EGFR-targeting mAbs are essential for managing rat sarcoma virus wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but their limited efficacy necessitates exploring immunologic and metabolic factors influencing response. This study evaluated glutamine metabolism targeting with EGFR inhibition to identify response biomarkers in patients with prior anti-EGFR treatment progression.

We conducted a phase I/II trial in patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC, combining panitumumab (6 mg/kg) and CB-839 (600 mg/kg or 800 mg/kg), hypothesizing that the dual inhibition of glutamine metabolism and MAPK signaling would enhance outcomes. As study correlatives, we investigated the B-cell activation signature "B-score" and glutamine PET as potential treatment response biomarkers.

The combination of panitumumab and CB-839 was tolerable with manageable side effects, including grade 4 hypomagnesemia in four patients, a known panitumumab-related event. Two patients achieved partial response, and five had stable disease, with a 41% disease control rate. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 1.84 and 8.87 months, respectively. A positive correlation between "B-score" and lesion size reduction suggested its association with clinical benefit (partial response and stable disease). Lower "B-score" correlated with greater tumor avidity for glutamine by PET, indicating B-cell activation sensitivity to glutamine depletion.

The combination of CB-839 and panitumumab showed safety and promising preliminary responses, but the study closed early due to CB-839 development termination. The B-cell activation signature "B-score" emerged as a potential biomarker for EGFR and glutaminase inhibition in mCRC, warranting further studies. These findings suggest opportunities to improve immune response and therapies in glutaminolysis-dependent tumors.

Adding monoclonal antibodies to chemotherapy drastically changed the landscape of advanced colorectal cancer. The prediction of benefit from anti-EGFR therapies is mainly based on the absence of mutations in RAS and BRAF genes, the primary tumor sidedness and microsatellite MSS/MSI status. Molecular hyperselection may optimize the outcome of patients receiving anti-EGFR while detecting additional resistance alterations, both in chemo-naïve and in chemo-refractory settings.

Our review focuses on negative molecular hyperselection, both on tissue samples and ctDNA, and the impact of this further patient selection on response rate and survival outcomes. We searched electronic database, selecting relevant English-language publications from 2017 to 2024.

Negative hyperselection beyond RAS and BRAF in advanced colorectal cancer appears to be a powerful tool for predicting outcomes to anti-EGFR therapy and spare patients from unnecessary treatment. This improvement appears in both naïve and pre-treated patients. However, data come mainly from retrospective studies. Therefore, to validate and integrate these findings in the clinical practice, prospective studies should be conducted. It will be interesting to elucidate the role of ctDNA in this setting and the choice of molecular techniques, considering costs and accessibility, to guarantee its implementation in the clinic.

The combination of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy and chemotherapy is currently a preferred first-line treatment for patients with unresectable, RAS and BRAF wild-type, left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Several studies have also demonstrated the benefit of anti-EGFR therapy in subsequent line settings for this patient population. However, direct evidence comparing the effectiveness of frontline vs subsequent anti-EGFR therapy remains limited, leaving a crucial gap in guiding optimal treatment strategies.

To compare overall survival (OS) between frontline and subsequent anti-EGFR treatment in patients with unresectable, RAS and BRAF wild-type, left-sided mCRC.

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of mCRC patients treated at The King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital and Songklanagarind Hospital, Thailand, between January 2013 and April 2023. Patients were classified into two groups based on the sequence of their anti-EGFR treatment. The primary endpoint was OS.

Among 222 patients with a median follow-up of 29 months, no significant difference in OS was observed between the frontline and subsequent-line groups (HR 1.03, 95%CI: 0.73-1.46, P = 0.878). The median OS was 35.53 months (95%CI: 26.59-44.47) for the frontline group and 31.60 months (95%CI: 27.83-35.37) for the subsequent-line group. In the subsequent-line group, 71 patients (32.4%) who ultimately never received anti-EGFR therapy had a significantly worse median OS of 19.70 months (95%CI: 12.87-26.53).

Frontline and subsequent-line anti-EGFR treatments provide comparable OS in unresectable, RAS/BRAF wild-type, left-sided mCRC patients, but early exposure is vital for those unlikely to receive subsequent therapy.

Matched targeted therapies (MTT) given alone or in combination with systemic anti-cancer therapies have delivered proven survival benefit for many people with newly diagnosed cancer. However, there is little evidence of their effectiveness in the recurrent or late-stage setting. With this uncertainty, alongside the perception that late-stage cancers are too genetically heterogenous or too mutationally diverse to benefit from matched targeted therapies, next-generation sequencing (NGS) of tumours in people with refractory cancer remains a low priority. As a result, next-generation sequencing testing of recurrent or late-stage disease is discouraged. We lack evidence to support the utility of next generation sequencing in guiding matched targeted therapies in this setting.

To evaluate the benefits and harms of matched targeted therapies in people with advanced cancers in randomised controlled trials.

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO-ICTRP) search portal up to 30th October 2024. We also screened reference lists of included studies and also the publications that cited these studies.

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that had enroled participants with advanced/refractory solid or haematological cancers who had progressed through at least one line of standard anti-cancer systemic therapy. To be eligible, all participants should have received matched targeted therapy based on next-generation sequencing carried out on their tumour (tumour tissue, blood or bone marrow).

We systematically searched medical databases (e.g. MEDLINE, Embase) and trial registers for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Outcomes of interest were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rates (ORR), serious (grade 3 or 4) adverse events (AEs) and quality of life (QOL). We used a random-effects model to pool outcomes across studies and compared predefined subgroups using interaction tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment of certainty was used to evaluate the quality of evidence.

