Commentary on the newly released European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). After 6 years, individual chapters have been updated, from molecular tumor testing to diagnostic and treatment procedures to the implementation of newly registered medicinal products. The authors highlight the most important changes in the guidelines. Awareness of possible new treatments for mCRC is important to determine the treatment strategy for patients with mCRC. In this commentary, we focus primarily on the status of systemic treatment in unresectable disease.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is a complex disease with high mortality rates. Over time, the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has gradually improved due to the development of modern chemotherapy and targeted therapy regimens. However, due to the inherent heterogeneity of this condition, identifying reliable predictive biomarkers for targeted therapies remains challenging. A recent promising classification system-the consensus molecular subtype (CMS) system-offers the potential to categorize mCRC patients based on their unique biological and molecular characteristics. Four distinct CMS categories have been defined: immune (CMS1), canonical (CMS2), metabolic (CMS3), and mesenchymal (CMS4). Nevertheless, there is currently no standardized protocol for accurately classifying patients into CMS categories. To address this challenge, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and next-generation genomic sequencing (NGS) techniques may hold promise for precisely classifying mCRC patients into their CMSs.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate if mCRC patients can be classified into CMS categories using a standardized molecular biology workflow.
METHODS: This observational study was conducted at the University of Chile Clinical Hospital and included patients with unresectable mCRC who were undergoing systemic treatment with chemotherapy and/or targeted therapy. Molecular biology techniques were employed to analyse primary tumour samples from these patients. RT-qPCR was utilized to assess the expression of genes associated with fibrosis (TGF-β and β-catenin) and cell growth pathways (c-MYC). NGS using a 25-gene panel (TumorSec) was performed to identify specific genomic mutations. The patients were then classified into one of the four CMS categories according to the clinical consensus of a Tumour Board. Informed consent was obtained from all the patients prior to their participation in this study. All techniques were conducted at University of Chile.
RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were studied with the techniques and then evaluated by the Tumour Board to determine the specific CMS. Among them, 23% (n = 6), 19% (n = 5), 31% (n = 8), and 19% (n = 5) were classified as CMS1, CMS2, CMS3, and CMS4, respectively. Additionally, 8% of patients (n = 2) could not be classified into any of the four CMS categories. The median overall survival of the total sample was 28 mo, and for CMS1, CMS2, CMS3 and CMS4 it was 11, 20, 30 and 45 mo respectively, with no statistically significant differences between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: A molecular biology workflow and clinical consensus analysis can be used to accurately classify mCRC patients. This classification process, which divides patients into the four CMS categories, holds significant potential for improving research strategies and targeted therapies tailored to the specific characteristics of mCRC.

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), published in late 2022, were adapted in December 2022, according to previously established standard methodology, to produce the Pan-Asian adapted (PAGA) ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of Asian patients with mCRC. The adapted guidelines presented in this manuscript represent the consensus opinions reached by a panel of Asian experts in the treatment of patients with mCRC representing the oncological societies of China (CSCO), Indonesia (ISHMO), India (ISMPO), Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), the Philippines (PSMO), Singapore (SSO), Taiwan (TOS) and Thailand (TSCO), co-ordinated by ESMO and the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of the current treatment practices, drug access restrictions and reimbursement decisions in the different Asian countries. The latter are discussed separately in the manuscript. The aim is to provide guidance for the optimisation and harmonisation of the management of patients with mCRC across the different countries of Asia, drawing on the evidence provided by both Western and Asian trials, whilst respecting the differences in screening practices, molecular profiling and age and stage at presentation, coupled with a disparity in the drug approvals and reimbursement strategies, between the different countries.

