Inoperable de novo metastatic colorectal cancer with primary tumour in situ: Evaluating discordant responses to upfront systemic therapy of the primary tumours and metastatic sites and complications arising from primary tumours (experiences from an Irish Cancer Centre)
- Authors:
- Published online on: December 21, 2021 https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2021.2472
- Article Number: 40
-
Copyright: © Hamed et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.
Abstract
Introduction
According to global cancer statistics, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common type of cancer diagnosed worldwide, accounting for just over 10% of all diagnosed cancers. This is surpassed only by cancers of the lung and breast (the latter in women). CRC is the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality, accounting for just over 9% of cancer-related deaths (1). Approximately 20% of patients with CRC demonstrate metastases at initial diagnosis (metastatic CRC; mCRC), whether detected on imaging or confirmed during biopsy, with up to 80% of such patients deemed unresectable at initial diagnosis (2,3).
Systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment for patients with inoperable CRC. Localized therapy in the palliative setting (namely surgical resection and irradiation of the primary tumour) is commonly limited to patients suffering from primary tumour complications. These can include bowel obstruction, perforation, localized pain and bleeding from the tumour (4,5).
Chemotherapeutic agents typically employed in mCRC consist of the antimetabolite 5-fluorouracil (5FU) (6,7), the pyrimidine analogue capecitabine (8), the topoisomerase inhibitor irinotecan (9) and the alkylating agent oxaliplatin (10). EGFR-targeting monoclonal antibodies include cetuximab (11) and panitumumab (12) for confirmed KRAS/NRAS wild-type tumours and VEGF-targeting bevacizumab (13) and ramucirumab (14), the latter typically in combination with chemotherapy using the FOLFIRI regimen (15).
Oxaliplatin-containing regimens, such as FOLFOX (16,17) or XELOX (18,19) and irinotecan-containing regimens, such as FOLFIRI (20-22) and XELIRI (23-25), have both been established equally effective in terms of progression-free and overall survival as first-line palliative systemic therapy in mCRC (26). Oxaliplatin-containing regimens may be preferred over irinotecan-based regimens as first-line therapy in mCRC due to their slightly more favourable median overall survival and toxicity profiles (21,27,28), including in elderly patients (29).
This may vary in patients for whom either oxaliplatin or irinotecan are contraindicated as first-line therapy due to their varying toxicity profiles. In patients deemed unsuitable for additional oxaliplatin and irinotecan with 5FU or capecitabine (such as patients of advanced age, with co-morbidities or poor performance status), single-agent 5FU or capecitabine may be preferred. Such single-agent 5FU regimens include the Roswell Park (30,31) and QUASAR (32,33) regimens and capecitabine (34,35) in either the adjuvant (36) or palliative (37) setting.
Combined nucleic acid analogue/thymidine phosphorylase inhibitor TAS-102 (tipiracil hydrochloride) (38) and the multikinase inhibitor regorafenib (39) are typically reserved for patients in whom 5FU-based chemotherapy in combination with oxaliplatin or irinotecan has failed (or if the patient is deemed clinically unsuitable to receive these treatments). Depending on the patient, irinotecan- or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy may be rechallenged in the palliative setting if a significant interval has elapsed since completing a previous course of treatment, provided cumulative toxicity allows for this approach (40,41).
The targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors encorafenib and binimetinib may be considered in BRAF V600E mutant tumours in combination with other systemic therapies (42). Immune checkpoint inhibitors are reserved for microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) tumours (43); these include the monoclonal antibody inhibitors nivolumab (44,45) and pembrolizumab (46), which inhibit programmed death receptor 1, and ipilimumab (47), which inhibits cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4.
Tumour heterogeneity exists in mCRC, whether within the primary tumour (intra-tumoural heterogeneity) or between the primary and metastatic tumours (inter-tumoural heterogeneity) (48-50). Intra- or inter-tumoural heterogeneity has been implicated in the mechanisms underlying resistance to systemic therapy (51). Tumour heterogeneity in mCRC can vary during the course of the disease (52).
Inter-tumoural heterogeneity accounts for identifiable discordances in scientifically validated tests of advanced CRC. These discordances may include differentiation of adenocarcinoma (53,54), in which cancer stem cells play a role (55), mutation status (56-59), including KRAS/NRAS (60-62) and BRAF (63,64) status, MSI status (65) and dMMR status (66,67). This may lead to discordances in biomarker profiles between the primary tumour and metastases. Inter-tumoural heterogeneity appears to be more prevalent in mCRC with certain pathological and molecular features, such as confirmed MSI (68,69).
Among diagnosed CRCs, 30-40% of carry a pathogenic somatic KRAS mutation (70), 10% carry a NRAS mutation (71) and 10% carry a BRAF mutation (72). dMMR is identified in 10-20% (73-75) and MSI is identified in 10-20% of diagnosed colon cancers (76,77). Approximately 3% of colon cancers arise from germline mutations leading to MSI (78), a condition known as Lynch syndrome or hereditary non-polyposis CRC. Approximately 1% of cases result from germline defects in the α-fetoprotein gene (79), a condition known as familial adenomatous polyposis. Hypermethylation of the MLH1 gene promoter occurring in tumours with the CpG island methylator phenotype appears to be the predominant somatic mechanism of action of MSI-H in colorectal tumours (80).
Discordant responses between the primary tumour and metastatic sites in mCRC may arise from this underlying heterogeneity between tumour sites. Tumour cells at the metastatic sites may harbour clones that have gained (or lost) mutations advantageous to their survival compared to those residing at the primary site, or vice versa (81,82). These molecular discrepancies in mCRC are not yet fully understood; clonal evolution, cancer stem cells and ‘The Big Bang’ model have all been hypothesized to play a role (83-85).
The incidence of these biomarker discordances in mCRC varies depending on the resources consulted. Part of the literature, including meta-analysis studies, suggests that the rate of biomarker concordance is high between primary tumours and metastases in mCRC (86,87). These studies further suggest that tissues from either the primary tumour or metastatic site are sufficient for confirming the biomarker status of mCRC to help guide the systemic therapy approach (88). However, more recent studies suggest that the rate of these discordances increases if next-generation sequencing is used (89,90). There is high concordance (>90%) between immunohistochemical analysis and molecular testing of dMMR (91).
The rates of molecular discordances between the primary tumour and metastatic sites in mCRC may be as high as 10-15%, depending on the study (86,92). The rate of discrepancies in MSI or MMR status tends to be low (<5%) upon comparison (93,94). The expression of other specific biomarkers, such as programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), may vary more markedly between primary tumour and metastatic sites in up to one-third of patients (95).
Evaluating molecular characteristics between primary and metastatic tumours separately in a single patient with mCRC can demonstrate variable biological behaviour and response to systemic therapy due to these identified subclones (96). Non-genetic factors, such as post-translational modification, epigenetics and the tumour microenvironment, also contribute to this phenomenon. Comparing such predictive or prognostic molecular signatures between the primary and metastatic tumours in mCRC has yielded different results. For example, mutant KRAS status exhibits concordance between the primary tumour and distant organ metastases in up to 90% of patients with mCRC (97). Conversely, comparisons between the primary tumour and lymph node metastases demonstrate lower concordance rates with a KRAS mutant status of ~37% (98).
The role of pre-emptive localized therapies in patients with relatively asymptomatic primary tumours remains controversial and has demonstrated an inconsistent clinical benefit (99-101). Radiation to rectal and rectosigmoid cancer primary tumours has been associated with a reduced risk of death in one retrospective study (102). Previous findings have demonstrated no additional benefit, reduced risk of complications or death when radiation treatment is administered before systemic therapy (103), while other findings suggest that prior resection of the colorectal primary in mCRC offers benefit in selected patients (104). However, this should not be routinely considered in asymptomatic patients, as it offers no additional benefit (105), taking into account the currently available systemic therapies (106).
Materials and methods
Study design
A retrospective review of patients was conducted using ARIA v15.6 software (https://www.varian.com/; supplied by Varian Medical Systems). The terms ‘colon cancer’ and ‘rectal cancer’ were utilized to narrow the search and identify patients suitable for inclusion in the study. Patient records were assessed between January 1st, 2014 and December 31st, 2019. Any patients initiated on up-front systemic therapy prior to January 1st, 2014, or beyond December 31st, 2019, were excluded from the study. Data events (radiological progression and overall survival) were not recorded beyond December 31st, 2019.
Ethics approval was obtained from the local hospital Medical Research Ethics Committee prior to data collection (REC Ref: 113/2020). Patient data were anonymized during data collection and analysis. Informed consent (written or oral) was not required, since this was a retrospective chart review (as outlined per Health Research Consent Declaration Committee Guidelines, Ireland). All data collection procedures followed the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act, 2018.
Patient characteristics
The analysis included patients with a radiologically and pathologically confirmed diagnosis of metastatic de novo mCRC, with the primary tumour in situ treated with up-front palliative systemic therapy. Non-curative status was confirmed through multidisciplinary meeting discussion (in applicable cases requiring discussion with surgical specialists based on imaging findings). Patients considered to have operable/potentially curable mCRC at initial diagnosis per multidisciplinary meeting discussion were excluded from the analysis. Patients with a prior history of early-stage CRC treated with radical management strategies (including surgery or high-dose radiotherapy) were excluded. Patients diagnosed with de novo mCRC requiring up-front localized management strategies for primary tumours (radiotherapy, endoscopy or surgery) prior to palliative systemic therapy were excluded.
Mutation status and response to therapy
KRAS, NRAS and BRAF status were confirmed through next-generation sequencing CRC mutation panel test (107). MSI and MMR status were confirmed using a multiplex PCR approach followed by DNA fragment analysis and immunohistochemistry (using BenchMarckULTRA IHC/ISH by Roche Diagnostics).
The responses of primary tumours and metastases to up-front systemic chemotherapy were observed separately and discordant responses to therapy were documented based on routine interval radiological assessments. Molecular characteristics possibly associated with these discordant responses were also analysed and the incidence of complications from the primary tumours and subsequent interventions were evaluated.
Factors including patient age, sex, primary tumour location, molecular panel status and interval of response to first-line systemic therapy were recorded. Responses to systemic therapy in primary tumour and metastatic sites were recorded separately using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours, v1.1(108). Furthermore, the incidence of complications, types of complications arising from primary tumours and subsequent management strategies for such complications were also recorded, whether this involved conservative management (such as endoscopy, surgery, or radiotherapy, or a combination of these interventions).
Study endpoints
Primary endpoints included documented response rates to first-line up-front chemotherapy (in both primary and metastatic sites) and the rates of discordance between these responses. Primary endpoints also included evaluation of molecular and pathological factors that may be associated with the discordant radiological responses. Secondary endpoints included documenting the rate of complications arising from the primary tumour (during up-front palliative systemic therapy), the types of complications encountered and the management strategies employed.
Statistical analysis
Non-parametric tests were used to compare groups, investigate the statistical significance of the associations and analyse survival (McNamara, Friedman's and Kaplan-Meier analyses). P<0.05 was considered to indicate statistically significant differences.
Results
Characteristics of primary and metastatic tumours
A total of 50 patients were identified and included in the analysis (median age, 62 years; interquartile range, 55-69 years). A total of 30 patients (60%) were male. Primary tumours confined to the right colon (including the caecum, ascending and transverse colon), left colon (including the descending and sigmoid colon) and rectum were observed in 34% (n=17), 44% (n=22) and 22% (n=11) of the patients, respectively (Table I).
 | Table IPatient, tumour and molecular tissue characteristics with associated treatment modalities employed (n=50). |
The most common site of metastasis at diagnosis of mCRC was the liver (n=44, 88%), followed by the lung (n=20, 40%) and peritoneum (n=10, 20%). Only 1 patient had bone metastasis. In 18 (36%) and 2 (4%) patients, the liver and lung were the only sites of metastasis, respectively. Finally, 10 patients (20%) had both liver and lung metastases at diagnosis (Table I).
Metastasis involving one, two and three or more organ sites were present in 23 (46%), 20 (40%) and 7 (14%) patients, respectively, at the time of diagnosis of non-curative mCRC. KRAS, NRAS and BRAF were found to be mutated in 24 (48%), 2 (4%) and 2 (4%) cases, respectively. Furthermore, 2 patients (4%) had synchronous KRAS and BRAF mutations. Only 1 patient (2%) harboured KRAS mutation with MSI, and 5 patients (10%) could not have their mutation panels performed due to insufficient tissue available for diagnosis (Table I).
Treatment and response
All patients received 5FU-based chemotherapy. A total of 28 patients (56%) received concurrent oxaliplatin (FOLFOX regimen) and 17 (34%) received concurrent irinotecan (FOLFIRI regimen) as first-line treatment, with an observed median treatment duration of 17 and 19 weeks, respectively. Furthermore, 3 patients (6%) received concurrent capecitabine with irinotecan (XELIRI regimen) with a median treatment duration of 6 weeks, while 1 patient received single-agent 5FU (QUASAR regimen) for up to 30 weeks (Table I).
VEGR-targeted monoclonal antibody therapy (bevacizumab) was used in 9 patients (18%), whereas EGFR-targeted monoclonal antibody therapy (cetuximab and panitumumab) was used in 12 patients (24%), concurrently with first-line chemotherapy (Table I). Over half of the patients had received one line of systemic therapy for mCRC (n=27, 54%), 11 (22%) had received up to two lines of chemotherapy, and 11 patients (22%) had received three or more lines of chemotherapy (by data cut-off).
Radiological assessment of response to palliative systemic therapy demonstrated significant discordant responses between the primary tumour and metastatic sites. Primary tumours demonstrated disease response (DR), stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD) in 24, 62 and 12% of patients on first-line palliative systemic therapy, respectively.
By contrast, metastatic lesions demonstrated DR, SD and PD on first-line chemotherapy in 36, 18 and 44% of patients, respectively (Table II). Only 18 (36%) of the patients demonstrated concordant responses in both the primary tumour and metastatic sites on first-line palliative systemic therapy. A total of 11 patients (22%) demonstrated discordant responses consisting of SD with DR, n=2 (4%) had PD with SD, and n=18 (36%) had either DR or SD with PD in the primary tumour and metastatic sites respectively (Table III). Discordant responses between the primary tumour and metastatic sites did not vary significantly according to the KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutant (P>0.05).
A total of 15 patients (30%) developed complications arising from the primary tumours during the course of up-front first-line systemic therapy. As regards complications arising from the primary tumour requiring intervention, 6 patients (12%) developed bowel obstruction and 3 patients (6%) developed bowel perforation; an additional 8 patients (16%) developed either pain or bleeding from the primary tumour, necessitating local intervention. Only 1 patient developed a primary tumour-associated abscess requiring drainage and surgical resection. An outline of complications from the primary tumour and the management strategies employed is outlined in Table IV.
Of the 50 patients, 38 (76%) did not develop any complications from their primary tumour requiring intervention while receiving palliative systemic therapy or by the time of data cut-off. A total of 3 patients (6%) initially deemed inoperable/non-curable at diagnosis ultimately proceeded to undergo surgery with curative intent with resection of the primary tumour, metastasectomy, or other local therapies (e.g., radiation) to metastatic sites. These management strategies were undertaken considering marked radiological treatment response following repeat multidisciplinary team meeting discussions.
A total of 5 patients (10%) required emergent defunctioning stoma creation (colostomy or ileostomy) for bowel obstruction, or perforation. A total of 6 patients (12%) required local radiotherapy for primary tumour in situ, most often for rectal bleeding or localized pain. Only 1 patient underwent both stoma creation and local irradiation (Table IV).
Left-sided primary tumours were associated with a significantly higher rate of complications requiring local intervention compared with right-sided tumours (P<0.001), with complications arising in 17 (34%) and 9 (18%) cases, respectively. The median overall survival was 14.0 months (95% CI: 10.0-36.0; Fig. 1). At the time of data cut-off (December 31st, 2019), 7 patients (14%) remained alive, 3 of whom were receiving their third line of systemic therapy, 2 were receiving their fourth line and 2 were off treatment (undergoing active clinical follow-up with radiological surveillance).
 | Figure 1Kaplan Meier curve demonstrating a median overall survival of 14 months (95% CI: 10.0-36.0). |
Discussion
The present study demonstrated that up-front palliative systemic therapy can effectively control primary tumours in patients with de novo mCRC with primary tumours in situ that are deemed inoperable/non-curable at initial diagnosis. However, while up-front systemic therapy with palliative intent is predominantly effective in mCRC with primary tumour in situ, 24% of patients in our study required localized intervention due to complications arising from the primary tumour (on first-line systemic therapy).
Other studies have demonstrated a reduced risk of primary tumour-related complications and the need for emergent surgical intervention with up-front localized interventions prior to undertaking palliative systemic therapy (3,101). Most international guidelines currently recommend combination chemotherapy as the initial treatment for unresectable mCRC with primary in situ (109,110). Local interventions for primary tumours are typically reserved for when complications arise from the primary tumour after palliative systemic therapy has already been employed (including bowel obstruction, perforation, significant pain, or bleeding from the primary tumour) (111,112).
In the present study, higher rates of radiological response were observed in primary tumours compared with metastatic tumour sites. Nonetheless, the rate of complications arising from the primary tumour requiring intervention during systemic therapy remained high (up to 25% of cases in this patient cohort).
In a retrospective study involving 233 patients with mCRC receiving combined chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab as up-front first-line systemic therapy (113), only 7% of these patients required emergent surgical intervention, and 4% required emergent non-surgical intervention (radiation and endoscopic stenting) while on systemic therapy. On the other hand, the remaining 213 patients (89%) never required local intervention for their primary tumour. Another study observed that, among 83 asymptomatic patients with non-curable mCRC treated with first-line chemotherapy (114), only 5% required surgery, while 4% required colonic stenting to manage complications arising from the primary tumour.
Conversely, other studies support prophylactic surgical resection of the primary tumours in non-curable mCRC before undertaking palliative-intent systemic therapy to reduce the future risk of primary tumour complications (2,3,101). One meta-analysis reviewed eight retrospective studies including 1,062 patients (101) and observed that up-front primary tumour resection was associated with reduced rates of primary tumour-associated complications requiring emergent localized intervention and increased overall survival rate. This was compared to patients receiving up-front palliative systemic therapy alone, who were 7.3 times more likely to suffer acute complications requiring localized interventions while on palliative systemic therapy.
