PURPOSE: To develop recommendations for treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of relevant studies and develop recommendations for clinical practice. RESULTS: Five systematic reviews and 10 randomized controlled trials met the systematic review inclusion criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS: Doublet chemotherapy should be offered, or triplet therapy may be offered to patients with previously untreated, initially unresectable mCRC, on the basis of included studies of chemotherapy in combination with anti–vascular endothelial growth factor antibodies. In the first-line setting, pembrolizumab is recommended for patients with mCRC and microsatellite instability-high or deficient mismatch repair tumors; chemotherapy and anti–epidermal growth factor receptor therapy is recommended for microsatellite stable or proficient mismatch repair left-sided treatment-naive RAS wild-type mCRC; chemotherapy and anti–vascular endothelial growth factor therapy is recommended for microsatellite stable or proficient mismatch repair RAS wild-type right-sided mCRC. Encorafenib plus cetuximab is recommended for patients with previously treated BRAF V600E–mutant mCRC that has progressed after at least one previous line of therapy. Cytoreductive surgery plus systemic chemotherapy may be recommended for selected patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases; however, the addition of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy is not recommended. Stereotactic body radiation therapy may be recommended following systemic therapy for patients with oligometastases of the liver who are not considered candidates for resection. Selective internal radiation therapy is not routinely recommended for patients with unilobar or bilobar metastases of the liver. Perioperative chemotherapy or surgery alone should be offered to patients with mCRC who are candidates for potentially curative resection of liver metastases. Multidisciplinary team management and shared decision making are recommended. Qualifying statements with further details related to implementation of guideline recommendations are also included. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

Colorectal cancer (CRC) has been shown to acquire RAS and EGFR ectodomain mutations as mechanisms of resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibition (anti-EGFR). After anti-EGFR withdrawal, RAS and EGFR mutant clones lack a growth advantage relative to other clones and decay; however, the kinetics of decay remain unclear. We sought to determine the kinetics of acquired RAS/EGFR mutations after discontinuation of anti-EGFR therapy. We present the post-progression circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) profiles of 135 patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic CRC treated with anti-EGFR who acquired RAS and/or EGFR mutations during therapy. Our validation cohort consisted of an external dataset of 73 patients with a ctDNA profile suggestive of prior anti-EGFR exposure and serial sampling. A separate retrospective cohort of 80 patients was used to evaluate overall response rate and progression free survival during re-challenge therapies. Our analysis showed that RAS and EGFR relative mutant allele frequency decays exponentially (r2=0.93 for RAS; r2=0.94 for EGFR) with a cumulative half-life of 4.4 months. We validated our findings using an external dataset of 73 patients with a ctDNA profile suggestive of prior anti-EGFR exposure and serial sampling, confirming exponential decay with an estimated half-life of 4.3 months. A separate retrospective cohort of 80 patients showed that patients had a higher overall response rate during re-challenge therapies after increasing time intervals, as predicted by our model. These results provide scientific support for anti-EGFR re-challenge and guide the optimal timing of re-challenge initiation.

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by providers and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more . PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based guidance for clinicians who treat patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature published from 2013 to 2023 was conducted to identify relevant systematic reviews, phase II and III randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies where applicable. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs, two systematic reviews, and one nonrandomized study met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: Following assessment with magnetic resonance imaging, for patients with microsatellite stable or proficient mismatch repair locally advanced rectal cancer, total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT; ie chemoradiation [CRT] and chemotherapy) should be offered as initial treatment for patients with tumors located in the lower rectum and/or patients who are at higher risk for local and/or distant metastases. Patients without higher-risk factors may discuss chemotherapy with selective CRT depending on extent of response, TNT, or neoadjuvant long-course CRT or short-course radiation. For patients who are candidates for TNT, the preferred timing for chemotherapy is after radiation, and neoadjuvant long-course CRT is preferred over short-course radiation therapy (RT), however short-course RT may also be a viable treatment option depending on circumstances. Nonoperative management may be discussed as an alternative to total mesorectal excision for patients who have a clinical complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. For patients whose tumors are microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficient, immunotherapy is recommended. Additional information is available at http://www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