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a heterogenous disease caused by various genetic alterations. The BRAFV600E mutation occurs in approximately 8-12% of patients and is characterised by an aggressive clinical course and poor prognosis. Here we review the current knowledge on BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC and provide a series of consensus statements on its clinical management. The treatment landscape for BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC has changed greatly due to the emergence of molecular targeted therapies (including BRAF inhibitors) and immune checkpoint inhibitors. A scientific literature search identified available data on molecular testing, treatments, and clinical monitoring of patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC. Consensus statements were discussed and developed by a European expert panel. This manuscript provides consensus management guidance for different clinical presentations of BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC and makes recommendations regarding treatment sequencing choices. To guide appropriate clinical management and treatment decisions for mCRC patients, tumour tissue analysis for DNA mismatch repair/microsatellite status and, at a minimum, KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF mutational status is mandatory at the time of diagnosis. Finally, we discuss the rapidly evolving treatment landscape for BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC and define priorities for the development of novel therapeutic strategies that are needed to improve patient outcomes.

暂无摘要。

Therapeutic options for metastatic CRC (mCRC) have changed significantly in recent years, greatly increasing the complexity of therapeutic decision-making. Although oncology guidelines have helped improve the care process, guidelines may also limit the flexibility to individualize in-clinic decision-making. This consensus paper addresses specific gaps in the current international guidelines to assist Taiwanese colon and rectal experts make specific therapeutic choices. Over 3 years and three meetings with selected experts on \"real-world\" Taiwanese practice patterns for mCRC, consensus was achieved. The experts also discussed specific questions during in-depth one-on-one consultation. Outcomes of the discussion were then correlated with published evidence by an independent medical writer. The final consensus includes clinically implementable recommendations to provide guidance in treating Taiwanese mCRC patients. The consensus includes criteria for defining fit and unfit intensive treatment patients, treatment goals, treatment considerations of molecular profiles, treatment consideration, and optimal treatment choices between different patient archetypes, including optimal treatment options based on RAS, BRAF, and microsatellite instability (MSI) status. This consensus paper is the second in the Taiwan Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (TSCRS) Consensus series to address unmet gaps in guideline recommendations in lieu of Taiwanese mCRC management. Meticulous discussions with experts, the multidisciplinary nature of the working group, and the final drafting of the consensus by independent medical professionals have contributed to the strong scientific value of this consensus.

The XELAVIRI trial compared sequential (fluoropyrimidine and bevacizumab; irinotecan (Iri) at progression) versus initial combination therapy (fluoropyrimidine, bevacizumab, Iri) of treatment-naïve metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In the confirmatory analysis, the primary end-point (non-inferiority of sequential therapy regarding time to failure of strategy, TFS) was not met. Nevertheless, significant differences regarding treatment efficacy were observed according to RAS status. Here, we evaluate the consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) as additional biomarkers for sequential versus combination therapy.
Gene expression was measured using NanoString after mRNA extraction from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour specimens. CMS were predicted using multinomial regression and correlated with updated data for TFS, overall (OS) and progression-free survival.
CMS were predicted in 337 of 421 (80.0%) patients (CMS1: 18.4%; CMS2: 51.6%; CMS3: 2.7%; CMS4: 27.3%). CMS2 together with RAS/BRAF wild-type status was identified as potential predictive marker of benefit from initial combination therapy for OS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33-0.96, p = 0.036) and progression-free survival (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.29-0.79, p = 0.004) and also trending in TFS (HR 0.63, 90% CI 0.41-0.95, p = 0.066). In patients with RAS-mutated mCRC, CMS1 was associated with longer OS after initial combination therapy (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20-0.95, p = 0.038). Interaction testing (two-sided) of CMS and RAS/BRAF status in favour of the combination treatment strategy was significant for OS (p = 0.012) CONCLUSIONS: In patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC, CMS2 may serve as an additional biomarker of benefit from the initial combination therapy, including Iri.
Trial registration ID (clinicaltrials.gov) NCT01249638.

