Advertisement

Current Status of Maintenance Systemic Therapies in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: 2018 Update

  • Julia MannEmail author
  • Alexander Stein
Systemic Therapies in Colorectal Cancer (SM Kazmi, Section Editor)
  • 35 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Systemic Therapies in Colorectal Cancer
  2. Topical Collection on Systemic Therapies in Colorectal Cancer

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Current systemic management of MCRC includes periods of intensive induction treatment followed by surgery and/or local ablation or maintenance or complete stop. This article is an update of the 2017 review by Quidde et al. and evaluates the most recent data on maintenance strategies in MCRC.

Recent Findings

Induction followed by maintenance and if feasible re-induction treatment does not seem to be inferior to continuous full-dose treatment for patients with MCRC responding to first-line combination regimen but without options for secondary resection or local ablation. Active maintenance seems to be superior to complete stop after at least 3 months of induction treatment in terms of progression-free survival and may add some benefit in terms of OS. The addition of PD-L1 inhibition to maintenance was not effective. The choice of the respective maintenance strategy may be personalised taking into account disease and patient characteristic, choice of induction treatment and response, treatment tolerability and quality of life.

Summary

Patients with MCRC and no options of secondary resection or local ablation should be considered for maintenance treatment.

Keywords

Metastatic colorectal cancer Personalised Induction Maintenance 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Julia Mann declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Alexander Stein has received institutional research grants from Roche, Merck, Sanofi, Servier, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, and has received compensation for service on advisory boards from Roche, Merck, Sanofi, Servier, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and MSD.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Global Burden of Disease Cancer, C, et al. The global burden of cancer 2013. JAMA Oncologia. 2015;1(4):505–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Malvezzi M, Carioli G, Bertuccio P, Rosso T, Boffetta P, Levi F, et al. European cancer mortality predictions for the year 2016 with focus on leukaemias. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(4):725–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Siegel R, Desantis C, Jemal A. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(2):104–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    • Van Cutsem E, et al. ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(8):1386–422. The ESMO consensus guidelines have been developed based on the current available evidence to provide a series of expert recommendations to assist in the treatment and management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in this rapidly evolving treatment setting. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Overman MJ, McDermott R, Leach JL, Lonardi S, Lenz HJ, Morse MA, et al. Nivolumab in patients with metastatic DNA mismatch repair-deficient or microsatellite instability-high colorectal cancer (CheckMate 142): an open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(9):1182–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Le DT, et al. Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade. Science. 2017;357(6349):409–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Overman MJ, et al. Durable clinical benefit with nivolumab plus ipilimumab in DNA mismatch repair-deficient/microsatellite instability-high metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(8):773–9 JCO2017769901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kopetz ES, et al. Randomized trial of irinotecan and cetuximab with or without vemurafenib in BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (SWOG 1406). J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(suppl 4S):abstract 520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sartore-Bianchi A, Trusolino L, Martino C, Bencardino K, Lonardi S, Bergamo F, et al. Dual-targeted therapy with trastuzumab and lapatinib in treatment-refractory, KRAS codon 12/13 wild-type, HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer (HERACLES): a proof-of-concept, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:738–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hainsworth JD, Meric-Bernstam F, Swanton C, Hurwitz H, Spigel DR, Sweeney C, et al. Targeted therapy for advanced solid tumors on the basis of molecular profiles: results from MyPathway, an open-label, phase IIa multiple basket study. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(6):536–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cremolini C, Loupakis F, Antoniotti C, Lupi C, Sensi E, Lonardi S, et al. FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: updated overall survival and molecular subgroup analyses of the open-label, phase 3 TRIBE study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1306–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Douillard JY, Oliner KS, Siena S, Tabernero J, Burkes R, Barugel M, et al. Panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(11):1023–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van Cutsem E, et al. Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan plus cetuximab treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(7):692–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Heinemann V, von Weikersthal LF, Decker T, Kiani A, Vehling-Kaiser U, al-Batran SE, et al. FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(10):1065–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saltz LB, Clarke S, Díaz-Rubio E, Scheithauer W, Figer A, Wong R, et al. Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(12):2013–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quidde J, Stein A. Personalizing maintenance therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Curr Colorectal Cancer Reports. 2017;13(3):205–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maughan TS, James RD, Kerr DJ, Ledermann JA, Seymour MT, Topham C, et al. Comparison of intermittent and continuous palliative chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet. 2003;361(9356):457–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Adams RA, Meade AM, Seymour MT, Wilson RH, Madi A, Fisher D, et al. Intermittent versus continuous oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine combination chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: results of the randomised phase 3 MRC COIN trial. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(7):642–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tournigand C, Cervantes A, Figer A, Lledo G, Flesch M, Buyse M, et al. OPTIMOX1: a randomized study of FOLFOX4 or FOLFOX7 with oxaliplatin in a stop-and-go fashion in advanced colorectal cancer--a GERCOR study. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(3):394–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Labianca R, Sobrero A, Isa L, Cortesi E, Barni S, Nicolella D, et al. Intermittent versus continuous chemotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer: a randomised 'GISCAD' trial. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(5):1236–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chibaudel B, Maindrault-Goebel F, Lledo G, Mineur L, André T, Bennamoun M, et al. Can chemotherapy be discontinued in unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer? The GERCOR OPTIMOX2 study. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(34):5727–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Diaz-Rubio E, Gomez-Espana A, Massuti B, Sastre J, Abad A, Valladares M, et al. First-line XELOX plus bevacizumab followed by XELOX plus bevacizumab or single-agent bevacizumab as maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: the phase III MACRO TTD study. Oncologist. 2012;17(1):15–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yalcin S, Uslu R, Dane F, Yilmaz U, Zengin N, Buyukunal E, et al. Bevacizumab + capecitabine as maintenance therapy after initial bevacizumab + XELOX treatment in previously untreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: phase III 'stop-and-go' study results--a Turkish oncology group trial. Oncology. 2013;85(6):328–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hochster HS, Grothey A, Hart L, Rowland K, Ansari R, Alberts S, et al. Improved time to treatment failure with an intermittent oxaliplatin strategy: results of CONcePT. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(6):1172–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pfeiffer P, Sorbye H, Qvortrup C, Karlberg M, Kersten C, Vistisen K, et al. Maintenance therapy with cetuximab every second week in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the NORDIC-7.5 study by the Nordic colorectal cancer biomodulation group. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2015;14(3):170–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tveit KM, Guren T, Glimelius B, Pfeiffer P, Sorbye H, Pyrhonen S, et al. Phase III trial of cetuximab with continuous or intermittent fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (Nordic FLOX) versus FLOX alone in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the NORDIC-VII study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(15):1755–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Simkens LH, et al. Maintenance treatment with capecitabine and bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer (CAIRO3): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group. Lancet. 2015;385(9980):1843–52.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Koeberle D, Betticher DC, von Moos R, Dietrich D, Brauchli P, Baertschi D, et al. Bevacizumab continuation versus no continuation after first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III non-inferiority trial (SAKK 41/06). Ann Oncol. 2015;26(4):709–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hegewisch-Becker S, et al. Maintenance strategies after first-line oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (AIO 0207): a randomised, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(13):1355–69.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Aparicio T, Ghiringhelli F, Boige V, le Malicot K, Taieb J, Bouché O, et al. Bevacizumab maintenance versus no maintenance during chemotherapy-free intervals in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III trial (PRODIGE 9). J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(7):674–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goey KKH, Elias SG, Hinke A, van Oijen MGH, Punt CJA, Hegewisch-Becker S, et al. Clinicopathological factors influencing outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with fluoropyrimidine and bevacizumab maintenance treatment vs observation: an individual patient data meta-analysis of two phase 3 trials. Br J Cancer. 