Negative hyperselection beyond RAS: is a key tool for choosing the optimal maintenance treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer?
Carles Pericay,Julen Fernández-Plana
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/jgo-24-284
2024-11-02
Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology
Abstract:Carles Pericay , Julen Fernández-Plana Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitari Mútua Terrassa (HUMT), Terrassa, Spain Comment on: Stahler A, Kind AJ, Sers C, et al . Negative Hyperselection of Resistance Mutations for Panitumumab Maintenance in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (PanaMa Phase II Trial, AIO KRK 0212). Clin Cancer Res 2024;30:1256-63. Keywords: Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC); panitumumab; negative hyperselection; RAS wild-type (RAS WT) Submitted Apr 17, 2024. Accepted for publication Aug 29, 2024. Published online Oct 29, 2024. doi: 10.21037/jgo-24-284 Colorectal cancer is the third most prevalent global cancer and is also the second most common cause of cancer deaths (1). In Europe, colorectal cancer also represents the second leading cause of cancer deaths in 2018. However, recent years have seen a decline in mortality rates (2). In middle to high-income countries this decline can be attributed to effective screening and early detection programmes, along with advancements in therapeutic approaches such as systemic therapies, the integration of biomarkers, surgical procedures and ablative treatment of metastases. These interventions have resulted in improved disease management, prolonged control and, in some cases, even cure. It is important to note that approximately 20–25% of patients initially present with metastases, while 25–50% of those with localized disease will eventually develop distant disease, presenting a significant health challenge (2). For patients diagnosed with unresectable RAS wild-type (WT) microsatellite stable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), a combination of chemotherapy with a monoclonal antibody-drug is usually considered the standard first-line treatment. Moreover, chemotherapy is combined either with an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antibody (such as bevacizumab) or an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody (such as cetuximab or panitumumab). The choice of second-line treatment depends on the first-line therapy and biomarker status, including RAS and BRAF mutations, and also mismatch repair (MMR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status. Second-line treatment usually includes chemotherapy combined with anti-VEGF antibody, such as aflibercept, bevacizumab or ramucirumab, or an anti-EGFR antibody. Moreover, the combination of encorafenib and cetuximab is recommended for BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC patients as the preferred treatment option in second line setting. Immunotherapy is advised for deficient MMR tumors. In the third line setting, trifluridine-tipiracil plus bevacizumab is an effective treatment option for patients with refractory mCRC (3-6). The phase 3 PARADIGM trial evaluated unresectable RAS WT mCRC patients and demonstrated a better overall survival (OS) with first-line mFOLFOX6 plus panitumumab compared with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab in left-sided CRC tumors. Among patients with left-sided tumors receiving anti-EGFR based treatment, the median OS was 37.9 months, whereas those treated with anti-VEGF therapy had a median overall survival (mOS) of 34.3 months [hazard ratio (HR) =0.82; 95% CI: 0.68–0.99; P=0.03] (7). Furthermore, a prognostic analysis stratified by measurable biomarkers in clinical practice and by tumor side was performed. Its results support the use of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 as a first-line treatment for patients diagnosed with left-sided, microsatellite stable, RAS/BRAF WT tumors (8). Exploratory analyses reported worse survival (around 22 months) among patients with right-sided CRC tumors. All these results are in line with those previously reported in several meta-analyses (9). Maintenance treatment as a concept holds importance for patients dealing with a disease not suitable for locoregional treatment or surgery. The concept involves de-escalation of the therapeutic approach to improve tolerability and enhance quality of life, without substantially compromising therapeutic efficacy and disease control. Moreover, the OPTIMOX1 trial suggested that avoiding oxaliplatin after induction treatment could be considered as a maintenance strategy. In addition, the OPTIMOX2 trial evaluated a fluoropyrimidine maintenance treatment compared to a chemotherapy-free period of time, and reported that fluoropyrimidine maintenance treatment did better in terms of survival and disease control rate (10). While evidence for anti-EGFR maintenance therapy lacks support from phase III data, phase II randomized trials support maintenance therapy with an anti-EGFR targeted agent plus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) compared to either anti-EGFR or fluoropyrimidine monotherapy (11,12). According to European, American and Asian Guidelines, anti-EGFR treatment use is determined by primary tumor location, RAS and RAF mutational status as well as assessment of MMR status (3,4,13). Beyond these established biomarkers -Abstract Truncated-
oncology,gastroenterology & hepatology