The SCOPE project aimed to better understand practice patterns, identify drivers for treatment goals, and determine third- and fourth-line treatment choices for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The survey was developed by an expert panel of gastrointestinal oncologists. Questions concerned general practice patterns, and treatment decisions for three hypothetical patient case scenarios. Participants had to routinely manage patients with mCRC. We present results from 629 participants who provided input on patient treatment scenarios (data cutoff: 17/01/2020). Prolonging overall survival (OS; 51%) was the main aim in first line. In third line, quality of life (QOL) was the primary goal (34%). Forty-three percent also cited efficacy-focused goals; 18% and 13% noted prolonging OS and improving progression-free survival as main aims, respectively. For fit and active patients, 89% of respondents considered trifluridine-tipiracil an appropriate third-line treatment; regorafenib (31%) or clinical trial enrollment (29%) were the fourth-line options. For patients with comorbidities and limited caregiver support, trifluridine-tipiracil was the preferred third-line treatment (70%). For KRAS-mutated patients with comorbidities and adverse events who received prior oxaliplatin, 90% considered oxaliplatin rechallenge an unsuitable third-line treatment, mainly due to the risk of cumulative toxicity (75%). In the third/fourth-line settings, trifluridine-tipiracil followed by regorafenib was the most common option (54%); 17% chose regorafenib followed by trifluridine-tipiracil. Efficacy coupled with QOL are important goals in third-line treatment. Daily practice patterns reflect the guideline recommendations in third- and fourth-line settings, with a trend toward using trifluridine-tipiracil versus regorafenib in KRAS-wildtype and KRAS-mutant tumors.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is still a leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States and worldwide, despite recent improvements in cancer management. CRC, like many malignancies, is a heterogeneous disease, with subtypes characterized by genetic alterations. One common mutation in CRC is in the BRAF gene (most commonly V600E substitution). This occurs in ∼10% of patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) and is a marker of poor prognosis.
Herein, we review the clinical and translational literature on the role of the BRAF V600E mutation in the pathogenesis of mCRC, its mechanisms as a prognostic marker, and its potential utility as a predictive marker of treatment response. We then summarize the current evidence-based recommendations for management of BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC, with a focus on recent clinical research advances in this setting.
The current standard therapies for first-line treatment of BRAF-mutated mCRC are chemotherapy with bevacizumab as well as 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) plus bevacizumab in patients with a good performance status. Combination strategies involving mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway blockade have shown promising results for the treatment of patients with BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC. The Binimetinib, Encorafenib, And Cetuximab cOmbiNed to treat BRAF-mutant ColoRectal Cancer (BEACON CRC) study represents the largest study in this population to date and has given strong clinical evidence to support BRAF and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition with the combination of encorafenib plus cetuximab.
The treatment of BRAF-mutated mCRC has evolved rapidly over the last several years. Recently, combination strategies involving MAPK pathway blockade have shown promising results in BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC, and other potential targets continue to be explored. In addition, a greater understanding of the role of BRAF V600E mutation in the pathogenesis of CRC should also continue to fuel advances in the management of patients with mCRC harboring this genetic aberration.

The consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) demonstrated prognostic value in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Similarly, a prognostic impact was suggested for the pre-consensus CRCAssigner (CRCA) classifier in early stages. The potential predictive role of these classifiers with regard to the choice of the first-line therapy has not been established. We investigated the prognostic and predictive impact of CMS and CRCA subtypes among mCRC patients treated in the TRIBE2 study.
Among 679 randomized patients, 426 and 428 (63%) samples were profiled according to CMS and CRCA classifications, respectively. The prognostic and predictive impact of both CMS and CRCA subtypes was investigated with univariate and multivariate analyses for progression-free survival (PFS), PFS 2 (PFS2), and overall survival (OS).
Significant associations of CMS and CRCA subtypes with PFS, PFS2, and OS were demonstrated; the CMS classifier confirmed its independent prognostic value in the multivariable model (P value for PFS/PFS2/OS = 0.01/0.07/0.08). The effect of treatment intensification was independent of CMS subtypes (P value for interaction for PFS/PFS2/OS = 0.88/0.75/0.55). A significant interaction effect between CRCA subtypes and treatment arm was demonstrated in PFS (P = 0.02), PFS2 (P = 0.01), and OS (P = 0.008). The benefit of FOLFOXIRI seemed more relevant in the stem-like (PFS, hazard ratio = 0.60; P = 0.03) and mixed subtypes (hazard ratio = 0.44; P = 0.002). These findings were confirmed in a subgroup of patients of the previous TRIBE study.
We confirmed the independent prognostic role of CMS classification in mCRC independently of RAS/BRAF status. CRCA classification may help identifying subgroups of patients who may derive more benefit from FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab.