There are no systemic treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) whose disease progresses during sorafenib treatment. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in patients with HCC who have progressed during sorafenib treatment. In this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial done at 152 sites in 21 countries, adults with HCC who tolerated sorafenib (≥400 mg/day for ≥20 of last 28 days of treatment), progressed on sorafenib, and had Child-Pugh A liver function were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) by a computer-generated randomisation list and interactive voice response system and stratified by geographical region, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic disease, and α-fetoprotein level to best supportive care plus oral regorafenib 160 mg or placebo once daily during weeks 1-3 of each 4-week cycle. Investigators, patients, and the funder were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (defined as time from randomisation to death due to any cause) and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01774344. Between May 14, 2013, and Dec 31, 2015, 843 patients were screened, of whom 573 were enrolled and randomised (379 to regorafenib and 194 to placebo; population for efficacy analyses), and 567 initiated treatment (374 received regorafenib and 193 received placebo; population for safety analyses). Regorafenib improved overall survival with a hazard ratio of 0·63 (95% CI 0·50-0·79; one-sided p<0·0001); median survival was 10·6 months (95% CI 9·1-12·1) for regorafenib versus 7·8 months (6·3-8·8) for placebo. Adverse events were reported in all regorafenib recipients (374 [100%] of 374) and 179 (93%) of 193 placebo recipients. The most common clinically relevant grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent events were hypertension (57 patients [15%] in the regorafenib group vs nine patients [5%] in the placebo group), hand-foot skin reaction (47 patients [13%] vs one [1%]), fatigue (34 patients [9%] vs nine patients [5%]), and diarrhoea (12 patients [3%] vs no patients). Of the 88 deaths (grade 5 adverse events) reported during the study (50 patients [13%] assigned to regorafenib and 38 [20%] assigned to placebo), seven (2%) were considered by the investigator to be related to study drug in the regorafenib group and two (1%) in the placebo group, including two patients (1%) with hepatic failure in the placebo group. Regorafenib is the only systemic treatment shown to provide survival benefit in HCC patients progressing on sorafenib treatment. Future trials should explore combinations of regorafenib with other systemic agents and third-line treatments for patients who fail or who do not tolerate the sequence of sorafenib and regorafenib. Bayer.

Purpose: The Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest (GONO) conducted a phase III study comparing fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI [irinotecan 165 mg/m² day 1, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m² day 1, leucovorin 200 mg/m² day 1, fluorouracil 3,200 mg/m² 48-hour continuous infusion starting on day 1, every 2 weeks]) with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI). Methods: Selection criteria included unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer, age 18 to 75 years, and no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease. The primary end point was response rate (RR). Results: A total of 244 patients were randomly assigned. An increase of grade 2 to 3 peripheral neurotoxicity (0% v 19%; P < .001), and grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (28% v 50%; P < .001) were observed in the FOLFOXIRI arm. The incidence of febrile neutropenia (3% v 5%) and grade 3 to 4 diarrhea (12% v 20%) were not significantly different. Responses, as assessed by investigators, were, for FOLFIRI and FOLFOXIRI, respectively, complete, 6% and 8%; and partial, 35% and 58%, (RR, 41% v 66%; P = .0002). RR confirmed by an external panel was 34% versus 60% (P < .0001). The R0 secondary resection rate of metastases was greater in the FOLFOXIRI arm (6% v 15%; P = .033, among all 244 patients; and 12% v 36%; P = .017 among patients with liver metastases only). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were both significantly improved in the FOLFOXIRI arm (median PFS, 6.9 v 9.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; P = .0006; median OS, 16.7 v 22.6 months; HR, 0.70; P = .032). Conclusion: The FOLFOXIRI regimen improves RR, PFS, and OS compared with FOLFIRI, with an increased, but manageable, toxicity in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with favorable prognostic characteristics. Further studies of FOLFOXIRI in combination with targeted agents and in the neoadjuvant setting are warranted.

A fluoropyrimidine plus irinotecan or oxaliplatin, combined with bevacizumab (a monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor), is standard first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Before the introduction of bevacizumab, chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) showed superior efficacy as compared with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI). In a phase 2 study, FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab showed promising activity and an acceptable rate of adverse effects.

Background: KRAS codons 12 and 13 mutations predict resistance to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (moAbs) in metastatic colorectal cancer. Also, BRAF V600E mutation has been associated with resistance. Additional KRAS mutations are described in CRC. Methods: We investigated the role of KRAS codons 61 and 146 and BRAF V600E mutations in predicting resistance to cetuximab plus irinotecan in a cohort of KRAS codons 12 and 13 wild-type patients. Results: Among 87 KRAS codons 12 and 13 wild-type patients, KRAS codons 61 and 146 were mutated in 7 and 1 case, respectively. None of mutated patients responded vs 22 of 68 wild type (P=0.096). Eleven patients were not evaluable. KRAS mutations were associated with shorter progression-free survival (PFS, HR: 0.46, P=0.028). None of 13 BRAF-mutated patients responded vs 24 of 74 BRAF wild type (P=0.016). BRAF mutation was associated with a trend towards shorter PFS (HR: 0.59, P=0.073). In the subgroup of BRAF wild-type patients, KRAS codons 61/146 mutations determined a lower response rate (0 vs 37%, P=0.047) and worse PFS (HR: 0.45, P=0.023). Patients bearing KRAS or BRAF mutations had poorer response rate (0 vs 37%, P=0.0005) and PFS (HR: 0.51, P=0.006) compared with KRAS and BRAF wild-type patients. Conclusion: Assessing KRAS codons 61/146 and BRAF V600E mutations might help optimising the selection of the candidate patients to receive anti-EGFR moAbs.