We identified a total of 37 studies, out of which 35 studies (including 9819 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. All included studies compared a matched targeted therapy intervention to standard-of-care treatment, non-matched targeted therapies or no treatment (best supportive care): Matched targeted therapy versus standard-of-care treatment Matched targeted therapy (MTT) compared with standard systematic therapy probably reduces the risk of disease progression by 34% (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.74; 14 studies, 3848 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). However, MTT might have little to no difference in risk of death (HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.97; 14 studies, 3848 participants; low-certainty evidence) and may increase overall response rates (low-certainty evidence). There was no clear evidence of a difference in severe (grade 3/4) adverse events between matched targeted therapy and standard-of-care treatment (low-certainty evidence). There was limited evidence of a difference in quality of life between groups (very low-certainty of evidence). Matched targeted therapy in combination with standard-of-care treatment versus standard-of-care treatment alone Matched targeted therapy in combination with standard-of-care treatment compared with standard-of-care treatment alone probably reduces the risk of disease progression by 39% (HR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.53-0.70, 14 studies, 2,637 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and risk of death by 21% (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.89; 11 studies, 2575 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). The combination of MTT and standard-of-care treatment may also increase overall response rates (low-certainty evidence). There was limited evidence of a difference in the incidence of severe adverse events (very low-certainty evidence) and quality of life between the groups (very low-certainty of evidence). Matched targeted therapy versus non-matched targeted therapy Matched targeted therapy compared with non-matched targeted therapy probably reduces the risk of disease progression by 24% (HR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.89; 3 studies, 1568 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may reduce the risk of death by 25% (HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.86, 1307 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was little to no effect on overall response rates between MTT and non-MTT. There was no clear evidence of a difference in overall response rates (low-certainty evidence) and severe adverse events between MTT and non-MTT (low-certainty evidence). None of the studies comparing MTT and non-MTT reported quality of life. Matched targeted therapy versus best supportive care Matched targeted therapy compared with the best supportive care (BSC) i.e. no active treatment probably reduces the risk of disease progression by 63% (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.50; 4 studies, 858 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no clear evidence of a difference in overall survival between groups (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06, 3 studies, 783 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear evidence of a difference in overall response rates (very low-certainty of evidence) and incidence of severe adverse events (very low-certainty of evidence) between the groups. Quality of life was reported in a single study but did not provide composite scores. Risk of bias The overall risk of bias was judged low for eight studies, unclear for two studies, and the remaining 27 studies were high risk.

Matched targeted therapies guided by next-generation sequencing in people with advanced cancer prolongs the time before cancer progresses compared to standard therapies. However, there is limited evidence to suggest that it prolongs overall survival, improves the quality of life or increases adverse events. Importantly, this review supports equitable access to next-generation sequencing technology for all people with advanced cancer and offers them the opportunity to access genotype-matched targeted therapies.

The EXOsome and cell-free miRNAs of anti-EGFR ResistAnce (EXONERATE) study was an open-label, biomarker interventional study designed to develop, test, and validate a liquid biopsy predictive of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) for first-line EGFR inhibitors in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Patients with newly diagnosed RAS wild-type, chemotherapy-naïve mCRC, both right- and left-sided, were enrolled in two nationwide trials to receive cetuximab or panitumumab along with chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was 12-month PFS, which was hierarchically tested in left- and right-sided mCRCs to predict PFS, OS, and ORR.

Genome-wide small RNA sequencing identified 12 cell-free and 14 exosomal candidates that were differentially expressed in both plasma and tumor tissue of good versus poor responders (based on PFS <12 months). The 8 and 9 best performing candidates, respectively, were used to generate the EXONERATE assay. In left-sided mCRC, 65% were EXONERATE-high, correlating with shorter median PFS (9.5 vs. 18.5 months; P < 0.001). In the independent right-sided mCRC cohort, 80.8% were EXONERATE-high and experienced a similarly shorter median PFS (8.6 vs. 41.2 months; P = 0.0004). In the right-sided group, EXONERATE predicted PFS ≥12 months with 100% sensitivity. A linear relationship existed between EXONERATE values and response depth. Multivariate analysis revealed that EXONERATE predicts PFS and OS independently of tumor sidedness.

The EXONERATE assay robustly predicted PFS and OS outcomes in patients with mCRC, both right- and left-sided, before they received either panitumumab or cetuximab. It stratified PFS, OS, and ORR better than a right versus left approach.

The use of targeted drugs and immunotherapy has significantly impacted the treatment of Colorectal Cancer. However, horizontal comparison among various regimens is extremely rare. Therefore, we evaluated the survival efficacy of multiple treatment regimens of targeted therapy and/or immunotherapy with or without chemotherapy in patients with Colorectal Cancer.

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, covering the period from the establishment of the databases to October 29, 2024. To obtain articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and contained the required data for conducting a network meta-analysis (NMA). The NMA evaluated overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

A total of 90 studies were identified, comprising a sample size of 33,167 subjects. In terms of PFS, compared with simple chemotherapy strategies, most of the other single or combined strategies are significantly effective, among which targeted therapy strategies have more advantages. Encorafenib + Binimetinib + Cetuximab (ENC-BIN-CET) shows significant benefits in all comparisons except when compared with Chemotherapy + Cetuximab + Dalotuzumab (Chemo-CET-DAL), Encorafenib + Cetuximab (ENC-CET), and Panitumumab + Sotorasib (PAN-SOT). The ENC-CET and PAN-SOT targeted strategies also show significant benefits. Pembrolizumab (PEM) monotherapy has advantages over all others except when it is not superior to some targeted strategies. Chemotherapy + Bevacizumab + Atezolizumab is only inferior to some strategies. In terms of OS, the combinations of Chemotherapy + Bevacizumab, ENC-CET, Chemotherapy + Panitumumab, and ENC-BIN-CET are superior to simple chemotherapy regimens. ENC-BIN-CET shows OS benefits in all comparisons except some. ENC-CET significantly improves OS in most cases, and PEM also significantly improves OS in some regimens. In the probability ranking of OS and PFS, ENC-BIN-CET has the best effect, followed by ENC-CET.

In conclusion, pembrolizumab is still effective in prolonging survival. Dual- and triple-drug targeted strategies are the best in terms of OS and PFS, and the combination of targeted immunotherapy and chemotherapy also works. However, not all combinations are beneficial. As targeted drugs play an active role, specific drugs for colorectal cancer regimens should be carefully selected.

Targeted therapy, the milestone in the development of human medicine, originated in 2004 when the FDA approved the first targeted agent bevacizumab for colorectal cancer treatment. This new development has resulted from drug developers moving beyond traditional chemotherapy, and several trials have popped up in the last two decades with an unprecedented speed. Specifically, EGF/EGFR, VEGF/VEGFR, HGF/c-MET, and Claudin 18.2 therapeutic targets have been developed in recent years. Some targets previously thought to be undruggable are now being newly explored, such as the RAS site. However, the efficacy of targeted therapy is extremely variable, especially with the emergence of new drugs and the innovative use of traditional targets for other tumors in recent years. Accordingly, this review provides an overview of the major signaling pathway mechanisms and recent advances in targeted therapy for gastrointestinal cancers, as well as future perspectives.

The optimal second-line systemic treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is inconclusive.

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for RCTs comparing second-line systemic treatments for mCRC from the inception of each database up to February 3, 2024. Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) technique was used in this network meta-analysis (NMA) to generate the direct and indirect comparison results among multiple treatments in progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), grade 3 and above adverse events (Grade ≥ 3AE), and any adverse events (Any AE). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was adopted to evaluate the probability of each treatment being the optimum intervention. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the RAS gene status.

A total of 47 randomized controlled trials were included, involving 16,925 patients and 44 second-line systemic treatments. In improving OS, FOLFOX + Bevacizumab + Erlotinib exhibited significant superiority (SUCRA:92.7%). In improving PFS, Irinotecan + CMAB009 (SUCRA:86.4%) had advantages over other treatments. FOLFIRI + Trebananib (SUCRA:88.1%) had a significant advantage in improving ORR. Among multiple second-line treatments, the SUCRA values of FOLFOX + Bevacizumab in PFS, OS, ORR, and PR were 83.4%, 74.0%, 81.1%, and 86.1%, respectively, and the safety was not significantly different from other interventions. Subgroup analyses showed that FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab + panitumumab ranked among the top in survival outcomes in the RAS-mutant population (OS SUCRA: 87.9%; PFS SUCRA: 70.2%); whereas in the RAS-wild-type population, FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab significantly improved survival outcomes (OS SUCRA: 73.2%; PFS SUCRA: 65.1%).

For most people, FOLFOX + Bevacizumab may be the best second-line systemic treatment regimen for mCRC. For RAS-mutant populations, FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab + Panitumumab is recommended. However, the therapeutic effect may be affected by the patient's physiological state, and clinicians should apply it based on actual conditions.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant global health burden, necessitating a thorough understanding of prognostic and predictive factors to enhance patient outcomes. This systematic review aims to comprehensively evaluate prognostic and predictive determinants in CRC, encompassing both traditional and emerging biomarkers. A systematic search of major electronic databases was conducted to identify relevant studies published from 1995 up to 2024. Eligible articles were critically appraised, and data extraction was performed according to predefined criteria. The prognostic determinants examined included clinicopathological features such as tumor stage, grade, and lymph node involvement, as well as molecular biomarkers including RAS, BRAF, and MSI status. Predictive determinants encompassed biomarkers influencing response to targeted therapies and immunotherapy, such as HER2 and Immunoscore. The review also explores novel prognostic and predictive markers, including tumor microenvironment characteristics and liquid biopsy-based biomarkers. Synthesizing evidence from diverse studies, this review provides insights into the prognostic and predictive landscape of CRC, highlighting the potential clinical implications of identified determinants. Understanding the multifaceted nature of prognostic and predictive factors in CRC is imperative for the advancement of personalized treatment strategies and improvement of patient outcomes.

This narrative review explores the efficacy and applicability of anti-EGFR therapy as the first-line treatment for patients with RAS wild-type (WT) left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). It critically examines current guidelines, along with recent evidence in the literature, to assess whether it should be universally applied.

Recent evidences highlight the variability of the response to anti-EGFR therapies due to molecular diversity and several clinical factors, such as RAS mutational status and primary tumor location. Anti-EGFR plus chemotherapy is the standard first-line treatment for most patients with MSS, RAS-WT, left-sided mCRC. Whether this combination is the best treatment for these patients remains an open question. This review delves into the role of EGFR inhibition in mCRC, focusing on clinical factors and the knowledge of biology, molecular targets, and biomarkers. It underscores the crucial role of a personalized approach, empowering healthcare providers and equipping them with the confidence to make informed decisions.

Homeobox B8 (HOXB8) belongs to the HOX family and was essential to the development of colorectal carcinoma. Among the prevalent monoclonal antibodies for treating RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients, cetuximab stands out, but resistance to cetuximab frequently arises in targeted treatments. Currently, the role of HOXB8 in cetuximab-resistant mCRC remains unclear. By comparing drug-sensitive cell lines (SW48) with drug-resistant cell lines (HCT116, CACO2), we discovered that HOXB8 was substantially expressed in cetuximab-resistant cell lines, and furthermore, in drug-resistant cell lines (HCT116, CACO2), HOXB8 knockdown increased the cytotoxicity of cetuximab via blocking the signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) signaling pathway. Conversely, the excessive expression of HOXB8 reduced the growth suppression in SW48 cells caused by cetuximab by triggering the STAT3 signaling pathway. Conclusively, we conclude that HOXB8 has played an essential role in cetuximab-resistant mCRC and that treating HOXB8 specifically may be a useful treatment approach for certain cetuximab-resistant mCRC patients.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. While immune checkpoint inhibitors have significantly improved patient outcomes, their effectiveness is mostly limited to tumors with microsatellite instability (MSI-H/dMMR) or an increased tumor mutational burden, which comprise 10% of cases. Advancing personalized medicine in CRC hinges on identifying predictive biomarkers to guide treatment decisions. This comprehensive review examines established tissue markers such as KRAS and HER2, highlighting their roles in resistance to anti-EGFR agents and discussing advances in targeted therapies for these markers. Additionally, this review summarizes encouraging data on promising therapeutic targets and highlights the clinical utility of liquid biopsies. By synthesizing current evidence and identifying knowledge gaps, this review provides clinicians and researchers with a contemporary understanding of the biomarker landscape in CRC. Finally, the review examines future directions and challenges in translating promising biomarkers into clinical practice, with the goal of enhancing personalized medicine approaches for colorectal cancer patients.

During drug development, evidence can emerge to suggest a treatment is more effective in a specific patient subgroup. Whilst early trials may be conducted in biomarker-mixed populations, later trials are more likely to enroll biomarker-positive patients alone, thus leading to trials of the same treatment investigated in different populations. When conducting a meta-analysis, a conservative approach would be to combine only trials conducted in the biomarker-positive subgroup. However, this discards potentially useful information on treatment effects in the biomarker-positive subgroup concealed within observed treatment effects in biomarker-mixed populations. We extend standard random-effects meta-analysis to combine treatment effects obtained from trials with different populations to estimate pooled treatment effects in a biomarker subgroup of interest. The model assumes a systematic difference in treatment effects between biomarker-positive and biomarker-negative subgroups, which is estimated from trials which report either or both treatment effects. The systematic difference and proportion of biomarker-negative patients in biomarker-mixed studies are used to interpolate treatment effects in the biomarker-positive subgroup from observed treatment effects in the biomarker-mixed population. The developed methods are applied to an illustrative example in metastatic colorectal cancer and evaluated in a simulation study. In the example, the developed method improved precision of the pooled treatment effect estimate compared with standard random-effects meta-analysis of trials investigating only biomarker-positive patients. The simulation study confirmed that when the systematic difference in treatment effects between biomarker subgroups is not very large, the developed method can improve precision of estimation of pooled treatment effects while maintaining low bias.

KRAS mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are used as predictive biomarkers to select therapy with EGFR monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Other factors may be significant determinants of benefit.

Individual patient data from randomised trials with a head-to-head comparison between EGFR mAb versus no EGFR mAb (chemotherapy alone or best supportive care) in mCRC, across all lines of therapy, were pooled. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between groups. Treatment effects within the predefined KRAS biomarker subsets were estimated by adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj) and 95% confidence interval (CI). EGFR mAb efficacy was measured within the KRAS wild-type subgroup according to BRAF and NRAS mutation status. In both KRAS wild-type and mutant subgroups, additional factors that could impact EGFR mAb efficacy were explored including the type of chemotherapy, line of therapy, age, sex, tumour sidedness and site of metastasis.

5675 patients from 8 studies were included, all with known mCRC KRAS mutation status. OS (HRadj 0.90, 95% CI 0.84-0.98, p = 0.01) and PFS benefit (HRadj 0.73, 95% CI 0.68-0.79, p < 0.001) from EGFR mAbs was observed in the KRAS wild-type group. PFS benefit was seen in patients treated with fluorouracil (HRadj 0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.82) but not with capecitabine-containing regimens (HRadj 1.04, 95% CI 0.86-1.26) (pinteraction = 0.002). Sidedness also interacted with EGFR mAb efficacy, with survival benefit restricted to left-sided disease (pinteraction = 0.038). PFS benefits differed according to age, with benefits greater in those under 70 (pinteraction = 0.001). The survival benefit was not demonstrated in those patients with mutations found in the KRAS, NRAS or BRAF genes. The presence of liver metastases interacted with EGFR mAb efficacy in patients with KRAS mutant mCRC (pinteraction = 0.004).

The benefit provided by EGFR mAbs in KRAS WT mCRC is associated with left-sided primary tumour location, younger patient age and absence of NRAS or BRAF mutations. Survival benefit is observed with fluorouracil but not capecitabine. Exploratory results support further research in KRAS mutant mCRC without liver metastases.

The optimal strategy for second-line (IIL) treatment in KRAS wt metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is not determined yet.

A random-effect NMA of phase II/III RCTs was conducted to evaluate IIL treatment for all-RAS wt mCRC, comparing anti-EGFR or anti-VEGF, and chemotherapy (CT).

Overall, 11 RCTs (3613 patients) were included. In KRAS wt patients, PFS was improved with anti-VEGF (HR 0.43) and anti-EGFR (HR 0.63) vs CT. However, anti-VEGF based therapy had the highest likelihood of being ranked as the best treatment in terms of PFS (SUCRA 99.3%) and OS (SUCRA 99.4%). Bevacizumab-based treatment is most likely to be the best treatment in terms of PFS (SUCRA 89.1%) and OS (SUCRA 86.7%).

Second line treatment with anti-VEGF and anti-EGFR improved PFS in mCRC patients, however, anti-VEGF based therapy, particularly CT plus bevacizumab, is the best treatment according to SUCRA in terms of PFS and OS.

This systematic review critically evaluates the impact of systemic treatments on outcomes and quality of life (QoL) in patients with RAS-positive stage IV colorectal cancer, with studies published up to December 2023 across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. From an initial pool of 1345 articles, 11 relevant studies were selected for inclusion, encompassing a diverse range of systemic treatments, including panitumumab combined with FOLFOX4 and FOLFIRI, irinotecan paired with panitumumab, regorafenib followed by cetuximab ± irinotecan and vice versa, and panitumumab as a maintenance therapy post-induction. Patient demographics predominantly included middle-aged to elderly individuals, with a slight male predominance. Racial composition, where reported, showed a majority of Caucasian participants, highlighting the need for broader demographic inclusivity in future research. Key findings revealed that the addition of panitumumab to chemotherapy (FOLFOX4 or FOLFIRI) did not significantly compromise QoL while notably improving disease-free survival, with baseline EQ-5D HSI mean scores ranging from 0.76 to 0.78 and VAS mean scores from 70.1 to 74.1. Improvements in FACT-C scores and EQ-5D Index scores particularly favored panitumumab plus best supportive care in KRAS wild-type mCRC, with early dropout rates of 38-42% for panitumumab + BSC. Notably, cetuximab + FOLFIRI was associated with a median survival of 25.7 months versus 16.4 months for FOLFIRI alone, emphasizing the potential benefits of integrating targeted therapies with chemotherapy. In conclusion, the review underscores the significant impact of systemic treatments, particularly targeted therapies and their combinations with chemotherapy, on survival outcomes and QoL in patients with RAS-positive stage IV colorectal cancer, and the need for personalized treatment.