PURPOSE: Acquired resistance to anti–epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor (EGFRi) therapy in colorectal cancer (CRC) has previously been explained by the model of acquiring new mutations in KRAS/NRAS/EGFR, among other MAPK-pathway members. However, this was primarily on the basis of single-agent EGFRi trials and little is known about the resistance mechanisms of EGFRi combined with effective cytotoxic chemotherapy in previously untreated patients. METHODS: We analyzed paired plasma samples from patients with RAS/BRAF/EGFR wild-type metastatic CRC enrolled in three large randomized trials evaluating EGFRi in the first line in combination with chemotherapy and as a single agent in third line. The mutational signature of the alterations acquired with therapy was evaluated. CRC cell lines with resistance to cetuximab, infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, and SN38 were developed, and transcriptional changes profiled. RESULTS: Patients whose tumors were treated with and responded to EGFRi alone were more likely to develop acquired mutations (46%) compared with those treated in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy (9%). Furthermore, contrary to the generally accepted hypothesis of the clonal evolution of acquired resistance, we demonstrate that baseline resistant subclonal mutations rarely expanded to become clonal at progression, and most remained subclonal or disappeared. Consistent with this clinical finding, preclinical models with acquired resistance to either cetuximab or chemotherapy were cross-resistant to the alternate agents, with transcriptomic profiles consistent with epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition. By contrast, commonly acquired resistance alterations in the MAPK pathway do not affect sensitivity to cytotoxic chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: These findings support a model of resistance whereby transcriptomic mechanisms of resistance predominate in the presence of active cytotoxic chemotherapy combined with EGFRi, with a greater predominance of acquired MAPK mutations after single-agent EGFRi. The proposed model has implications for prospective studies evaluating EGFRi rechallenge strategies guided by acquired MAPK mutations, and highlights the need to address transcriptional mechanisms of resistance.

KRAS and NRAS mutations occur in 45% of colorectal cancers, with combined MAPK pathway and CDK4/6 inhibition identified as a potential therapeutic strategy. In the current study, this combinatorial treatment approach was evaluated in a co-clinical trial in patient-derived xenografts (PDX), and safety was established in a clinical trial of binimetinib and palbociclib in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS mutations. Across 18 PDX models undergoing dual inhibition of MEK and CDK4/6, 60% of tumors regressed, meeting the co-clinical trial primary endpoint. Prolonged duration of response occurred predominantly in TP53 wild-type models. Clinical evaluation of binimetinib and palbociclib in a safety lead-in confirmed safety and provided preliminary evidence of activity. Prolonged treatment in PDX models resulted in feedback activation of receptor tyrosine kinases and acquired resistance, which was reversed with a SHP2 inhibitor. These results highlight the clinical potential of this combination in colorectal cancer, along with the utility of PDX-based co-clinical trial platforms for drug development. Significance: This co-clinical trial of combined MEK-CDK4/6 inhibition in RAS mutant colorectal cancer demonstrates therapeutic efficacy in patient-derived xenografts and safety in patients, identifies biomarkers of response, and uncovers targetable mechanisms of resistance.

PURPOSE: KRAS p.G12C mutations occur in approximately 3% of metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRC). Recently, two allosteric inhibitors of KRAS p.G12C have demonstrated activity in early phase clinical trials. There are no robust studies examining the behavior of this newly targetable population. METHODS: We queried the MD Anderson Cancer Center data set for patients with colorectal cancer who harbored KRAS p.G12C mutations between January 2003 and September 2019. Patients were analyzed for clinical characteristics, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) and compared against KRAS nonG12C. Next, we analyzed several internal and external data sets to assess immune signatures, gene expression profiles, hypermethylation, co-occurring mutations, and proteomics. RESULTS: Among the 4,632 patients with comprehensive molecular profiling, 134 (2.9%) were found to have KRAS p.G12C mutations. An additional 53 patients with single gene sequencing were included in clinical data but excluded from prevalence analysis allowing for 187 total patients. Sixty-five patients had de novo metastatic disease and received a median of two lines of chemotherapy without surgical intervention. For the first three lines of chemotherapy, the median PFS was 6.4 months (n = 65; 95% CI, 5.0 to 7.4 months), 3.9 months (n = 47; 95% CI, 2.9 to 5.9 months), and 3.0 months (n = 21; 95% CI, 2.0 to 3.4 months), respectively. KRAS p.G12C demonstrated higher rates of basal EGFR activation compared with KRAS nonG12C. When compared with an internal cohort of KRAS nonG12C, KRAS p.G12C patients had worse OS. CONCLUSION: PFS is poor for patients with KRAS p.G12C metastatic colorectal cancer. OS was worse in KRAS p.G12C compared with KRAS nonG12C patients. Our data highlight the innate resistance to chemotherapy for KRAS p.G12C patients and serve as a historical comparator for future clinical trials.