Explore the vast range of titles available.

Adjuvant chemotherapy has reduced the risk of tumor recurrence and improved survival in patients with resected colorectal cancer. Potential utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) prior to and post surgery has been reported across various solid tumors. We initiated a new type of adaptive platform trials to evaluate the clinical benefits of ctDNA analysis and refine precision adjuvant therapy for resectable colorectal cancer, named CIRCULATE‐Japan including three clinical trials. The GALAXY study is a prospectively conducted large‐scale registry designed to monitor ctDNA for patients with clinical stage II to IV or recurrent colorectal cancer who can undergo complete surgical resection. The VEGA trial is a randomized phase III study designed to test whether postoperative surgery alone is noninferior to the standard therapy with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for 3 months in patients with high‐risk stage II or low‐risk stage III colon cancer if ctDNA status is negative at week 4 after curative surgery in the GALAXY study. The ALTAIR trial is a double‐blind, phase III study designed to establish the superiority of trifluridine/tipiracil as compared with placebo in patients with resected colorectal cancer who show circulating tumor–positive status in the GALAXY study. Therefore, CIRCULATE‐Japan encompasses both “de‐escalation” and “escalation” trials for ctDNA‐negative and ‐positive patients, respectively, and helps to answer whether measuring ctDNA postoperatively has prognostic and/or predictive value. Our ctDNA‐guided adaptive platform trials will accelerate clinical development toward further precision oncology in the field of adjuvant therapy. Analysis of ctDNA status could be utilized as a predictor of risk stratification for recurrence and to monitor the effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy. ctDNA is a promising, noninvasive tumor biomarker that can aid in tumor monitoring throughout disease management. CIRCULATE‐Japan encompasses both “de‐escalation” and “escalation” trials for circulating tumor DNA–negative and –positive patients, respectively, and helps to answer whether measuring circulating tumor DNA postoperatively has prognostic and/or predictive value. Our circulating tumor DNA–guided adaptive platform trials will accelerate clinical development toward further precision oncology in the field of adjuvant therapy.

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.

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.).

The addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to cytoreductive surgery has been associated with encouraging survival results in some patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases who were eligible for complete macroscopic resection. We aimed to assess the specific benefit of adding HIPEC to cytoreductive surgery compared with receiving cytoreductive surgery alone. We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial at 17 cancer centres in France. Eligible patients were aged 18–70 years and had histologically proven colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases, WHO performance status of 0 or 1, a Peritoneal Cancer Index of 25 or less, and were eligible to receive systemic chemotherapy for 6 months (ie, they had adequate organ function and life expectancy of at least 12 weeks). Patients in whom complete macroscopic resection or surgical resection with less than 1 mm residual tumour tissue was completed were randomly assigned (1:1) to cytoreductive surgery with or without oxaliplatin-based HIPEC. Randomisation was done centrally using minimisation, and stratified by centre, completeness of cytoreduction, number of previous systemic chemotherapy lines, and timing of protocol-mandated systemic chemotherapy. Oxaliplatin HIPEC was administered by the closed (360 mg/m2) or open (460 mg/m2) abdomen techniques, and systemic chemotherapy (400 mg/m2 fluorouracil and 20 mg/m2 folinic acid) was delivered intravenously 20 min before HIPEC. All individuals received systemic chemotherapy (of investigators' choosing) with or without targeted therapy before or after surgery, or both. The primary endpoint was overall survival, which was analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received surgery. This trial is registed with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00769405, and is now completed. Between Feb 11, 2008, and Jan 6, 2014, 265 patients were included and randomly assigned, 133 to the cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC group and 132 to the cytoreductive surgery alone group. After median follow-up of 63·8 months (IQR 53·0–77·1), median overall survival was 41·7 months (95% CI 36·2–53·8) in the cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC group and 41·2 months (35·1–49·7) in the cytoreductive surgery group (hazard ratio 1·00 [95·37% CI 0·63–1·58]; stratified log-rank p=0·99). At 30 days, two (2%) treatment-related deaths had occurred in each group.. Grade 3 or worse adverse events at 30 days were similar in frequency between groups (56 [42%] of 133 patients in the cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC group vs 42 [32%] of 132 patients in the cytoreductive surgery group; p=0·083); however, at 60 days, grade 3 or worse adverse events were more common in the cytoreductive surgery plus HIPEC group (34 [26%] of 131 vs 20 [15%] of 130; p=0·035). Considering the absence of an overall survival benefit after adding HIPEC to cytoreductive surgery and more frequent postoperative late complications with this combination, our data suggest that cytoreductive surgery alone should be the cornerstone of therapeutic strategies with curative intent for colorectal peritoneal metastases. Institut National du Cancer, Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique du Cancer, Ligue Contre le Cancer.

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 . . .

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.