Tumours of the gastrointestinal tract represent nearly a quarter of all newly diagnosed tumours diagnosed in 2019. Various treatment modalities for gastrointestinal cancers exist, some of which may be guided by biomarkers. Biomarkers act as gauges of either normal or pathogenic processes or responses to an exposure or intervention. They come in many forms. This review explores established and potential molecular/immunohistochemical (IHC) predictive and prognostic biomarkers of the gastrointestinal tract.

Metastatic BRAFV600E colorectal cancer (CRC) carries an extremely poor prognosis and is in urgent need of effective new treatments. While the BRAFV600E inhibitor encorafenib in combination with the EGFR inhibitor cetuximab (Enc+Cet) was recently approved for this indication, overall survival is only increased by 3.6 months and objective responses are observed in only 20% of patients. We have found that a limitation of Enc+Cet treatment is the failure to efficiently induce apoptosis in BRAFV600E CRCs, despite inducing expression of the pro-apoptotic protein BIM and repressing expression of the pro-survival protein MCL-1. Here, we show that BRAFV600E CRCs express high basal levels of the pro-survival proteins MCL-1 and BCL-XL, and that combining encorafenib with a BCL-XL inhibitor significantly enhances apoptosis in BRAFV600E CRC cell lines. This effect was partially dependent on the induction of BIM, as BIM deletion markedly attenuated BRAF plus BCL-XL inhibitor-induced apoptosis. As thrombocytopenia is an established on-target toxicity of BCL-XL inhibition, we also examined the effect of combining encorafenib with the BCL-XL -targeting PROTAC DT2216, and the novel BCL-2/BCL-XL inhibitor dendrimer conjugate AZD0466. Combining encorafenib with DT2216 significantly increased apoptosis induction in vitro, while combining encorafenib with AZD0466 was well tolerated in mice and further reduced growth of BRAFV600E CRC xenografts compared to either agent alone. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that combined BRAF and BCL-XL inhibition significantly enhances apoptosis in pre-clinical models of BRAFV600E CRC and is a combination regimen worthy of clinical investigation to improve outcomes for these patients.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a major global health concern, necessitating an in-depth exploration of the intricate molecular mechanisms underlying its progression and potential therapeutic interventions. Transforming Growth Factor-β (TGF-β) signaling, a pivotal pathway implicated in CRC plays a dual role as a tumor suppressor in the early stages and a promoter of tumor progression in later stages. Recent research has shed light on the critical involvement of noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs) in modulating the TGF-β signaling pathway, introducing a new layer of complexity to our understanding of CRC pathogenesis. This comprehensive review synthesizes the current state of knowledge regarding the function and therapeutic potential of various classes of ncRNAs, including microRNAs (miRNAs), long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs), and circular RNAs (circRNAs), in the context of TGF-β signaling in CRC. The intricate interplay between these ncRNAs and key components of the TGF-β pathway is dissected, revealing regulatory networks that contribute to the dynamic balance between tumor suppression and promotion. Emphasis is placed on how dysregulation of specific ncRNAs can disrupt this delicate equilibrium, fostering CRC initiation, progression, and metastasis. Moreover, the review provides a critical appraisal of the emerging therapeutic strategies targeting ncRNAs associated with TGF-β signaling in CRC. The potential of these ncRNAs as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers is discussed, highlighting their clinical relevance. Additionally, the challenges and prospects of developing RNA-based therapeutics, such as RNA interference and CRISPR/Cas-based approaches, are explored in the context of modulating TGF-β signaling for CRC treatment. In conclusion, this review offers a comprehensive overview of the intricate interplay between ncRNAs and the TGF-β signaling pathway in CRC. By unraveling the functional significance of these regulatory elements, we gain valuable insights into the molecular landscape of CRC, paving the way for the development of novel and targeted therapeutic interventions aimed at modulating the TGF-β signaling cascade through the manipulation of ncRNAs.

There is limited evidence of comparative results among different treatments regarding impacts of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to compare efficacy of systemic treatments on HRQoL among patients with mCRC.

We collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in English up until July 2023, from databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and prominent conference databases, for this Bayesian network meta-analysis. Phase 2 or 3 trials that evaluated at least two therapeutic regimens were included. Primary outcomes were short-term and long-term mean changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL) scores. Secondary outcome was mean change in EQ-5D health utility scores. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as effect size. Subgroup analysis was performed based on whether patients received systemic treatments before. We conducted various sensitivity analyses, including differentiating between chemotherapy types, and analyzed patient cohorts with non-specified gene expression levels as well as those with target KRAS expression statuses. The current systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023453315 and CRD42023420498).

Immunotherapy and targeted therapy significantly improved HRQoL over chemotherapy, with MDs of 9.27 (95% CI: 3.96 to 14.6) and 4.04 (95% CI: 0.11 to 7.94), respectively. Monotherapy significantly outperformed both combination therapy (MD 5.71, 95%CI 0.78 to 10.63) and no active treatment (MD 3.7, 95%CI 1.41 to 6.01) regarding GHS/QoL in the short-term. Combining targeted therapy with chemotherapy did not improve HRQoL. Focusing on HRQoL, cetuximab excelled when gene expression baselines were unspecified. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses upheld these robust findings, unaffected by model or patient baseline characteristics. Evidence from clinical trials without specific gene level data suggested that monotherapies, especially targeted therapies such as cetuximab, demonstrated superiority in HRQoL. For KRAS wild-type patients, no significant HRQoL differences emerged between chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or their combination..

Targeted therapies and immunotherapy demonstrate superior HRQoL benefits, monotherapy such as cetuximab is associated with significant improvements as compared to combination therapy. However, tailoring these results to individual gene expression profiles requires more evidence.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common type of cancer worldwide and has become one of the major human disease burdens. In clinical practice, the treatment of colorectal cancer has been closely related to the use of irinotecan. Irinotecan combines with many other anticancer drugs and has a broader range of drug combinations. Combination therapy is one of the most important means of improving anti-tumor efficacy and overcoming drug resistance. Reasonable combination therapy can lead to better patient treatment options, and inappropriate combination therapy will increase patient risk. For the colorectal therapeutic field, the significance of combination therapy is to improve the efficacy, reduce the adverse effects, and improve the ease of treatment. Therefore, we explored the clinical advantages of its combination therapy based on mechanism or metabolism and reviewed the rationale basis and its limitations in conducting exploratory clinical trials on irinotecan combination therapy, including the results of clinical trials on the combination potentiation of cytotoxic drugs, targeted agents, and herbal medicine. We hope that these can evoke more efforts to conduct irinotecan in the laboratory for further studies and evaluations, as well as the possibility of more in-depth development in future clinical trials.

Advances in molecular genetics have revolutionized our understanding of the pathogenesis, progression, and therapeutic options for treating gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the molecular landscape of GI cancers, focusing on key genetic alterations implicated in tumorigenesis across various anatomical sites including GIST, colon and rectum, and pancreas. Emphasis is placed on critical oncogenic pathways, such as mutations in tumor suppressor genes, oncogenes, chromosomal instability, microsatellite instability, and epigenetic modifications. The role of molecular biomarkers in predicting prognosis, guiding treatment decisions, and monitoring therapeutic response is discussed, highlighting the integration of genomic profiling into clinical practice. Finally, we address the evolving landscape of precision oncology in GI cancers, considering targeted therapies and immunotherapies.

With advances in gene and protein analysis technologies, many target molecules that may be useful in cancer diagnosis have been reported. Therefore, the "Tumor Marker Study Group" was established in 1981 with the aim of "discovering clinically" useful molecules. Later, the name was changed to "Japanese Society for Molecular Tumor Marker Research" in 2000 in response to the remarkable progress in gene-related research. Currently, the world of cancer treatment is shifting from the era of representative tumor markers of each cancer type used for tumor diagnosis and treatment evaluation to the study of companion markers for molecular-targeted therapeutics that target cancer cells. Therefore, the first edition of the Molecular Tumor Marker Guidelines, which summarizes tumor markers and companion markers in each cancer type, was published in 2016. After publication of the first edition, the gene panel testing using next-generation sequencing became available in Japan in June 2019 for insured patients. In addition, immune checkpoint inhibitors have been indicated for a wide range of cancer types. Therefore, the 2nd edition of the Molecular Tumor Marker Guidelines was published in September 2021 to address the need to revise the guidelines. Here, we present an English version of the review (Part 1) of the Molecular Tumor Marker Guidelines, Second Edition.

Surgical resection is the cornerstone of treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) and offers the best chance at long-term survival. Unfortunately, most patients do not present with resectable metastatic disease and, among patients who do undergo curative-intent resection, many will develop recurrence. In turn, patients require a multi-disciplinary treatment approach with a combination of chemotherapy, surgery, radiation, and/or liver directed therapies that is guided by patient disease burden and clinical status. The development of targeted therapies has led to varying success in other cancers and has emerged as a treatment option for patients with metastatic CRC. While cytotoxic chemotherapy aims to kill cells as they replicate, targeted therapies are directed at biologic features of cancers, like angiogenesis or immune checkpoints. Targeted therapy can facilitate a more treatment tailored approach to the unique genomic alterations of the tumor and hopefully deliver more personalized therapy. We herein provide a systematic review of approved targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors for metastatic CRC and provide an overview of the current literature.

RAS mutations affect prognosis in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and have been identified as strong negative predictive markers for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody (anti-EGFR mAb) therapy, but many tumors containing wild-type RAS genes still do not respond to these therapies. Some additional biomarkers may have prognostic or predictive roles, but conclusions remain controversial.

We performed a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing anti-EGFR mAb therapy with alternative therapy that investigated the prognostic and predictive impact of additional biomarkers in RAS wild-type (wt) mCRC patients. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) and odds ratios (ORs) for objective response rate (ORR) were calculated. The prognostic value of biomarkers was investigated by separately pooling HR and OR for different treatment groups in an individual study. The predictive value was assessed by pooling study interactions between treatment effects and biomarker subgroups.

Thirty publications reporting on eighteen trials were selected, including a total of 13,507 patients. In prognostic analysis, BRAF mutations were associated with poorer PFS [HRs = 3.76 (2.47-5.73) and 2.69 (1.82-3.98)] and OS [HRs = 2.66 (1.95-3.65) and 2.45 (1.55-3.88)] in both the experimental and control arms; low miR-31-3p expression appeared to have longer PFS and OS. In terms of predictive effect, a lack of response to anti-EGFR therapy was observed in patients with BRAF mutant tumors (Pinteraction < 0.01 for PFS). Patients with tumors with any mutation in the KRAS/NRAS/BRAF/PIK3CA gene also showed similar results compared with all wild-type tumors (Pinteraction for PFS, OS, and ORR were < 0.01, < 0.01 and 0.01, respectively). While low miR-31-3p expression could predict PFS (Pinteraction = 0.01) and OS (Pinteraction = 0.04) benefit. The prognostic and predictive value regarding PIK3CA mutations, PTEN mutations or deletions, EGFR, EREG/AREG, HER2, HER3, and HER4 expression remains uncertain.

In RAS wt mCRC patients receiving EGFR-targeted therapy, BRAF mutation is a powerful prognostic and therapy-predictive biomarker, with no effect found for PIK3CA mutation, PTEN mutation or deletion, but the combined biomarker KRAS/NRAS/BRAF/PIK3CA mutations predict resistance to anti-EGFR therapy. Low miR-31-3p expression may have positive prognostic and therapy predictive effects. Evidence on the prognostic and predictive roles of EGFR and its ligands, and HER2/3/4 is insufficient.

High tumor production of the EGFR ligands, amphiregulin (AREG) and epiregulin (EREG), predicted benefit from anti-EGFR therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a retrospective analysis of clinical trial data. Here, AREG/EREG IHC was analyzed in a cohort of patients who received anti-EGFR therapy as part of routine care, including key clinical contexts not investigated in the previous analysis.

Patients who received panitumumab or cetuximab ± chemotherapy for treatment of RAS wild-type mCRC at eight UK cancer centers were eligible. Archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue was analyzed for AREG and EREG IHC in six regional laboratories using previously developed artificial intelligence technologies. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

A total of 494 of 541 patients (91.3%) had adequate tissue for analysis. A total of 45 were excluded after central extended RAS testing, leaving 449 patients in the primary analysis population. After adjustment for additional prognostic factors, high AREG/EREG expression (n = 360; 80.2%) was associated with significantly prolonged PFS [median: 8.5 vs. 4.4 months; HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56-0.95; P = 0.02] and OS [median: 16.4 vs. 8.9 months; HR, 0.66 95% CI, 0.50-0.86; P = 0.002]. The significant OS benefit was maintained among patients with right primary tumor location (PTL), those receiving cetuximab or panitumumab, those with an oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based chemotherapy backbone, and those with tumor tissue obtained by biopsy or surgical resection.

High tumor AREG/EREG expression was associated with superior survival outcomes from anti-EGFR therapy in mCRC, including in right PTL disease. AREG/EREG IHC assessment could aid therapeutic decisions in routine practice. See related commentary by Randon and Pietrantonio, p. 4021.

Precision medicine has revolutionised cancer treatments; however, actionable biomarkers remain scarce. To address this, we develop the Oncology Biomarker Discovery (OncoBird) framework for analysing the molecular and biomarker landscape of randomised controlled clinical trials. OncoBird identifies biomarkers based on single genes or mutually exclusive genetic alterations in isolation or in the context of tumour subtypes, and finally, assesses predictive components by their treatment interactions. Here, we utilise the open-label, randomised phase III trial (FIRE-3, AIO KRK-0306) in metastatic colorectal carcinoma patients, who received either cetuximab or bevacizumab in combination with 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and irinotecan (FOLFIRI). We systematically identify five biomarkers with predictive components, e.g., patients with tumours that carry chr20q amplifications or lack mutually exclusive ERK signalling mutations benefited from cetuximab compared to bevacizumab. In summary, OncoBird characterises the molecular landscape and outlines actionable biomarkers, which generalises to any molecularly characterised randomised controlled trial.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies, accounting for approximately 10% of global cancer incidence and mortality. Approximately 20% of patients with CRC present metastatic disease (mCRC) at the time of diagnosis. Moreover, up to 50% of patients with localized disease eventually metastasize. mCRC encompasses a complex cascade of reactions involving multiple factors and processes, leading to a diverse array of molecular mechanisms. Improved comprehension of the pathways underlying cancer cell development and proliferation, coupled with the accessibility of relevant targeted agents, has propelled advancements in CRC treatment, ultimately leading to enhanced survival rates. Mutations in various pathways and location of the primary tumor in CRC influences the efficacy of targeted agents. This review summarizes available targeted agents for different CRC pathways, with a focus on recent advances in anti-angiogenic and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents, BRAF mutations, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-associated targeted agents.

FOCUS4 was a phase II/III umbrella trial, recruiting patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, between 2014 and 2020. Molecular profiling of patients' formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumour blocks was undertaken at two centralised biomarker laboratories (Leeds and Cardiff), and the results fed directly to the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, and used for subsequent randomisation. Here the laboratories discuss their experiences.

Following successful tumour content assessment, blocks were sectioned for DNA extraction and immunohistochemistry (IHC). Pyrosequencing was initially used to determine tumour mutation status (KRAS, NRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA), then from 2018 onwards, next-generation sequencing was employed to allow the inclusion of TP53. Protein expression of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2 and pTEN was determined by IHC. An interlaboratory comparison programme was initiated, allowing sample exchanges, to ensure continued assay robustness.

1291 tumour samples were successfully analysed. Assay failure rates were very low; 1.9%-3.3% for DNA sequencing and 0.9%-1.3% for IHC. Concordance rates of >98% were seen for the interlaboratory comparisons, where a result was obtained by both laboratories.

Practical and logistical problems were identified, including poor sample quality and difficulties with sample anonymisation. The often last-minute receipt of a sample for testing and a lack of integration with National Health Service mutation analysis services were challenging. The laboratories benefitted from both pretrial validations and interlaboratory comparisons, resulting in robust assay development and provided confidence during the implementation of new sequencing technologies. We conclude that our centralised approach to biomarker testing in FOCUS4 was effective and successful.

Among the molecular subgroups of interest in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), innovations are underway for tumors with overexpression of HER2 (Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2). Overexpression of the HER2 protein concerns 2 to 5% of CRC at any stage mainly located in the distal colon and rectum. Diagnosis is based on immunohistochemistry, in situ hybridization with appropriate criteria for colorectal localization, and molecular biology (NGS: next-generation sequencing). Overexpression of HER2 is a predictive factor for resistance to treatments targeting EGFR which are indicated in the case where the tumor is wild-type RAS. It seems to be associated with a poor prognosis of mCRC with a higher risk of brain metastasis. Regarding treatments targeting HER2, no randomized controlled phase III has been published to date. However, several combinations have been evaluated in phase II with clinically meaningful objective response rates: trastuzumab-deruxtecan (45%), trastuzumab-tucatinib (46%), trastuzumab-pyrotinib (45%), trastuzumab-pertuzumab (30%) ou trastuzumab-lapatinib (30%). In this literature review, we present here the current state of knowledge on the diagnostic methods of HER2 overexpression in CRC, the main clinical, molecular and prognostic characteristics, and the efficacy results of the different therapeutic combinations for the patients with HER2 overexpressed mCRC. This justifies, despite the lack of marketing authorization in France and in Europe for agents targeting HER2 in CRC, the systematic evaluation of the HER2 status, as recommended in particular by the NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network).

