Citations

Over the past 20 years, management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has improved considerably, leading to increased overall survival and more patients eligible for third- or later-line therapy. Currently, two oral therapies are recommended in the third-line treatment of mCRC, regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil. Selecting the most appropriate treatment in the third-line setting poses different challenges compared with treatment selection at earlier stages. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand and differentiate between available treatment options and to communicate the benefits and challenges of these to patients. In this narrative review, practical information on regorafenib is provided to aid physicians in their decision-making and patient communications in daily practice. We discuss the importance of appropriate patient selection and adverse events management through close patient monitoring and dose adjustments to ensure patients stay on treatment for longer and receive as much benefit as possible. We also highlight key physician–patient communication points to facilitate shared decision-making.

726 Background: Primary tumor location is an important prognostic factor in mCRC. Efficacy differences with EGFR antibodies by tumor location show a predictive effect (Arnold et al. Ann Oncol 2017). Two first-line (1L) pivotal bev trials showed the prognostic value of sidedness (Loupakis et al. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015). In this exploratory study, further analysis of the predictive effect of bev is presented. Methods: Data from two randomized phase III studies (NO16966 [NCT00069095], AVF2107g [NCT00109070]) of bev+CT vs CT-alone as 1L treatment for mCRC were analyzed retrospectively. Patients (pts) with sidedness information available were included; pts from NO16966 (part 1) randomized to CT only were excluded. Sidedness was identified by case report forms. Results: Sidedness was determined in 1590 pts (27% Right and 73% Left) out of 2214 pts total (Table). In the pooled analysis, PFS improved with bev+CT compared to CT only in both right-sided (HR=0.75; 95% CI 0.61, 0.93) and left-sided (HR=0.76; 95% CI 0.67, 0.86) mCRC with similar magnitude of benefit in both sides. OS also improved with bev+CT in right-sided (HR=0.82; 95% CI 0.65, 1.03) and left-sided (HR=0.85; 95% CI 0.74, 0.98) pts. Conclusions: This exploratory subgroup analysis of two pivotal studies indicates that the effect of bev is independent of tumor location in mCRC patients. Survival outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT00069095 and NCT00109070. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background Previous genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified 42 loci (P < 5 × 10−8) associated with risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Expanded consortium efforts facilitating the discovery of additional susceptibility loci may capture unexplained familial risk. Methods We conducted a GWAS in European descent CRC cases and control subjects using a discovery–replication design, followed by examination of novel findings in a multiethnic sample (cumulative n = 163 315). In the discovery stage (36 948 case subjects/30 864 control subjects), we identified genetic variants with a minor allele frequency of 1% or greater associated with risk of CRC using logistic regression followed by a fixed-effects inverse variance weighted meta-analysis. All novel independent variants reaching genome-wide statistical significance (two-sided P < 5 × 10−8) were tested for replication in separate European ancestry samples (12 952 case subjects/48 383 control subjects). Next, we examined the generalizability of discovered variants in East Asians, African Americans, and Hispanics (12 085 case subjects/22 083 control subjects). Finally, we examined the contributions of novel risk variants to familial relative risk and examined the prediction capabilities of a polygenic risk score. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results The discovery GWAS identified 11 variants associated with CRC at P < 5 × 10−8, of which nine (at 4q22.2/5p15.33/5p13.1/6p21.31/6p12.1/10q11.23/12q24.21/16q24.1/20q13.13) independently replicated at a P value of less than .05. Multiethnic follow-up supported the generalizability of discovery findings. These results demonstrated a 14.7% increase in familial relative risk explained by common risk alleles from 10.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.9% to 13.7%; known variants) to 11.9% (95% CI = 9.2% to 15.5%; known and novel variants). A polygenic risk score identified 4.3% of the population at an odds ratio for developing CRC of at least 2.0. Conclusions This study provides insight into the architecture of common genetic variation contributing to CRC etiology and improves risk prediction for individualized screening.

Purpose In recent retrospective analyses of early-stage colorectal cancer (CRC), low and high body mass index (BMI) scores were associated with worsened outcomes. Whether BMI is a prognostic or predictive factor in metastatic CRC (mCRC) is unclear. Patients and Methods Individual data from 21,149 patients enrolled onto 25 first-line mCRC trials during 1997 to 2012 were pooled. We assessed both prognostic and predictive effects of BMI on overall survival and progression-free survival, and we accounted for patient and tumor characteristics and therapy type (targeted v nontargeted). Results BMI was prognostic for overall survival (P < .001) and progression-free survival (P < .001), with an L-shaped pattern. That is, risk of progression and/or death was greatest for low BMI; risk decreased as BMI increased to approximately 28 kg/m 2 , and then it plateaued. Relative to obese patients, patients with a BMI of 18.5 kg/m 2 had a 27% increased risk of having a PFS event (95% CI, 20% to 34%) and a 50% increased risk of death (95% CI, 43% to 56%). Low BMI was associated with poorer survival for men than women (interaction P < .001). BMI was not predictive of treatment effect. Conclusion Low BMI is associated with an increased risk of progression and death among the patients enrolled on the mCRC trials, with no increased risk for elevated BMI, in contrast to the adjuvant setting. Possible explanations include negative effects related to cancer cachexia in patients with low BMI, increased drug delivery or selection bias in patients with high BMI, and potential for an interaction between BMI and molecular signaling pathways.