Treatment of stage IV colorectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study assessing whether failure of first‑line treatment indicates failure of second‑line treatment

Peyerl,Hanna; Kreye,Gudrun; Pecherstorfer,Martin; Singer,Josef

doi:10.3892/mco.2024.2805

Treatment of stage IV colorectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study assessing whether failure of first‑line treatment indicates failure of second‑line treatment

Authors:
- Hanna Peyerl
- Gudrun Kreye
- Martin Pecherstorfer
- Josef Singer
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, A‑3500 Krems, Austria
Published online on: November 21, 2024 https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2024.2805
Article Number: 10
Copyright: © Peyerl et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most frequent malignancies and, despite screening programs, it is often diagnosed at late stages. Although current first‑ and second‑line therapies stratify for KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutations, microsatellite instability, tumour location and co‑morbidities, the therapeutic mainstay for the first‑ and second‑line treatment of the majority of patients consists of 5‑fluorouracil (5‑FU)‑based chemo‑immunotherapy. The present study evaluated the responses of patients with stage IV CRC, treated at the University Hospital Krems between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2021, who received at least two therapy lines (n=49), with the aim of investigating whether the response to first‑line therapy could predict the response to second‑line therapy. All patients with first‑line complete response (CR) had at least stable disease in response to second‑line treatment [overall response rate (ORR)=66.6%]. On the other hand, all patients with progressive disease (PD) in response to first‑line treatment (n=7) did not respond to second‑line therapy (ORR=0%). These findings also translated to overall survival (OS): Patients with first‑line CR had a median OS time of 80 months, whereas patients with PD had a median OS time of 12 months (P<0.001). Furthermore, different parameters were analysed for their impact on OS; the results revealed that BRAF alterations were associated with poor prognosis. Other factors (sex, tumor sidedness, KRAS and MSS/MSI status) had in this cohort no significant effect on OS. In conclusion, the present study demonstrated that, with current treatment strategies applying 5‑FU‑based chemo‑immunotherapy as first‑ and second‑line treatment for patients with metastatic CRC, response to first‑line therapy may be a strong predictor for the response to second‑line therapy and OS. By exchanging the chemotherapeutic combination partner from oxaliplatin to irinotecan or vice versa, plus the additive anti‑epidermal growth factor receptor/anti‑vascular endothelial growth factor antibody, the negative factor of non‑response to first‑line therapy could not be overcome by second‑line treatment in this study population. These findings must be confirmed in larger studies, but indicate the need for novel treatment options, especially for patients not responding to first‑line 5‑FU‑based chemo‑immunotherapy.

