Mahipal, Amit

In the past decade, significant advances have been made in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Multiple cytotoxic agents and targeted therapies have been approved for management of metastatic colorectal cancer, leading to improvement of median overall survival in clinical trials to more than 30 months. Of note, before the introduction of biologics into treatment algorithms for metastatic colorectal cancer, median survival in phase III trials never exceeded 24 months. In 2016, the most common treatment approach in first line is a combination of chemotherapy with a biologic agent. The choice of therapy is influenced by patient factors (eg, age, comorbidities), tumor characteristics (eg, overall tumor burden, pattern of metastatic spread, mutation signature), potential adverse effects of therapy, and goals of treatment. The choice between irinotecan- or oxaliplatin-based cytotoxic chemotherapy regimen is primarily based on differential toxicity profile because they have similar efficacy. Currently, three biologic agents—bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab—are approved for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. For patients with mutant RAS and likely mutant BRAF V600E tumors, bevacizumab is the only biologic agent that can be used in conjunction with cytotoxic chemotherapy. The choice of anti–epidermal growth factor antibody or anti–vascular endothelial growth factor antibody in RAS wild-type tumors is based on the specific clinical scenario. Recently, some clinical and molecular biomarkers have emerged that may help in decision making. In this review, we discuss the role of biologics in the management of first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Abstract Background: Previous epidemiologic studies have shown that regular use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is associated with decreased colorectal cancer risk. However, few studies have examined associations between NSAID use and subsite-specific colorectal cancer risks. Because tumors of the proximal and distal colon differ with respect to their genetic alterations, clinicopathologic features, and demographic distribution, further investigation of subsite-specific colorectal cancer risks may be rewarding. Methods: Data about aspirin and nonaspirin-NSAID use were recorded by self-report in 1992 among the initially cancer-free cohort of postmenopausal women in the Iowa Women's Health Study (n = 27,160). In total, 637 women developed colorectal cancer during the 11 years of follow-up, including 365 proximal colon, 132 distal colon, and 120 rectal cancer cases (11 overlapping and 9 not specified). Results: For colon cancer, the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for women reporting use of aspirin two to five times and six or more times weekly (compared with nonusers of aspirin) were 0.79 [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.59-1.04] and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.58-1.00), respectively. The corresponding HRs for nonaspirin NSAIDs were 0.63 (95% CI, 0.41-0.96) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.63-1.15), respectively. For proximal colon cancer, the multivariable-adjusted HRs for women reporting use of aspirin or nonaspirin NSAIDs two or more times weekly (compared with nonusers of each) were 0.67 (95% CI, 0.51-0.87) and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.52-0.97), respectively. No statistically significant association was found between either distal colon or rectal cancer and aspirin or nonaspirin NSAID use. Discussion: Our study is consistent with a limited number of prior reports that have observed stronger associations between NSAID use and proximal versus distal colorectal cancer. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(10):1785–90)