Tormod Kyrre Guren

BACKGROUND: V600E mutation have a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival of 4 to 6 months after failure of initial therapy. Inhibition of BRAF alone has limited activity because of pathway reactivation through epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. METHODS: V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer who had had disease progression after one or two previous regimens. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab (triplet-therapy group); encorafenib and cetuximab (doublet-therapy group); or the investigators' choice of either cetuximab and irinotecan or cetuximab and FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) (control group). The primary end points were overall survival and objective response rate in the triplet-therapy group as compared with the control group. A secondary end point was overall survival in the doublet-therapy group as compared with the control group. We report here the results of a prespecified interim analysis. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 9.0 months in the triplet-therapy group and 5.4 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.70; P<0.001). The confirmed response rate was 26% (95% CI, 18 to 35) in the triplet-therapy group and 2% (95% CI, 0 to 7) in the control group (P<0.001). The median overall survival in the doublet-therapy group was 8.4 months (hazard ratio for death vs. control, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.79; P<0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 58% of patients in the triplet-therapy group, in 50% in the doublet-therapy group, and in 61% in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: V600E mutation. (Funded by Array BioPharma and others; BEACON CRC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02928224; EudraCT number, 2015-005805-35.).

PURPOSE BEACON CRC evaluated encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib versus investigators' choice of irinotecan or FOLFIRI plus cetuximab in patients with BRAFV600E–mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), after progression on 1-2 prior regimens. In the previously reported primary analysis, encorafenib, binimetinib plus cetuximab (ENCO/BINI/CETUX; triplet) and encorafenib plus cetuximab (ENCO/CETUX; doublet) regimens improved overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR; by blinded central review) versus standard of care. The purpose of this analysis was to report updated efficacy and safety data. METHODS In this open-label, phase III trial, 665 patients with BRAF V600E–mutant mCRC were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive triplet, doublet, or control. Primary end points were OS and independently reviewed ORR comparing triplet to control. OS for doublet versus control was a key secondary end point. Updated analyses include 6 months of additional follow-up and ORR for all randomized patients. RESULTS Patients received triplet (n = 224), doublet (n = 220), or control (n = 221). Median OS was 9.3 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 10.8) for triplet and 5.9 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 7.1) for control (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.75]). Median OS for doublet was 9.3 months (95% CI, 8.0 to 11.3) (HR v control, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.77]). Confirmed ORR was 26.8% (95% CI, 21.1% to 33.1%) for triplet, 19.5% (95% CI, 14.5% to 25.4%) for doublet, and 1.8% (95% CI, 0.5% to 4.6%) for control. Adverse events were consistent with the prior primary analysis, with grade ≥ 3 adverse events in 65.8%, 57.4%, and 64.2% for triplet, doublet, and control, respectively. CONCLUSION In the BEACON CRC study, encorafenib plus cetuximab improved OS, ORR, and progression-free survival in previously treated patients in the metastatic setting compared with standard chemotherapy. Based on the primary and updated analyses, encorafenib plus cetuximab is a new standard care regimen for previously treated patients with BRAF V600E mCRC.

PURPOSE: The NORDIC-VII multicenter phase III trial investigated the efficacy of cetuximab when added to bolus fluorouracil/folinic acid and oxaliplatin (Nordic FLOX), administered continuously or intermittently, in previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The influence of KRAS mutation status on treatment outcome was also investigated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either standard Nordic FLOX (arm A), cetuximab and FLOX (arm B), or cetuximab combined with intermittent FLOX (arm C). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Overall survival (OS), response rate, R0 resection rate, and safety were secondary end points. RESULTS: Of the 571 patients randomly assigned, 566 were evaluable in intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses. KRAS and BRAF mutation analyses were obtained in 498 (88%) and 457 patients (81%), respectively. KRAS mutations were present in 39% of the tumors; 12% of tumors had BRAF mutations. The presence of BRAF mutations was a strong negative prognostic factor. In the ITT population, median PFS was 7.9, 8.3, and 7.3 months for the three arms, respectively (not significantly different). OS was almost identical for the three groups (20.4, 19.7, 20.3 months, respectively), and confirmed response rates were 41%, 49%, and 47%, respectively. In patients with KRAS wild-type tumors, cetuximab did not provide any additional benefit compared with FLOX alone. In patients with KRAS mutations, no significant difference was detected, although a trend toward improved PFS was observed in arm B. The regimens were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Cetuximab did not add significant benefit to the Nordic FLOX regimen in first-line treatment of mCRC.

In Brief Objective: The primary objective was to compare overall survival (OS) in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) with nonresectable liver-only metastases treated by liver transplantation or chemotherapy. Background: CRC is the third most common cancer worldwide. About 50% of patients will develop metastatic disease primarily to the liver and the lung. The majority of patients with liver metastases receive palliative chemotherapy, with a median OS of trial patients of about 2 years, and less than 10% are alive at 5 years. Methods: Patients with nonresectable liver-only CRC metastases underwent liver transplantation in the SECA study (n = 21). Disease-free survival (DFS) and OS of patients included in the SECA study were compared with progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in a similar cohort of CRC patients with liver-only disease included in a first-line chemotherapy study, the NORDIC VII study (n = 47). PFS/DFS and OS were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: DFS/PFS in both groups were 8 to 10 months. However, a dramatic difference in OS was observed. The 5-year OS rate was 56% in patients undergoing liver transplantation compared with 9% in patients starting first-line chemotherapy. The reason for the large difference in OS despite similar DFS/PFS is likely different metastatic patterns at relapse/progression. Relapse in the liver transplantation group was often detected as small, slowly growing lung metastases, whereas progression of nonresectable liver metastases was observed in the chemotherapy group. Conclusions: Compared with chemotherapy, liver transplantation resulted in a marked increased OS in CRC patients with nonresectable liver-only metastases. In this study, we have compared overall survival in patients with colorectal cancer with nonresectable liver-only metastases treated by liver transplantation with a similar cohort of patients administered chemotherapy. The 5-year overall survival rate was 56% and 9% in patients undergoing liver transplantation and chemotherapy, respectively.