2017;117(12):1768–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stein A, Schwenke C, Folprecht G, Arnold D. Effect of application and intensity of Bevacizumab-based maintenance after induction chemotherapy with Bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal Cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2016;15(2):e29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wasan H, Meade AM, Adams R, Wilson R, Pugh C, Fisher D, et al. Intermittent chemotherapy plus either intermittent or continuous cetuximab for first-line treatment of patients with KRAS wild-type advanced colorectal cancer (COIN-B): a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(6):631–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Aranda E, García-Alfonso P, Benavides M, Sánchez Ruiz A, Guillén-Ponce C, Safont MJ, et al. First-line mFOLFOX plus cetuximab followed by mFOLFOX plus cetuximab or single-agent cetuximab as maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: phase II randomised MACRO2 TTD study. Eur J Cancer. 2018;101:263–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pietrantonio F, Morano F, Corallo S. First-line FOLFOX plus panitumumab (Pan) followed by 5FU/LV plus Pan or single-agent Pan as maintenance therapy in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): The VALENTINO study. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(suppl):abstr 3505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tournigand C, Chibaudel B, Samson B, Scheithauer W, Vernerey D, Mésange P, et al. Bevacizumab with or without erlotinib as maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (GERCOR DREAM; OPTIMOX3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(15):1493–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Johnsson A, Hagman H, Frödin JE, Berglund Å, Keldsen N, Fernebro E, et al. A randomized phase III trial on maintenance treatment with bevacizumab alone or in combination with erlotinib after chemotherapy and bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer: the Nordic ACT Trial. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(9):2335–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Schmoll HJ, Arnold D, de Gramont A, Ducreux M, Grothey A, O’Dwyer PJ, et al. MODUL-a multicenter randomized clinical trial of biomarker-driven maintenance therapy following first-line standard induction treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: an adaptable signal-seeking approach. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2018;144(6):1197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Grothey A, Tabernero J, Arnold D. Fluoropyrimidine (FP) + bevacizumab (BEV) + atezolizumab vs FP/BEV in BRAFwt metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Findings from Cohort 2 of MODUL. Presented at ESMO 2018. Ann Oncol. 2018; suppl(proffered paper).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bendell JC, Ciardiello F, Tabernero J. Efficacy and safety results from IMblaze370, a randomised Phase III study comparing atezolizumab+cobimetinib and atezolizumab monotherapy vs regorafenib in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(suppl 5):LBA-004.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schmoll HJ, Wittig B, Arnold D, Riera-Knorrenschild J, Nitsche D, Kroening H, et al. Maintenance treatment with the immunomodulator MGN1703, a toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) agonist, in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma and disease control after chemotherapy: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2014;140:1615–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Goey KKH, Elias SG, Van Tinteren H. Predictive value of KRAS mutation status in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with capecitabine and bevacizumab (CAP-B) maintenance treatment vs observation in the phase III CAIRO3 study. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(suppl):abstr 3525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Noepel-Duennebacke S, Arnold D, Hertel J, Tannapfel A, Hinke A, Hegewisch-Becker S, et al. Impact of the localization of the primary tumor and RAS/BRAF mutational status on maintenance strategies after first-line oxaliplatin, fluoropyrimidine, and bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the AIO 0207 trial. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2018;17:e733–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stein A, Binder M, Al-Batran SE. Avelumab and cetuximab in combination with FOLFOX in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC): results of the safety run-in phase of the phase II AVETUX trial (AIO-KRK-0216). J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(15 suppl):3561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    • Quidde J, et al. Quality of life assessment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving maintenance therapy after first-line induction treatment: a preplanned analysis of the phase III AIO KRK 0207 trial. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(12):2203–10. This was one of the first studies analyzing quality of life during maintenance treatment. The study showed that continuation of an active maintenance treatment with fluoropyrimidine and bevacizumab after induction treatment was neither associated with a detrimental effect on health-related quality of life when compared to bevacizumab alone or no active treatment. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    • Yoshino T, Arnold D, Taniguchi H, Pentheroudakis G, Yamazaki K, Xu RH, et al. Pan-Asian adapted ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a JSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, KACO, MOS, SSO and TOS. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(1):44–70. The ESMO consensus guidelines have been developed based on the current available evidence to provide a series of expert recommendations to assist in the treatment and management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in this rapidly evolving treatment setting. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Oncology, Haematology, Bone Marrow Transplantation with Section PneumologyUniversity Cancer Center Hamburg, University Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations