Here is a large phase-III well done study confirming what we knew from earlier studies, that ipilimumab plus nivolumab (Ipi+Nivo) is highly active and effective in the microsatellite instability-high metastatic colorectal cancer (MSI-high met-CRC) population. This is most likely more effective than single agent IO therapy but with higher rates of toxicity. When all things are equal, I would consider this to be the standard of care (SOC) in this context.
Patients with microsatellite-instability–high (MSI-H) or mismatch-repair–deficient (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer have poor outcomes with standard chemotherapy with or without targeted therapies. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab has shown clinical benefit in nonrandomized studies of MSI-H or dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer.
In this phase 3 open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer and MSI-H or dMMR status according to local testing to receive, in a 2:2:1 ratio, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, nivolumab alone, or chemotherapy with or without targeted therapies. The dual primary end points, assessed in patients with centrally confirmed MSI-H or dMMR status, were progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with chemotherapy as first-line therapy and progression-free survival with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with nivolumab alone in patients regardless of previous systemic treatment for metastatic disease. At this prespecified interim analysis, the first primary end point (involving nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. chemotherapy) was assessed.
A total of 303 patients who had not previously received systemic treatment for metastatic disease were randomly assigned to receive nivolumab plus ipilimumab or chemotherapy; 255 patients had centrally confirmed MSI-H or dMMR tumors. At a median follow-up of 31.5 months (range, 6.1 to 48.4), progression-free survival outcomes (the primary analysis) were significantly better with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy (P<0.001 for the between-group difference in progression-free survival, calculated with the use of a two-sided stratified log-rank test); 24-month progression-free survival was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64 to 79) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with 14% (95% CI, 6 to 25) with chemotherapy. At 24 months, the restricted mean survival time was 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.4 to 12.9) longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy, a finding consistent with the primary analysis of progression-free survival. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 23% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in 48% of the patients in the chemotherapy group.
Progression-free survival was longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy among patients who had not previously received systemic treatment for MSI-H or dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 8HW ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04008030.)
This Japanese study showed no benefit with the addition of oxaliplatin to fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab (5FU+bev) in patients who were aged 70-74 but unfit, or >=75. Interestingly survival was actually shorter in the patients who received oxaliplatin at 21.3 vs 19.7 months.
Overall survival (OS) improvement was not statistically significant in the study arm but is a non-chemotherapy option. Patients here had tumors with MSS.
Less maintenance is NOT NON-inferior, so it is inferior in patients with wild type BRAF metastatic colon cancer. So it is better to keep on the full regimen. Although, quality of life is better.
Colorectal cancer screening by peripheral blood testing? This cell-free DNA assay had an 83% sensitivity and 90% specificity for advanced neoplasia. However, the issue is that this does not detect precancerous lesions well. Colonoscopy has its obvious advantages as it can both diagnose colorectal cancer as well as eradicate precancerous lesions.
This is a nice, practical study showing that when considering liver directed therapy, options in metastatic CRC, CT’s alone are insufficient and contrasted MRI can be helpful. More than 30% of patients had care that was impacted using MRI prior to any therapeutic decisions.
FCS Hematology Oncology Review creates a platform for our physician network to observe the most recent articles and studies available in the oncology and hematology world. By sharing these articles we are building our wealth of knowledge of new observations and treatments as they come available.
