizumab, previous dose modifications, and best previous response) to randomly allocate patients to either irinotecan or IrPan. Patients in both groups received 350 mg/m2 intravenous irinotecan every 3 weeks (300 mg/m2 if aged ≥70 years or a performance status of 2); patients in the IrPan group also received intravenous panitumumab 9 mg/kg every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival in KRAS wild-type patients who had not received previous EGFR targeted therapy, analysed by intention to treat. Tumour DNA was pyrosequenced for KRASc.146, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations, and predefined molecular subgroups were analysed for interaction with the effect of panitumumab. This study is registered, number ISRCTN93248876. Between Dec 4, 2006, and Aug 31, 2010, 1198 patients were enrolled, of whom 460 were included in the primary population of patients with KRASc.12–13,61 wild-type tumours and no previous EGFR targeted therapy. 230 patients were randomly allocated to irinotecan and 230 to IrPan. There was no difference in overall survival between groups (HR 1·01, 95% CI 0·83–1·23; p=0·91), but individuals in the IrPan group had longer progression-free survival (0·78, 0·64–0·95; p=0·015) and a greater number of responses (79 [34%] patients vs 27 [12%]; p<0·0001) than did individuals in the irinotecan group. Grade 3 or worse diarrhoea (64 [29%] of 219 patients vs 39 [18%] of 218 patients), skin toxicity (41 [19%] vs none), lethargy (45 [21]% vs 24 [11%]), infection (42 [19%] vs 22 [10%]) and haematological toxicity (48 [22%] vs 27 [12%]) were reported more commonly in the IrPan group than in the irinotecan group. We recorded five treatment-related deaths, two in the IrPan group and three in the irinotecan group. Adding panitumumab to irinotecan did not improve the overall survival of patients with wild-type KRAS tumours. Further refinement of molecular selection is needed for substantial benefits to be derived from EGFR targeting agents. Cancer Research UK, Amgen Inc.

Background As screening methods for colorectal cancer (CRC) are limited by uptake and adherence, further options are sought. A blood test might increase both, but none has yet been tested in a screening setting. Objective We prospectively assessed the accuracy of circulating methylated SEPT9 DNA (mSEPT9) for detecting CRC in a screening population. Design Asymptomatic individuals ≥50 years old scheduled for screening colonoscopy at 32 US and German clinics voluntarily gave blood plasma samples before colon preparation. Using a commercially available assay, three independent blinded laboratories assayed plasma DNA of all CRC cases and a stratified random sample of other subjects in duplicate real time PCRs. The primary outcomes measures were standardised for overall sensitivity and specificity estimates. Results 7941 men (45%) and women (55%), mean age 60 years, enrolled. Results from 53 CRC cases and from 1457 subjects without CRC yielded a standardised sensitivity of 48.2% (95% CI 32.4% to 63.6%; crude rate 50.9%); for CRC stages I–IV, values were 35.0%, 63.0%, 46.0% and 77.4%, respectively. Specificity was 91.5% (95% CI 89.7% to 93.1%; crude rate 91.4%). Sensitivity for advanced adenomas was low (11.2%). Conclusions Our study using the blood based mSEPT9 test showed that CRC signal in blood can be detected in asymptomatic average risk individuals undergoing screening. However, the utility of the test for population screening for CRC will require improved sensitivity for detection of early cancers and advanced adenomas. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT00855348

In the KEYNOTE-177 study, pembrolizumab monotherapy provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in progression-free survival versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. To further support the efficacy and safety findings of the KEYNOTE-177 study, results of the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) analyses are reported here. KEYNOTE-177 is an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial being done at 192 cancer centres in 23 countries, in patients aged 18 years and older with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and who had not received previous systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by use of interactive voice response or integrated web response technology to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks or investigator's choice chemotherapy (mFOLFOX6 [leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin] or FOLFIRI [leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan] intravenously every 2 weeks with or without intravenous bevacizumab or cetuximab). Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (previously reported) and overall survival (data to be reported at the time of the final analysis). HRQOL outcomes were evaluated as prespecified exploratory endpoints. The analysis population comprised all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and completed at least one HRQOL assessment. HRQOL outcomes were mean change from baseline to prespecified week 18 in European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Colorectal 29 (EORTC QLQ-CR29) scale and item scores, and in the EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 3 Levels (EQ-5D-3L) visual analogue scale and health utility scores; the proportion of patients with improved, stable, or deteriorated scores from baseline to prespecified week 18 in EORTC QLQ-C30 scales and items; and time to deterioration in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL), physical functioning, social functioning, and fatigue scores and EORTC QLQ-CR29 urinary incontinence scores. The threshold for a small and clinically meaningful mean difference in EORTC QLQ-C30 score was 5–8 points. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02563002 and is ongoing; recruitment is closed. Between Feb 11, 2016, and Feb 19, 2018, 307 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab (n=153) or chemotherapy (n=154). The HRQOL analysis population comprised 294 patients (152 receiving pembrolizumab and 142 receiving chemotherapy). As of Feb 19, 2020, median time from randomisation to data cutoff was 32·4 months (IQR 27·7–37·8). Least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline to prespecified week 18 showed a clinically meaningful improvement in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL scores with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy (between-group LSM difference 8·96 [95% CI 4·24–13·69]; two-sided nominal p=0·0002). Median time to deterioration was longer with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for GHS/QOL (hazard ratio 0·61 [95% CI 0·38–0·98]; one-sided nominal p=0·019), physical functioning (0·50 [95% CI 0·32–0·81]; one-sided nominal p=0·0016), social functioning (0·53 [95% CI 0·32–0·87]; one-sided nominal p=0·0050), and fatigue scores (0·48 [95% CI 0·33–0·69]; one-sided nominal p<0·0001). Pembrolizumab monotherapy led to clinically meaningful improvements in HRQOL compared with chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. These data, along with the previously reported clinical benefits, support pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment option for this population. Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

First-line treatment with encorafenib plus cetuximab (EC) with or without chemotherapy (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil [mFOLFOX6]) for V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer, an aggressive subtype with a poor prognosis, was compared with standard care (chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab) in an open-label, phase 3 trial, which showed significance regarding one of the two primary end points, objective response according to blinded independent central review (odds ratio for EC+mFOLFOX6 vs. standard care, 2.44; one-sided P<0.001). This result led to accelerated Food and Drug Administration approval of this investigational combination therapy for V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer, including as first-line therapy. Data on progression-free survival (the second primary end point) and an updated interim analysis of overall survival are now available. We randomly assigned patients with untreated V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer to receive EC, EC+mFOLFOX6, or standard care. The two primary end points were objective response (reported previously) and progression-free survival according to blinded independent central review in the EC+mFOLFOX6 group and the standard-care group. The key secondary end point was overall survival. Significantly longer progression-free survival was seen with EC+mFOLFOX6 than with standard care (median, 12.8 vs. 7.1 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.68; P<0.001). In an interim analysis, overall survival was significantly longer with EC+mFOLFOX6 than with standard care (median, 30.3 vs. 15.1 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.63; P<0.001). The incidence of serious adverse events during treatment was 46.1% with EC+mFOLFOX6 and 38.9% with standard care. Safety profiles were consistent with those known for each agent. This trial showed significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival with first-line treatment with EC+mFOLFOX6 than with standard care among patients with V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. (Funded by Pfizer and others; BREAKWATER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04607421.).

Colorectal Cancer is a complex disease caused by the interaction of hereditary and environmental factors that can be classified based on their importance. Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis and Therapeutic Updates provides comprehensive information about the diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer. Chapters first cover the fundamentals of colorectal cancer diagnosis, progressing further towards explaining therapeutic modalities and recent advances in the understanding of the disease. Key Features - 11 organized, reader-friendly chapters that provide a complete overview of colorectal cancer - Covers the colorectal cancer diagnosis, screening and histopathology - Covers multimodal treatment of colorectal cancer, including chemotherapy, radiotherapy and robotic surgery - Covers the management and surveillance of colorectal cancer - Explains the key biochemical mechanisms involved in colorectal cancer treatment - Covers recent information about colorectal cancer theranostics and drug delivery - Includes references for further reading in every chapter The book serves as an introductory reference for medical students and residents on the subject of colorectal cancer. It also serves as a quick reference on the disease for the practicing general physician.

Background Cetuximab plus FOLFIRI improved overall survival compared with bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI in KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in FIRE-3, but no corresponding benefit was found for progression-free survival. This analysis aimed to determine whether cetuximab improves response and survival versus bevacizumab among response-evaluable patients receiving first-line FOLFIRI for RAS wild-type mCRC and the effect of primary tumour side on outcomes. Methods The intent-to-treat population included 593 patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type mCRC. Further testing identified 400 patients with extended RAS wild-type disease; of these, 352 (88%) who received ≥3 cycles of therapy and had ≥1 post-baseline scan were evaluable for response and constituted the per-protocol population (169 cetuximab and 183 bevacizumab). Patients received 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) with either weekly cetuximab or biweekly bevacizumab given on day 1 of each 14-day cycle until response, progression or toxicity occurred. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR) in the per-protocol population. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The effect of primary tumour location was evaluated. Results Median OS in the RAS wild-type population was 31 vs 26 months in the cetuximab and bevacizumab groups, respectively (HR 0.76, P  = 0.012). In the per-protocol population, outcomes favoured cetuximab for ORR (77% vs 65%, P  = 0.014) and median OS (33 vs 26 months, HR 0.75, P  = 0.011), while PFS was comparable between groups. The advantage of cetuximab over bevacizumab occurred only in patients with left-sided primary tumours. Conclusions FOLFIRI plus cetuximab resulted in a significantly higher ORR and longer OS compared to FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab among patients with left-sided tumours. The superior response associated with cetuximab may particularly benefit patients with symptomatic tumours or borderline-resectable metastases. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00433927.

TAS-102, a combination of trifluridine and tipiracil in which tipiracil interferes with the deactivation of trifluridine, improved overall and progression-free survival in patients whose disease had progressed after treatment with fluorouracil-containing drug combinations. Fluoropyrimidines have long represented the cornerstone of treatment for colorectal cancer. 1 Such compounds act primarily as inhibitors of thymidylate synthase, the rate-limiting enzyme in the synthesis of pyrimidine nucleotides. 2 Fluorouracil has been combined with folinic acid (also known as leucovorin) to enhance the capacity of fluorouracil to bind to thymidylate synthase. 2 The addition of irinotecan (FOLFIRI) or oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) to fluorouracil and folinic acid, in combination with either a vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (bevacizumab) or an epidermal growth factor inhibitor (e.g., cetuximab or panitumumab) if the tumor contains a wild-type RAS gene, represents contemporary standard therapy and has extended . . .