Cancer is one of life's most difficult difficulties and a severe health risk everywhere. Except for haematological malignancies, it is characterized by unchecked cell growth and a lack of cell death, which results in an aberrant tissue mass or tumour. Vascularization promotes tumor growth, which eventually aids metastasis and migration to other parts of the body, ultimately resulting in death. The genetic material of the cells is harmed or mutated by environmental or inherited influences, which results in cancer. Presently, anti-neoplastic medications (chemotherapy, hormone, and biological therapies) are the treatment of choice for metastatic cancers, whilst surgery and radiotherapy are the mainstays for local and non-metastatic tumors. Regrettably, chemotherapy disturbs healthy cells with rapid proliferation, such as those in the gastrointestinal tract and hair follicles, leading to the typical side effects of chemotherapy. Finding new, efficient, targeted therapies based on modifications in the molecular biology of tumor cells is essential because current chemotherapeutic medications are harmful and can cause the development of multidrug resistance. These new targeted therapies, which are gaining popularity as demonstrated by the FDA-approved targeted cancer drugs in recent years, enter molecules directly into tumor cells, diminishing the adverse reactions. A form of cancer treatment known as targeted therapy goes after the proteins that regulate how cancer cells proliferate, divide, and disseminate. Most patients with specific cancers, such as chronic myelogenous leukemia (commonly known as CML), will have a target for a particular medicine, allowing them to be treated with that drug. Nonetheless, the tumor must typically be examined to determine whether it includes drug targets.

The BEACON CRC randomised controlled trial (NCT02928224) in BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients showed improved overall survival for the combination treatment of encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) with cetuximab (EGFR inhibitor) compared with cetuximab with chemotherapy (FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan) or irinotecan). We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with cetuximab in adult patients with BRAF-mutant mCRC after prior systemic therapy, from the perspective of the French healthcare system.

A partitioned survival analysis model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with cetuximab using data from BEACON CRC (encorafenib with cetuximab and cetuximab with FOLFIRI or irinotecan). For two further comparator treatments (FOLFIRI alone and bevacizumab with FOLFIRI), a systemic literature review identified appropriate clinical trial data for indirect comparison. Piecewise modelling extrapolation was used to fulfil a lifetime horizon in the model. A discount rate of 2.5% was used. Treatment-emergent adverse events ≥grade 3 with an incidence of ≥2% were included, as well as relative dose intensity and utility values.

The effectiveness outcomes of the model were expressed in terms of incremental life years gained and incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. The cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with cetuximab was assessed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results were presented probabilistically to account for parametric uncertainty. Deterministic and scenario analyses were conducted.

The ICER for encorafenib with cetuximab versus cetuximab with FOLFIRI or irinotecan, FOLFIRI alone and bevacizumab with FOLFIRI was €69 823/QALY, €70 421/QALY and €72 336/QALY, respectively. Encorafenib with cetuximab was considered cost-effective compared with the three comparators at a willingness to pay threshold of €90 000/QALY, with probabilities of being cost-effective of 89.8%, 98.2% and 86.4%, respectively.

This analysis showed encorafenib with cetuximab to be a cost-effective treatment in mCRC patients with a BRAF V600E mutation.

Anti-EGFR targeting is one of the key strategies in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). For almost two decades oncologists have struggled to implement EGFR antibodies in the mCRC continuum of care. Both sidedness and RAS mutational status rank high among the predictive factors for the clinical efficacy of EGFR inhibitors. A prospective phase III trial has recently confirmed that anti-EGFR targeting confers an overall survival benefit only in left sided RAS-wildtype tumors when given in first line. It is a matter of discussion if more clinical benefit can be reached by considering putative primary resistance mechanisms (e.g., HER2, BRAF, PIK3CA, etc.) at this early stage of treatment. The value of this procedure in daily routine clinical utility has not yet been clearly delineated. Re-exposure to EGFR antibodies becomes increasingly crucial in the disease journey of mCRC. Yet re- induction or re-challenge strategies have been problematic as they relied on mathematical models that described the timely decay of EGFR antibody resistant clones. The advent of liquid biopsy and the implementation of more accurate next-generation sequencing (NGS) based high throughput methods allows for tracing of EGFR resistant clones in real time. These displays the spatiotemporal heterogeneity of metastatic disease compared to the former standard radiographic assessment and re-biopsy. These techniques may move EGFR inhibition in mCRC into the area of precision medicine in order to apply EGFR antibodies with the increase or decrease of EGFR resistant clones. This review critically discusses established concepts of tackling the EGFR pathway in mCRC and provides insight into the growing field of liquid biopsy guided personalized approaches of EGFR inhibition in mCRC.

Background and Aim: Findings from the literature suggest that the validity of surrogate endpoints in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) may depend on a treatments' mechanism of action. We explore this and the impact of Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) status on surrogacy patterns in mCRC. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for pharmacological therapies in mCRC. Bayesian meta-analytic methods for surrogate endpoint evaluation were used to evaluate surrogate relationships across all RCTs, by KRAS status and treatment class. Surrogate endpoints explored were progression free survival (PFS) as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS), and tumour response (TR) as a surrogate for PFS and OS. Results: 66 RCTs were identified from the systematic review. PFS showed a strong surrogate relationship with OS across all data and in subgroups by KRAS status. The relationship appeared stronger within individual treatment classes compared to the overall analysis. The TR-PFS and TR-OS relationships were found to be weak overall but stronger within the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor + Chemotherapy (EGFR + Chemo) treatment class; both overall and in the wild type (WT) patients for TR-PFS, but not in patients with the mutant (MT) KRAS status where data were limited. Conclusions: PFS appeared to be a good surrogate endpoint for OS. TR showed a moderate surrogate relationship with PFS and OS for the EGFR + Chemo treatment class. There was some evidence of impact of the mechanism of action on the strength of the surrogacy patterns in mCRC, but little evidence of the impact of KRAS status on the validity of surrogate endpoints.