For patients with small-size colorectal liver metastases, growing evidence suggests thermal ablation to be associated with fewer adverse events and faster recovery than resection while also challenging resection in terms of local control and overall survival. This study assessed the potential non-inferiority of thermal ablation compared with surgical resection in patients with small-size resectable colorectal liver metastases. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) from 14 centres in the Netherlands, Belgium, and Italy with ten or fewer small-size (≤3 cm) colorectal liver metastases, no extrahepatic metastases, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, were stratified per centre, and according to their disease burden, into low, intermediate, and high disease burden subgroups and randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either thermal ablation (experimental group) or surgical resection (control group) of all target colorectal liver metastases using the web-based module Castor electronic data capture with variable block sizes of 4, 6, and 8. Although at the operator's discretion, a minimally invasive approach in both treatment groups was recommended. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. A hazard ratio (HR) of 1·30 was considered the upper limit of non-inferiority for the primary endpoint. A preplanned interim analysis with predefined stopping rules for futility (conditional power to prove the null hypothesis <20%) and early benefit (conditional power >90%, superior safety outcomes for the experimental group, and no difference or superiority regarding local control for the experimental group) was done 12 months after enrolment of 50% of the planned sample size. Safety was assessed per treatment group. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088150. Between Aug 7, 2017, and Feb 14, 2024, 300 patients were randomly assigned to the experimental group (n=148, 100 male [68%] and 48 female [32%]; median age 67·9 years [range 29·2–85·7]) or to the control group (n=148, 107 male [72%] and 41 female [28%]; median age 65·1 [range 31·4–87·4]); four patients (two in each treatment group) were excluded after randomisation because they were found to have other disease pathology. Median follow-up at the prespecified interim analysis was 28·9 months (range 0·3–77·8). The trial was stopped early for meeting the predefined stopping rules: (1) a conditional likelihood to prove non-inferiority for overall survival of 90·5% (median overall survival not reached in both groups; HR 1·05; 95% CI 0·69–1·58; p=0·83), (2) a non-inferior local control (median local control not reached in both groups; HR 0·13, 95% CI 0·02–1·06; p=0·057), and (3) a superior safety profile for the experimental group. Patients in the experimental group had fewer adverse events than those in the control group (28 [19%] vs 67 [46%]; p<0·0001). Serious adverse events occurred in 11 (7%) of 148 patients in the experimental group and 29 (20%) of 146 in the control group, mostly periprocedural haemorrhage requiring intervention (one [1%] vs eight [5%]), and infectious complications requiring intervention (six [4%] vs 11 [8%]). There were no treatment-related deaths in the experimental group and three treatment-related deaths (2%) in the control group (two due to postoperative cardiac complications and one due to sepsis and liver failure). The assumption that thermal ablation should be reserved for unresectable colorectal liver metastases requires re-evaluation and the preferred treatment should be individualised and based on clinical characteristics and available expertise. Medtronic-Covidien.

Diagnosis and treatment of colorectal peritoneal metastases at an early stage, before the onset of signs, could improve patient survival. We aimed to compare the survival benefit of systematic second-look surgery plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), with surveillance, in patients at high risk of developing colorectal peritoneal metastases. We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study in 23 hospitals in France. Eligible patients were aged 18–70 years and had a primary colorectal cancer with synchronous and localised colorectal peritoneal metastases removed during tumour resection, resected ovarian metastases, or a perforated tumour. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to surveillance or second-look surgery plus oxaliplatin-HIPEC (oxaliplatin 460 mg/m2, or oxaliplatin 300 mg/m2 plus irinotecan 200 mg/m2, plus intravenous fluorouracil 400 mg/m2), or mitomycin-HIPEC (mitomycin 35 mg/m2) alone in case of neuropathy, after 6 months of adjuvant systemic chemotherapy with no signs of disease recurrence. Randomisation was done via a web-based system, with stratification by treatment centre, nodal status, and risk factors for colorectal peritoneal metastases. Second-look surgery consisted of a complete exploration of the abdominal cavity via xyphopubic incision, and resection of all peritoneal implants if resectable. Surveillance after resection of colorectal cancer was done according to the French Guidelines. The primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival, defined as the time from randomisation to peritoneal or distant disease recurrence, or death from any cause, whichever occurred first, analysed by intention to treat. Surgical complications were assessed in the second-look surgery group only. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01226394. Between June 11, 2010, and March 31, 2015, 150 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to a treatment group (75 per group). After a median follow-up of 50·8 months (IQR 47·0–54·8), 3-year disease-free survival was 53% (95% CI 41–64) in the surveillance group versus 44% (33–56) in the second-look surgery group (hazard ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·61–1·56). No treatment-related deaths were reported. 29 (41%) of 71 patients in the second-look surgery group had grade 3–4 complications. The most common grade 3–4 complications were intra-abdominal adverse events (haemorrhage, digestive leakage) in 12 (23%) of 71 patients and haematological adverse events in 13 (18%) of 71 patients. Systematic second-look surgery plus oxaliplatin-HIPEC did not improve disease-free survival compared with standard surveillance. Currently, essential surveillance of patients at high risk of developing colorectal peritoneal metastases appears to be adequate and effective in terms of survival outcomes. French National Cancer Institute.

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.

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.).