Current randomized control trials, such as the SYNCHRONOUS trial (ISRCTN30964555) and the iPACS study (JCOC1007) are comparing up-front palliative chemotherapy alone with up-front primary tumour resection followed by palliative chemotherapy in patients with non-curative mCRC with asymptomatic primary tumours at diagnosis (115,116).
Multiple studies have observed conflicting results when addressing the concordance rates of KRAS, NRAS and BRAF mutation status between the primary colorectal tumour and metastatic sites. While some results showed no significant difference in mutation status (namely KRAS) between the primary tumours and corresponding metastases, others showed discordant results in 4-32% of the patients (16). One study including 305 patients demonstrated a high concordance rate of KRAS mutation status (96.4%) between primary colorectal tumours and corresponding liver metastases (23,24). Mutation status discordance rates of ≤25% between the primary tumour and the lymph node metastases were also observed (117).
There were certain limitations to the present study. Certain patient variables (such as past medical history, ethnicity, dietary history, smoking history, and whether patients did or did not attend a colorectal screening program) were not assessed as part of the analysis, as they were considered to be outside the scope of this study, and due to relatively small patient number. This is further taking into account the small number of patients accrued in this data analysis, which limits the validity of statistical associations observed. Further research (ideally a meta-analysis) is required to assess and, ultimately, validate the associations observed in this study.
In the present study, statistically appreciable rates of discordant radiological responses to up-front palliative systemic therapy were observed between the primary tumour and metastatic tumour sites in patients with inoperable/non-curative de novo mCRC (in up to 60% of our patient cohort). Approximately one-third of the patients demonstrating radiological control of the primary tumour otherwise demonstrated progression at metastatic sites while on first-line up-front single-modality palliative systemic therapy at the first interval restaging imaging.
This has implications for molecular analyses of the tissues obtained from patients diagnosed with mCRC. Our analysis suggests that standard molecular panels performed in mCRC (including KRAS, NRAS and BRAF status with MMR and MSI analyses) should preferentially be performed on tissue from metastatic sites rather than on tissue from the primary tumour.
Up-front localized management strategies, such as palliative radiation to the primary tumour, surgical interventions (including stoma formation) and endoscopic procedures (such as colonic stenting) should be considered in certain patients with inoperable mCRC.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Funding
Funding: No funding was received.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Authors' contributions
RAH: Conception and design of the study, data collection and analysis, writing and drafting the manuscript. SM: Participation in manuscript writing and collection of references. HM and HI: Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. SA: Assessment of radiological responses according to RECIST criteria. RK and GK: Critical revision and editing of the manuscript. NO: Conception and design of the study, manuscript editing and critically revising the work for important intellectual content. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Ethics approval was obtained from the local hospital Medical Research Ethics Committee prior to data collection (REC Ref:113/2020). Patient data were anonymized during data collection and analysis. Informed consent (written or oral) was not required, since this was a retrospective chart review (as outlined per Health Research Consent Declaration Committee Guidelines, Ireland). All data collection procedures followed the General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act, 2018.
Patient consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
|
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomatarum I, Siegal RL, Torre LA and Jemal A: Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 68:394–424. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Clancy C, Burke JP, Barry M, Kalady MF and Calvin Coffey J: A meta-analysis to determine the effect of primary tumour resection for stage IV colorectal cancer with unresectable metastases on patient survival. Annals Surg Oncol. 21:3900–3908. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Kim CW, Baek JH, Choi GS, Yu CS, Kang SB, Park WC, Lee BH, Kim HR, Oh JH, Kim JH, et al: The role of primary tumour resection in the colorectal cancer patients with asymptomatic, synchronous unresectable metastasis: Study protocol for a randomized control trial. Trials. 17(34)2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Tan WJ, Patil S, Guillem JG, Paty PB, Weiser MR, Nash GM, Smith JJ, Pappou EP, Wei IH and Garcia-Aguilar J: Primary Tumour-related complications and salvage outcomes in patients with metastatic rectal cancer and an untreated primary tumour. Dis Colon Rectum. 64:45–52. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
de Mestier L, Manceau G, Neuzillet C, Bachet JB, Spano JP, Kianmanesh R, Vaillant JC, Bouché O, Hannoun L and Karoui M: Primary tumour resection in colorectal cancer with unresectable synchronous metastases: A review. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 6:156–169. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Machover D: A comprehensive review of 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma. Cancer. 8:1179–1187. 1997.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Kurkjian C and Kummar S: Advances in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Am J Ther. 16:412–420. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Leicher LW, de Graaf JC, Coers W, Tascilar M and de Groot JWB: Tolerability of capecitabine monotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: A real-world study. Drugs R D. 17:117–124. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Fujita K, 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 | |
|
Comella P, Casaretti R, Sandomenico C, Avallone A and Franco L: Role of oxaliplatin in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 5:229–238. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Fornasier G, Francescon S and Baldo P: An update of efficacy and safety of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer: A narrative review. Adv Ther. 35:1497–1509. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Battagin F, Puccini A, Djaballah SA and Lenz HJ: The impact of panitumumab treatment on survival and quality of life in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer Manag Res. 11:5911–5924. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Rosen LS, Jacobs IA and Burkes RL: Bevacizumab in colorectal cancer: Current role in treatment and the potential of biosmiliars. Target Oncol. 12:599–610. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Verdaguer H, Tebernero J and Macarulla T: Ramucirumab in metastatic colorectal cancer: Evidence to date and place in therapy. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 8:230–242. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Yoshihiro T, Kusaba H, Makiyama A, Kobayashi K, Uenomachi M, Ito M, Doi Y, Mitsugi K, Aikawa T, Takayoshi K, et al: Efficacy and safety of ramucirumab plus modified FOLFIRI for metastatic colorectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 24:508–515. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Braun MS, Adab F, Bradley C, McAdam K, Thomas G, Wadd NJ, Rea D, Philips R, Twelves C, Bozzino J, et al: Modified de Gramont with oxaliplatin in the first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 89:1155–1158. 2003.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
de Gramont A, Figer A, Seymour M, Homerin M, Hmissi A, Cassidy J, Boni C, Cortes-Funes H, Cervantes A, Freyer G, et al: Leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 18:2938–2947. 2000.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Guo Y, Xiong BH, Zhang T, Cheng Y and Ma L: XELOX vs. FOLFOX in metastatic colorectal cancer: An updated meta-analysis. Cancer Invest. 34:94–104. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Cassidy J, Clarke S, Díaz-Rubio E, Scheithauer W, Figer A, Wong R, Koski S, Rittweger K, Gilberg F and Saltz L: XELOX vs FOLFOX-4 as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: NO16966 updated results. Br J Cancer. 105:58–64. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Saltz LB, Douillard JY, Pirotta N, Alakl M, Gruia G, Awad L, Elfring GL, Locker PK and Miller LL: Irinotecan plus fluorouracil/leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer: A new survival standard. Oncologist. 6:81–91. 2001.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Tournigard C, André T, Achille E, Lledo G, Flesh M, Mery-Mignard D, Quinaux E, Couteau C, Buyse M, Ganem G, et al: FOLFIRI followed by FOLFOX6 or the reverse sequence in advanced colorectal cancer: A randomized GERCOR study. J Clin Oncol. 22:229–237. 2004.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Heinemann V, von Weikersthal LF, Decker T, Kiani A, Vehling-Kaiser U, Al-Batran SE, Heintges T, Lerchenmüller C, Kahl C, Seipelt G, et al: FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer FIRE-3): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 15:1065–1075. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Price TJ: Modified XELIRI (capecitabine plus irinotecan) for metastatic colorectal cancer. Lancet Oncol. 19:587–589. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Yaffee P, Osipov A, Tan C, Tuli R and Hendifar A: Review of systemic therapies for locally advanced and metastatic rectal cancer. J Gastrointest Oncol. 6:185–200. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Suzuki K, Takaharu K, Muto Y, Ichida K, Fukui T, Takayama Y, Tsujinaka S, Sasaki J, Horie H, Kawamura YJ, et al: XELIRI regimen plus continuous treatment with bevacizumab is well-tolerated and effective in metastatic colorectal cancer patients in a second-line setting involving the sequential administration of XELOX and XELIRI. Mol Clin Oncol. 2:827–832. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Kawai S, Takeshima N, Hayasaka Y, Notsu A, Yamazaki M, Kawabata T, Yamazaki K, Mori K and Yasui H: Comparison of irinotecan and oxaliplatin as the first-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 21(116)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Marschner N, Arnold D, Engel E, Hutzschenreuter U, Rauh J, Freier W, Hartmann H, Frank M and Jänicke M: Oxaliplatin-based first-line chemotherapy is associated with improved overall survival compared to first-line treatment with irinotecan-based chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancers-Results from a prospective cohort study. Clin Epidemiol. 7:295–303. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Colucci G, Gebbia V, Paoletti G, Giuliani F, Caruso M, Gebbia N, Cartenì G, Agostara B, Pezzella G, Manzione L, et al: Phase III randomized trial of FOLFIRI versus FOLFOX4 in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: A multicenter study of the Gruppo Oncologico Dell'Italia meridionale. J Clin Oncol. 23:4866–4875. 2005.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Aparicio T, Desramé J, Lecomte T, Mitry E, Belloc J, Etienney I, Montembault S, Vayre L, Locher C, Ezenfis J, et al: Oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in the elderly. Br J Cancer. 89:1439–1444. 2003.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
André T, Afchain P, Barrier A, Blanchard P, Larsen AK, Tournigand C, Louvet C and de Gramont A: Current status of adjuvant therapy for colon cancer. Gastrointest Cancer Res. 1:90–97. 2007.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Patel K, Anthoney DA, Crellin AM, Sebag-Montefiore D, Messruther J and Seymour MT: Weekly 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin: Achieving lower toxicity with higher dose-intensity in adjuvant chemotherapy after colorectal cancer resection. Ann Oncol. 15:568–573. 2004.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Schippinger W, Samonigg H, Schaberl-Moser R, Greil R, Thödtmann R, Tschmelitsch J, Jagoditsch M, Steger GG, Jakesz R, Herbst F, et al: A prospective randomised phase III trial of adjuvant chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with stage II colon cancer. Br J Cancer. 97:1021–1027. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Fotheringham S, Mozolowski GA, Murray EMA and Kerr DJ: Challenges and solutions in patient treatment strategies for stage II colon cancer. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 7:151–161. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Twelves C, Wong A, Nowacki MP, Abt M, Burris H III, Carrato A, Cassidy J, Cervantes A, Fagerberg J, Georgoulias V, et al: Capecitabine as adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 352:2696–2704. 2005.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Cassidy J, Twelves C, Van Cutsem E, Hoff P, Bajetta E, Boyer M, Bugat R, Burger U, Garin A, Graeven U, et al: First-line oral capecitabine therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: A favorable safety profile compared with intravenous 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin. Ann Oncol. 13:566–575. 2002.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Rizzo A, Nannini M, Astolfi A, Indio V, De Iaco P, Perrone AM, De Leo A, Incorvaia L, Di Scioscio V and Pantaleo MA: Impact of chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting of early stage uterine leiomyosarcoma: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel). 12(1899)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Rosales J and Leong LA: Chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 3:525–529. 2005.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Mayer RJ, Van Cutsem E, Falcone A, Yoshino T, Garcia-Carbonero R, Mizunuma N, Yamazaki K, Shimada Y, Tabernero J, Komatsu Y, et al: Randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 372:1909–1919. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Grothey A, Van Cutsem E, Sobrero A, Siena S, Falcone A, Ychou M, Humblet Y, Bouché O, Mineur L, Barone C, et al: Regorafenib monotherapy for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CORRECT): An international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 381:303–312. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Tonini G, Imperatori M, Vincenzi B, Frezza AM and Santini D: Rechallenge therapy and treatment holiday: Different strategies in management of metastatic colorectal cancer. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 32(92)2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Bekaii-Saab T, Kim R, Kim TW, O'Connor JM, Strickler JH, Malka D, Sartore-Bianchi A, Bi F, Yamaguchi K, Yoshino T and Prager GW: Third- or Later-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: Reviewing best practice. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 18:e117–e129. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Kopetz S, Grothey A, Yaeger R, Van Cutsem E, Desai J, Yoshino T, Wasan H, Ciardiello F, Loupakis F, Hong YS, et al: Encorafenib, Binimetinib, and cetuximab in BRAF V600E-mutated colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 381:1632–1643. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Biller LH and Schrag D: Diagnosis and treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A review. JAMA. 325:669–685. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Overman MJ, McDermott R, Leach JL, Lonardi S, Lenz HJ, Morse MA, Desai J, Hill A, Axelson M, Moss RA, et al: Nivolumab in patients with metastatic DNA mismatch repair-deficient or microsatellite instability-high colorectal cancer (CheckMate 142): An open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol. 18:1182–1191. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Smith KM and Desai J: Nivolumab for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 18:611–618. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
André T, Shiu KK, Kim TW, Jensen BV, Jensen LH, Punt C, Smith D, Garcia-Carbonero R, Benavides M, Gibbs P, et al: Pembrolizumab in microsatellite-instability-high advanced colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 383:2207–2218. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Overman MJ, Lonardi S, Wong KYM, Lenz HJ, Gelsomino F, Aglietta M, Morse MA, Van Cutsem E, McDermott R, Hill A, et al: Durable clinical benefit with nivolumab plus Ipilimumab in DNA mismatch Repair-Deficient/Microsatellite instability-high metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 36:773–779. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Zheng Z, Yu T, Zhao X, Gao X, Zhao Y and Liu G: Intratumour heterogeneity: A new perspective on colorectal cancer research. Cancer Med. 9:7637–7645. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Losi L, Baisse B, Bouzourene H and Benhattar J: Evolution of intratumoural genetic heterogeneity during colorectal cancer progression. Carcinogenesis. 26:916–922. 2005.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Molinari C, Marisi G, Passardi A, Matteucci L, De Maio G and Ulivi P: Heterogeneity in colorectal cancer: A challenge for personalized medicine? Int J Mol Sci. 19(3733)2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Buikhuisen JY, Torang A and Medema JP: Exploring and modelling colon cancer inter-tumour heterogeneity: Opportunities and challenges. Oncogenesis. 9(66)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Del Carmen S, Sayagués JM, Bengoechea O, Anduaga MF, Alcazar JA, Gervas R, García J, Orfao A, Bellvis LM, Sarasquete ME and Del Mar Abad M: Spatio-temporal tumour heterogeneity in metastatic CRC tumours: A mutational-based approach. Oncotarget. 9:34279–34288. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Blank A, Roberts DE II, Dawson H, Zlobec I and Lugli A: Tumour heterogeneity in primary colorectal cancer and corresponding metastases. Does the apple fall far from the tree? Front Med (Lausanne). 5(234)2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Eide PW, Moosavi SH, Eilertsen IA, Brunsell TH, Langerud J, Berg KCG, Røsok BI, Bjørnbeth BA, Nesbakken A, Lothe RA and Sveen A: Metastatic heterogeneity of the consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer. NPJ Genom Med. 6(59)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Hirata A, Hatano Y, Niwa M, Hara A and Tomita H: Heterogeneity of colon cancer stem cells. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1139:115–126. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Arakawa K, Hata K, Nozawa H, Kawai K, Tanaka T, Nishikawa T, Sasaki K, Shuno Y, Kaneko M, Hiyoshi M, et al: Molecular subtypes are frequently discordant between lesions in patients with synchronous colorectal cancer: Molecular analysis of 59 patients. Anticancer Res. 39:1425–1432. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Li ZN, Zhao L, Yu LF and Wei MJ: BRAF and KRAS mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer: Future perspectives for personalized therapy. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 8:192–205. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Christensen TD, Palshof JA, Larsen FO, Poulsen TS, Høgdall E, Pfeiffer P, Jensen BV, Yilmaz MK and Nielsen D: Associations between primary tumour RAS, BRAF and PIK3CA mutation status and metastatic site in patients with chemo-resistant metastatic colorectal cancer. Acta Oncol. 57:1057–1062. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Fedyanin M, Stroganova A, Senderovich A, Dranko S, Tryakin A, Polyanskaya E, Popova A, Sekhina O, Rasulov A, Gordeev S, et al: Factors associated with discordance of KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA mutation status in the primary tumour and metastases in patients (pts) with colorectal cancer (CRC). Annals Oncol. 27 (Suppl 6)(VI174)2016. | |
|
Watanabe T, Kobunai T, Yamamoto Y, Matsuda K, Ishihara S, Nozawa K, Iinuma H, Shibuya H and Eshima K: Heterogeneity of KRAS status may explain the subset of discordant KRAS status between primary and metastatic colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 54:1170–1178. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Siyar Ekinci A, Demirci U, Cakmak Oksuzoglu B, Ozturk A, Esbah O, Ozatli T, Celik B, Budakoglu B, Turker I, Bal O and Turan N: KRAS discordance between primary and metastatic tumour in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma. J BUON. 20:128–135. 2015. | |
|
Ardito F, Razionale F, Salvatore L, Cenci T, Vellone M, Basso M, Panettieri E, Calegari MA, Tortora G, Martini M and Giuliante F: Discordance of KRAS mutational status between primary tumours and liver metastases in colorectal cancer: Impact on long-term survival following radical resection. Cancers (Basel). 13(2148)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Estrella JS, Tetzlaff MT, Bassett RL Jr, Patel KP, Williams MD, Curry JL, Rashid A, Hamilton SR and Broaddus RR: Assessment of BRAF V600E status in colorectal carcinoma: Tissue-specific discordances between immunohistochemistry and sequencing. Mol Cancer Ther. 14:2887–2895. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Mas L, Bachet JB, Taly V, Bouché O, Taieb J, Cohen R, Meurisse A, Normand C, Gornet JM, Artru P, et al: BRAF mutation status in circulating tumour DNA from patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Extended mutation analysis from the AGEO RASANC study. Cancers (Basel). 11(998)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Bai H, Wang R, Cheng W, Shen Y, Li H, Xia W, Ding Z and Zhang Y: Evaluation of concordance between deficient mismatch repair and microsatellite instability testing and their association with clinicopathological features in colorectal cancer. Cancer Manag Res. 12:2863–2873. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Haraldsdottir S, Roth R, Pearlman R, Hampel H, Arnold CA and Frankel WL: Mismatch repair deficiency concordance between primary colorectal cancer and corresponding metastasis. Fam Cancer. 15:253–260. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Vyas M, Firat C, Hechtman JF, Weiser MR, Yaeger R, Vanderbilt C, Benhamida JK, Keshinro A, Zhang L, Ntiamoah P, et al: Discordant DNA mismatch repair protein status between synchronous or metachronous gastrointestinal carcinomas: Frequency, patterns, and molecular etiologies. Fam Cancer. 20:201–213. 2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Yaeger R: Heterogeneity in microsatellite instability in metastatic colorectal cancer: Mechanisms and clinical implications. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 17:1263–1264. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
De Smedt L, Lemahieu J, Palmans S, Govaere O, Tousseyn T, Van Cutsem E, Prenen H, Tejpar S, Spaepen M, Matthijs G, et al: Microsatellite instable vs stable colon carcinomas: Analysis of tumour heterogeneity, inflammation and angiogenesis. Br J Cancer. 113:500–509. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Levin-Sparenberg E, Bylsma LC, Lowe K, Sangare L, Fryzek JP and Alexander DD: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis describing the prevalence of KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF Gene mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology Res. 13:184–198. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Hu Y, Tao SY, Deng JM, Hou ZK, Liang JQ, Huang QG, Li LH, Li HB, Chen YM, Yi H, et al: Prognostic value of NRAS gene for survival of colorectal cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 19:3001–3008. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Wang J, Shen J, Huang C, Cao M and Shen L: Clinicopathological significance of BRAFV600E mutation in colorectal cancer: An updated meta-analysis. J Cancer. 10:2332–2341. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Wensink E, Bond M, Kucukkose E, May A, Vink G, Koopman M, Kranenburg O and Roodhart J: A review of the sensitivity of metastatic colorectal cancer patients with deficient mismatch repair to standard-of-care chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies, with recommendations for future research. Cancer Treat Rev. 95(102174)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Wheeler JM, Bodmer WF and Mortensen NJ: DNA mismatch repair genes and colorectal cancer. Gut. 47:148–153. 2000.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Hou JT, Zhao LN, Zhang DJ, Lv DY, He WL, Chen B, Li HB, Li PR, Chen LZ and Chen XL: Prognostic value of mismatch repair genes for patients with colorectal cancer: Meta-analysis. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 17(1533033818808507)2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Kang S, Na Y, Joung SY, Lee SI, Oh SC and Min BW: The significance of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer after controlling for clinicopathological factors. Medicine (Baltimore). 97(e0019)2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Nojadeh JN, Behrouz Sharif S and Sakhinia E: Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. EXCLI J. 17:159–168. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Anele CC, Adegbola SO, Askari A, Rajendran A, Clark SK, Latchford A and Faiz OD: Risk of metachronous colorectal cancer following colectomy in Lynch syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis. 19:528–536. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Duraturo F, Liccardo R, De Rosa M and Izzo P: Genetics, diagnosis and treatment of Lynch syndrome: Old lessons and current challenges. Oncol Lett. 17:3048–3054. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Boland CR and Goel A: Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 138:2073–2087.e3. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Morelli MP, Overman MJ, Dasari A, Kazmi SMA, Mazard T, Vilar E, Morris VK, Lee MS, Herron D, Eng C, et al: Characterizing the patterns of clonal selection in circulating tumour DNA from patients with colorectal cancer refractory to anti-EGFR treatment. Ann Oncol. 26:731–736. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Van Emburgh BO, Sartore-Bianchi A, Di Nicolantonio F, Siena S and Bardelli A: Acquired resistance to EGFR-targeted therapies in colorectal cancer. Mol Oncol. 8:1084–1094. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Yachida S, Jones S, Bozic I, Antal T, Leary R, Fu B, Kamiyama M, Hruban RH, Eshleman JR, Nowak MA, et al: Distant metastasis occurs late during the genetic evolution of pancreatic cancer. Nature. 467:1114–1117. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Ricci-Vitiani L, Lombardi DG, Pilozzi E, Biffoni M, Todaro M, Peschle C and De Maria R: Identification and expansion of human colon-cancer-initiating cells. Nature. 445:111–115. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Sottoriva A, Kang H, Ma Z, Graham TA, Salomon MP, Zhao J, Marjoram P, Siegmund K, Press MF, Shibata D and Curtis C: A Big Bang model of human colorectal tumour growth. Nat Genet. 47:209–216. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Fujiyoshi K, Yamamoto G, Takahashi A, Arai Y, Yamada M, Kakuta M, Yamaguchi K, Akagi Y, Nishimura Y, Sakamoto H and Akagi K: High concordance rate of KRAS/BRAF mutations and MSI-H between primary colorectal cancer and corresponding metastases. Oncol Rep. 37:785–792. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Bhullar DS, Barriuso J, Mullamitha S, Saunders MP, O'Dwyer ST and Aziz O: Biomarker concordance between primary colorectal cancer and its metastases. EBioMedicine. 40:363–374. 2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Ruiz-Bañobre J, Kandimalla R and Goel A: Predictive biomarkers in metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review. JCO Precis Oncol. 3(PO.18.00260)2019.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Zou Y, Hu X, Zheng S, Yang A, Li X, Tang H, Kong Y and Xie X: Discordance of immunotherapy response predictive biomarkers between primary lesions and paired metastases in tumours: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EBioMedicine. 63(103137)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Zou SM, Li WH, Wang WM, Li WB, Shi SS, Ying JM and Lyu N: The gene mutational discrepancies between primary and paired metastatic colorectal carcinoma detected by next-generation sequencing. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 144:2149–2159. 2018.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Guyot D'Asnières De Salins A, Tachon G, Cohen R, Karayan-Tapon L, Junca A, Frouin E, Godet J, Evrard C, Randrian V, Duval A, et al: Discordance between immunochemistry of mismatch repair proteins and molecular testing of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. ESMO Open. 6(100120)2021.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Mao C, Wu XY, Yang ZY, Threapleton DE, Yuan JQ, Yu YY and Tang JL: Concordant analysis of KRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA mutations, and PTEN expression between primary colorectal cancer and matched metastases. Sci Rep. 5(8065)2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Kim KP, Kim JE, Hong YS, Ahn SM, Chun SM, Hong SM, Jang SJ, Yu CS, Kim JC and Kim TW: Paired primary and metastatic tumour analysis of somatic mutations in synchronous and metachronous colorectal cancer. Cancer Res Treat. 49:161–167. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Jesinghaus M, Wolf T, Pfarr N, Muckenhuber A, Ahadova A, Warth A, Goeppert B, Sers C, Kloor M, Endris V, et al: Distinctive spatiotemporal stability of somatic mutations in metastasized microsatellite-stable colorectal Cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 39:1140–1147. 2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Lee CC, Soon YY, Lum JHY, Tan CL and Tey JCS: Frequency of discordance in programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression between primary tumours and paired distant metastases in advanced cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Oncol. 59:696–704. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Gerlinger M, Rowan AJ, Horswell S, Math M, Larkin J, Endesfelder D, Gronroos E, Martinez P, Matthews N, Stewart A, et al: Intratumour heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med. 366:883–892. 2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Molinari F, Martin V, Saletti P, De Dosso S, Spitale A, Camponovo A, Bordoni A, Crippa S, Mazzucchelli L and Frattini M: Differing deregulation of EGFR and downstream proteins in primary colorectal cancer and related metastatic sites may be clinically relevant. Br J Cancer. 100:1087–1094. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
He Q, Xu Q, Wu W, Chen L, Sun W and Ying J: Comparison of KRAS and PIK3CA gene status between primary tumours and paired metastases in colorectal cancer. Onco Targets Ther. 9:2329–2335. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Niitsu H, Hinoi T, Shimomura M, Egi H, Hattori M, Ishizaki Y, Adachi T, Saito Y, Miguchi M, Sawada H, et al: Up-front systemic chemotherapy is a feasible option compared to primary tumour resection followed by chemotherapy for colorectal cancer with unresectable synchronous metastases. World J Surg Oncol. 13(162)2015.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Giacchetti S, Itzhaki M, Gruia G, Adam R, Zidani R, Kunstlinger F, Brienza S, Alafaci E, Bertheault-Cvitkovic F, Jasmin C, et al: Long-term survival of patients with unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases following infusional chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin and surgery. Ann Oncol. 10:663–669. 1999.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Stillwell AP, Buettner PG and Ho YH: Meta-analysis of survival of patients with stage IV colorectal cancer managed with surgical resection versus chemotherapy alone. World J Surg. 34:797–807. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Wang G, Wang W, Jin H, Dong H, Chen W, Li X, Li G and Li L: The effect of primary tumour radiotherapy in patients with Unresectable stage IV rectal or Rectosigmoid cancer: A propensity score matching analysis for survival. Radiat Oncol. 15(126)2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Poultsides GA and Paty PB: Reassessing the need for primary tumour surgery in unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer: Overview and perspective. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 3:35–42. 2011.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Park JH, Kim TY, Lee KH, Han SW, Oh DY, Im SA, Kang GH, Chie EK, Ha SW, Jeong SY, et al: The beneficial effect of palliative resection in metastatic colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 108:1425–1431. 2013.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Simillis C, Kalakouti E, Afxentiou T, Kontovounisios C, Smith JJ, Cunningham D, Adamina M and Tekkis PP: Tumour resection in patients with incurable localized or metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg. 43:1829–1840. 2019. | |
|
Feo L, Polcino M and Nash GM: Resection of the primary tumour in stage IV colorectal cancer: When is it necessary? Surg Clin North Am. 97:657–669. 2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Radiology Assistant: RECIST 1.1-and more. Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors. https://radiologyassistant.nl/more/recist-1-1/recist-1-1. Accessed December 7, 2021. | |
|
Cutsem EV, Cervantes A, Nordlinger B and Arnold D: ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Metastatic colorectal cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 25 (Suppl 3):iii1–iii9. 2014.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Chiorean EG, Nandakumar G, Fadelu T, Temin S, Alarcon-Rozas AE, Bejarano S, Croitoru AE, Grover S, Lohar PV, Odhiambo A, et al: Treatment of patients with late-stage colorectal cancer: ASCO Resource-stratified guideline. JCO Glob Oncol. 6:414–438. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Muratore A, Zorzi D, Bouzari H, Amisano M, Massucco P, Sperti E and Capussotti L: Asymptomatic colorectal cancer with Un-Resectable liver metastases: Immediate colorectal resection or up-front systemic chemotherapy? Ann Surg Oncol. 14:766–770. 2007.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Pędziwiatr M, Mizera M, Witowski J, Major P, Torbicz G, Gajewska N and Budzyński A: Primary tumour resection in stage IV unresectable colorectal cancer: What has changed? Med Oncol. 34(188)2017.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Poultsides GA, Servais EL, Saltz LB, Patil S, Kemeny NE, Guillem JG, Weiser M, Temple LK, Wong WD and Paty PB: Outcome of primary tumour in patients with synchronous stage IV colorectal cancer receiving combination chemotherapy without surgery as initial treatment. J Clin Oncol. 27:3379–3384. 2009.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Seo GJ, Park JW, Yoo SB, Kim SY, Choi HS, Chang HJ, Shin A, Jeong SY, Kim DY and Oh JH: Intestinal complications after palliative treatment for asymptomatic patients with unresectable stage IV colorectal cancer. J Surg Oncol. 102:94–99. 2010.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Rahbari NN, Lordick F, Fink C, Bork U, Stange A, Jäger D, Luntz SP, Englert S, Rossion I, Koch M, et al: Resection of the primary tumour versus no resection prior to systemic therapy in patients with colon cancer and synchronous unresectable metastases (UICC stage IV): SYNCHRONOUS-a randomised controlled multicentre trial (ISRCTN30964555). BMC Cancer. 12(142)2012.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Moritani K, Kanemitsu Y, Shida D, Shitara K, Mizusawa J, Katayama H, Hamaguchi T and Shimada Y: Colorectal Cancer Study Group (CCSG) of Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG). A randomized controlled trial comparing primary tumour resection plus chemotherapy with chemotherapy alone in incurable stage IV colorectal cancer: JCOG1007 (iPACS study). Jpn J Clin Oncol. 50:89–93. 2020.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Adam R, Sobrero A, Van Krieken JH, Aderka D, Aranda Aguilar E, Bardelli A, Benson A, Bodoky G, et al: ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 27:1386–1422. 2016.PubMed/NCBI View Article : Google Scholar |