Importance Based on a small retrospective study, rechallenge with cetuximab-based therapy for patients withKRASwild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who were previously treated with the same anti–epidermal growth factor receptor–based regimen might be efficacious. Recent data suggest the role of liquid biopsy as a tool to track molecular events in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Objective To prospectively assess the activity of cetuximab plus irinotecan as third-line treatment for patients withRASandBRAFwild-type mCRC who were initially sensitive to and then resistant to first-line irinotecan- and cetuximab-based therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants Multicenter phase 2 single-arm trial conducted from January 7, 2015, to June 19, 2017. Liquid biopsies for analysis of ctDNA were collected at baseline. Main eligibility criteria includedRASandBRAFwild-type status on tissue samples; prior first-line irinotecan- and cetuximab-based regimen with at least partial response, progression-free survival of at least 6 months with first-line therapy, and progression within 4 weeks after last dose of cetuximab; and prior second-line oxaliplatin- and bevacizumab-based treatment. Interventions Biweekly cetuximab, 500 mg/m², plus irinotecan, 180 mg/m². Main Outcomes and Measures Overall response rate according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Secondary end points included progression-free survival and overall survival and, as an exploratory analysis,RASmutations in ctDNA. Results Twenty-eight patients (9 women and 19 men; median age, 69 years [range, 45-79 years]) were enrolled. Six partial responses (4 confirmed) and 9 disease stabilizations were reported (response rate, 21%; 95% CI, 10%-40%; disease control rate, 54%; 95% CI, 36%-70%). Primary end point was met because lower limit of 95% CI of response rate was higher than 5%.RASmutations were found in ctDNA collected at rechallenge baseline in 12 of 25 evaluable patients (48%). NoRASmutations were detected in samples from patients who achieved confirmed partial response. Patients withRASwild-type ctDNA had significantly longer progression-free survival than those withRASmutated ctDNA (median progression-free survival, 4.0 vs 1.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.18-0.98;P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance This is the first prospective demonstration that a rechallenge strategy with cetuximab and irinotecan may be active in patients withRASandBRAFwild-type mCRC with acquired resistance to first-line irinotecan- and cetuximab-based therapy. The evaluation ofRASmutational status on ctDNA might be helpful in selecting candidate patients. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02296203

Data suggest selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) in third-line or subsequent therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer has clinical benefit in patients with colorectal liver metastases with liver-dominant disease after chemotherapy. The FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX, and FOXFIRE-Global randomised studies evaluated the efficacy of combining first-line chemotherapy with SIRT using yttrium-90 resin microspheres in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with liver metastases. The studies were designed for combined analysis of overall survival. FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX, and FOXFIRE-Global were randomised, phase 3 trials done in hospitals and specialist liver centres in 14 countries worldwide (Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, New Zealand, Portugal, South Korea, Singapore, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA). Chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (WHO performance status 0 or 1) with liver metastases not suitable for curative resection or ablation were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (FOLFOX: leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) or FOLFOX plus single treatment SIRT concurrent with cycle 1 or 2 of chemotherapy. In FOXFIRE, FOLFOX chemotherapy was OxMdG (oxaliplatin modified de Gramont chemotherapy; 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin infusion over 2 h, L-leucovorin 175 mg or D,L-leucovorin 350 mg infusion over 2 h, and 400 mg/m2 bolus fluorouracil followed by a 2400 mg/m2 continuous fluorouracil infusion over 46 h). In SIRFLOX and FOXFIRE-Global, FOLFOX chemotherapy was modified FOLFOX6 (85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin infusion over 2 h, 200 mg leucovorin, and 400 mg/m2 bolus fluorouracil followed by a 2400 mg/m2 continuous fluorouracil infusion over 46 h). Randomisation was done by central minimisation with four factors: presence of extrahepatic metastases, tumour involvement of the liver, planned use of a biological agent, and investigational centre. Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population, using a two-stage meta-analysis of pooled individual patient data. All three trials have completed 2 years of follow-up. FOXFIRE is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83867919. SIRFLOX and FOXFIRE-Global are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00724503 (SIRFLOX) and NCT01721954 (FOXFIRE-Global). Between Oct 11, 2006, and Dec 23, 2014, 549 patients were randomly assigned to FOLFOX alone and 554 patients were assigned FOLFOX plus SIRT. Median follow-up was 43·3 months (IQR 31·6-58·4). There were 411 (75%) deaths in 549 patients in the FOLFOX alone group and 433 (78%) deaths in 554 patients in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group. There was no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·90-1·19; p=0·61). The median survival time in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group was 22·6 months (95% CI 21·0-24·5) compared with 23·3 months (21·8-24·7) in the FOLFOX alone group. In the safety population containing patients who received at least one dose of study treatment, as treated, the most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia (137 [24%] of 571 patients receiving FOLFOX alone vs 186 (37%) of 507 patients receiving FOLFOX plus SIRT). Serious adverse events of any grade occurred in 244 (43%) of 571 patients receiving FOLFOX alone and 274 (54%) of 507 patients receiving FOLFOX plus SIRT. 10 patients in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group and 11 patients in the FOLFOX alone group died due to an adverse event; eight treatment-related deaths occurred in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group and three treatment-related deaths occurred in the FOLFOX alone group. Addition of SIRT to first-line FOLFOX chemotherapy for patients with liver-only and liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer did not improve overall survival compared with that for FOLFOX alone. Therefore, early use of SIRT in combination with chemotherapy in unselected patients with metastatic colorectal cancer cannot be recommended. To further define the role of SIRT in metastatic colorectal cancer, careful patient selection and studies investigating the role of SIRT as consolidation therapy after chemotherapy are needed. Bobby Moore Fund of Cancer Research UK, Sirtex Medical.