View Figures

View References

1	De Falco V, Napolitano S, Roselló S, Huerta M, Cervantes A, Ciardiello F and Troiani T: How we treat metastatic colorectal cancer. ESMO Open. 4 (Suppl 2)(e000813)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
2	Tharin Z, Blanc J, Alaoui IC, Bertaut A and Ghiringhelli F: Influence of first line chemotherapy strategy depending on primary tumor location in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Gastrointest Oncol. 12:1509–1517. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
3	Ogura T, Kakuta M, Yatsuoka T, Nishimura Y, Sakamoto H, Yamaguchi K, Tanabe M, Tanaka Y and Akagi K: Clinico-pathological characteristics and prognostic impact of colorectal cancers with NRAS mutations. Oncol Rep. 32:50–56. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
4	Network NCC. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Colon Cancer. In. 2022.
5	Tejpar S, Stintzing S, Ciardiello F, Tabernero J, Van Cutsem E, Beier F, Esser R, Lenz HJ and Heinemann V: Prognostic and predictive relevance of primary tumor location in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: Retrospective analyses of the CRYSTAL and FIRE-3 trials. JAMA Oncol. 3:194–201. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
6	Antoniotti C, Borelli B, Rossini D, Pietrantonio F, Morano F, Salvatore L, Lonardi S, Marmorino F, Tamberi S, Corallo S, et al: AtezoTRIBE: A randomised phase II study of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab alone or in combination with atezolizumab as initial therapy for patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer. 20(683)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
7	Vodenkova S, Buchler T, Cervena K, Veskrnova V, Vodicka P and Vymetalkova V: 5-fluorouracil and other fluoropyrimidines in colorectal cancer: Past, present and future. Pharmacol Ther. 206(107447)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
8	Culy CR, Clemett D and Wiseman LR: Oxaliplatin. A review of its pharmacological properties and clinical efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer and its potential in other malignancies. Drugs. 60:895–924. 2000.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
9	Fujita KI, Kubota Y, Ishida H and Sasaki Y: Irinotecan, a key chemotherapeutic drug for metastatic colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 21:12234–12248. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
10	Cervantes A, Adam R, Roselló S, Arnold D, Normanno N, Taïeb J, Seligmann J, De Baere T, Osterlund P, Yoshino T, et al: Metastatic colorectal cancer: ESMO clinical practice guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 34:10–32. 2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
11	Aparicio J, Virgili Manrique AC, Capdevila J, Muñoz Boza F, Galván P, Richart P, Oliveres H, Páez D, Hernando J, Serrano S, et al: Randomized phase II trial of FOLFIRI-panitumumab compared with FOLFIRI alone in patients with RAS wild-type circulating tumor DNA metastatic colorectal cancer beyond progression to first-line FOLFOX-panitumumab: the BEYOND study (GEMCAD 17-01). Clin Transl Oncol. 24:2155–2165. 2022.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
12	Dariya B, Aliya S, Merchant N, Alam A and Nagaraju GP: Colorectal cancer biology, diagnosis, and therapeutic approaches. Crit Rev Oncog. 25:71–94. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
13	Bukowski K, Kciuk M and Kontek R: Mechanisms of multidrug resistance in cancer chemotherapy. Int J Mol Sci. 21(3233)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
14	Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, Verweij J, Van Glabbeke M, van Oosterom AT, Christian MC and Gwyther SG: New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European organization for research and treatment of cancer, national cancer institute of the united states, national cancer institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 92:205–216. 2000.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
15	Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, Dancey J, Arbuck S, Gwyther S, Mooney M, et al: New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 45:228–247. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
16	Tirumani SH, Kim KW, Nishino M, Howard SA, Krajewski KM, Jagannathan JP, Cleary JM, Ramaiya NH and Shinagare AB: Update on the role of imaging in management of metastatic colorectal cancer. Radiographics. 34:1908–1928. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
17	Campos Gudiño R, McManus KJ and Hombach-Klonisch S: Aberrant HMGA2 expression sustains genome instability that promotes metastasis and therapeutic resistance in colorectal cancer. Cancers (Basel). 15(1735)2023.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
18	Hammond WA, Swaika A and Mody K: Pharmacologic resistance in colorectal cancer: A review. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 8:57–84. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
19	Yu H, Lim HH, Tjokro NO, Sathiyanathan P, Natarajan S, Chew TW, Klonisch T, Goodman SD, Surana U and Dröge P: Chaperoning HMGA2 protein protects stalled replication forks in stem and cancer cells. Cell Rep. 6:684–697. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
20	Summer H, Li O, Bao Q, Zhan L, Peter S, Sathiyanathan P, Henderson D, Klonisch T, Goodman SD and Dröge P: HMGA2 exhibits dRP/AP site cleavage activity and protects cancer cells from DNA-damage-induced cytotoxicity during chemotherapy. Nucleic Acids Res. 37:4371–4384. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
21	Deng X, Kong F, Li S, Jiang H, Dong L, Xu X, Zhang X, Yuan H, Xu Y, Chu Y, et al: A KLF4/PiHL/EZH2/HMGA2 regulatory axis and its function in promoting oxaliplatin-resistance of colorectal cancer. Cell Death Dis. 12(485)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
22	Peter S, Yu H, Ivanyi-Nagy R and Dröge P: Cell-based high-throughput compound screening reveals functional interaction between oncofetal HMGA2 and topoisomerase I. Nucleic Acids Res. 44(e162)2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar
23	Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM, Arain MA, Chen YJ, Ciombor KK, Cohen S, Cooper HS, Deming D, Farkas L, et al: Colon cancer, version 2.2021, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 19:329–359. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar