Metastatic Colon Cancer, Version 3.2013

Featured Updates to the NCCN Guidelines

Authors: Al B. Benson III MD 1 , Tanios Bekaii-Saab MD 1 , Emily Chan MD, PhD 1 , Yi-Jen Chen MD, PhD 1 , Michael A. Choti MD, MBA 1 , Harry S. Cooper MD 1 , Paul F. Engstrom MD 1 , Peter C. Enzinger MD 1 , Marwan G. Fakih MD 1 , Moon J. Fenton MD, PhD 1 , Charles S. Fuchs MD, MPH 1 , Jean L. Grem MD 1 , Steven Hunt MD 1 , Ahmed Kamel MD 1 , Lucille A. Leong MD 1 , Edward Lin MD 1 , Kilian Salerno May MD 1 , Mary F. Mulcahy MD 1 , Kate Murphy BA 1 , Eric Rohren MD, PhD 1 , David P. Ryan MD 1 , Leonard Saltz MD 1 , Sunil Sharma MD 1 , David Shibata MD 1 , John M. Skibber MD 1 , William Small Jr MD 1 , Constantinos T. Sofocleous MD, PhD 1 , Alan P. Venook MD 1 , Christopher G. Willett MD 1 , Kristina M. Gregory RN, MSN, OCN 1 and Deborah A. Freedman-Cass PhD 1
View More View Less
  • 1 From Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University; The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute; Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center; City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins; Fox Chase Cancer Center; Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center; University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center; St. Jude Children's Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center; UNMC Eppley Cancer Center at The Nebraska Medical Center; Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine; University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance; Roswell Park Cancer Institute; Fight Colorectal Cancer; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center; Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah; Moffitt Cancer Center; UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center; Duke Cancer Institute; and National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
Volume/Issue:
Volume 11: Issue 2
Online Publication Date:
Feb 2013
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2013.0022
Full access

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colon Cancer begin with the clinical presentation of the patient to the primary care physician or gastroenterologist and address diagnosis, pathologic staging, surgical management, perioperative treatment, patient surveillance, management of recurrent and metastatic disease, and survivorship. The NCCN Colon Cancer Panel meets annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions and to reevaluate and update their recommendations. In addition, the panel has interim conferences as new data necessitate. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the NCCN Colon Cancer Panel's discussions surrounding metastatic colorectal cancer for the 2013 update of the guidelines. Importantly, changes were made to the continuum of care for patients with advanced or metastatic disease, including new drugs and an additional line of therapy.

NCCN: Continuing Education

Accreditation Statement

This activity has been designated to meet the educational needs of physicians, nurses, and pharmacists involved in the management of patients with cancer. There is no fee for this article. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians. NCCN designates this journal-based CE activity for a maximum of 1.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

NCCN is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the American Nurses Credentialing Center‘s Commission on Accreditation.

This activity is approved for 1.0 contact hour. Approval as a provider refers to recognition of educational activities only and does not imply ANCC Commission on Accreditation approval or endorsement of any product. Accredited status does not imply endorsement by the provider of the education activity (NCCN). Kristina M. Gregory, RN, MSN, OCN, is our nurse planner for this educational activity.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education as a provider of continuing pharmacy education. NCCN designates this continuing education activity for 1.0 contact hour(s) (0.1 CEUs) of continuing education credit in states that recognize ACPE accredited providers. This is a knowledge-based activity. UAN: 0836-0000-13-010-H01-P

All clinicians completing this activity will be issued a certificate of participation. To participate in this journal CE activity: 1) review the learning objectives and author disclosures; 2) study the education content; 3) take the posttest with a 70% minimum passing score and complete the evaluation at http://education.nccn.org/node/11592; and 4) view/print certificate.

Release date: February 18, 2013; Expiration date: February 18, 2014

Learning Objectives:

Upon completion of this activity, participants will be able to:

  • Integrate into professional practice the updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer
  • Describe the rationale behind the decision-making process for developing the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer

F1NCCN Guidelines Insights: Metastatic Colon Cancer, Version 3.2013

Version 3.2013 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2013, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 11, 2; 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0022

NCCN Categories of Evidence and Consensus

Category 1: Based upon high-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.

Category 2A: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is uniform NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate.

Category 2B: Based upon lower-level evidence, there is NCCN consensus that the intervention is appropriate. Category 3: Based upon any level of evidence, there is major NCCN disagreement that the intervention is appropriate.

All recommendations are category 2A unless otherwise noted.

Clinical trials: NCCN believes that the best management for any cancer patient is in a clinical trial. Participation in clinical trials is especially encouraged.

Overview

Colorectal cancer is the fourth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States. In 2012, an estimated 103,170 new cases of colon cancer and approximately 40,290 cases of rectal cancer occurred. During the same year, an estimated 51,690 people died of these cancers combined.1 Despite these high numbers, the incidence of colon and rectal cancers per 100,000 people has decreased from 60.5 in 1976 to 46.4 in 2005.2 In addition, mortality from colorectal cancer has decreased by almost 35% from 1990 to 2007,3 likely because of earlier diagnosis through screening and better treatment modalities.

Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: Cytoreductive Surgery and Perioperative Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy

Approximately 17% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer have peritoneal carcinomatosis,

F2NCCN Guidelines Insights: Metastatic Colon Cancer, Version 3.2013

Version 3.2013 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2013, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 11, 2; 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0022

with 2% having the peritoneum as the only site of metastasis.4 The goal of treatment for most abdominal/peritoneal metastases is palliative, rather than curative, and consists of systemic therapy (see “Chemotherapy for Advanced or Metastatic Disease,” pages 144–147 [COL-C] and in the full guidelines, available at NCCN.org) with palliative surgery or stenting if needed (see page 143 [COL-5, -7, -8]). Patients with peritoneal metastases generally have shorter progression-free and overall survivals than those without peritoneal involvement.4

The panel discussed the data regarding cytoreductive surgery (ie, peritoneal stripping surgery) and perioperative hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis without extraabdominal metastases. Several surgical series have addressed the role of this procedure in this setting.5-9 In the only randomized controlled trial involving this approach, Verwaal et al10 randomized 105 patients to either standard therapy (5-FU/leucovorin [LV] with or without palliative surgery) or aggressive cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC with mitomycin C; postoperative 5-FU/LV was given to 33 of 47 patients. Overall survival was 12.6 months in the standard arm and 22.3 months in the HIPEC arm (P=.032). However, treatment-related morbidity was high, and the mortality was 8% in the HIPEC group, mostly related to bowel leakage. In addition, long-term survival does not seem to be improved by this treatment as seen in follow-up results.11 Importantly, this trial was performed without oxaliplatin, irinotecan, or molecularly targeted agents. The panel agreed with experts who have argued that the overall survival difference might have been much smaller if these agents were used (ie, the control group would have had better outcomes).12

Other criticisms of the Verwaal trial have been published.12 One important point discussed by the panel is that the trial included patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of appendiceal origin, a group

F3NCCN Guidelines Insights: Metastatic Colon Cancer, Version 3.2013

Version 3.2013 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2013, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 11, 2; 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0022

that has seen greater benefit with the cytoreductive surgery/HIPEC approach.5,8,13 A retrospective multicenter cohort study reported overall median survival times of 30 and 77 months for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal origin and appendiceal origin, respectively.8 The overall median survival time for patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei, which arises from mucinous appendiceal carcinomas, was not reached at the time of publication.8 A recent retrospective international registry study reported 10- and 15-year survival rates of 63% and 59% in patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei from mucinous appendiceal carcinomas, respectively, treated with cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC, suggesting that the approach is beneficial in this population.14

The panel noted that the individual components of this approach have not been well studied. In fact, studies in rats have suggested that the hyperthermia component of the treatment is irrelevant.15 Results of a retrospective cohort study also suggest that heat may not affect outcomes from the procedure.6 In addition, the panel expressed concerns about the significant morbidity and mortality associated with this procedure. A 2006 meta-analysis of 2 randomized controlled trials and 12 other studies reported morbidity rates ranging from 23% to 44% and mortality rates ranging from 0% to 12%.9 Although the risks are reportedly decreasing with time (ie, recent studies report 1%–5% mortality rates at centers of excellence12), the benefits of the approach have not been definitively shown. Therefore, the panel reaffirmed their previous recommendation that the treatment of disseminated carcinomatosis of colorectal cancer with cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC should be considered investigational (see footnote “ee,” page 143 [COL-5, -7, -8]). The panel does not endorse this therapy outside of a clinical trial. However, it does recognize the need for randomized clinical trials

F4NCCN Guidelines Insights: Metastatic Colon Cancer, Version 3.2013

Version 3.2013 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2013, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 11, 2; 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0022

that will address the risks and benefits associated with each of these modalities.

Management of the Primary Tumor in the Setting of Unresectable Metastases

The panel discussed results from a recent pooled analysis of patients from 4 randomized trials suggesting that patients may experience some benefit in both overall and progression-free survival from resection of the primary tumor in the setting of unresectable colorectal metastases.16 Other retrospective analyses also have shown a potential benefit to this approach.17,18 On the other hand, the prospective, multicenter phase II NSABP C-10 trial showed that patients with an asymptomatic primary colon tumor and unresectable metastatic disease who received mFOLFOX6 with bevacizumab experienced an acceptable level of morbidity without upfront resection of the primary tumor.19 The median overall survival was 19.9 months. Notably, symptomatic improvement in the primary is often seen with systemic chemotherapy even within the first 1 to 2 weeks. Furthermore, complications from the intact primary lesion are uncommon in these circumstances,20 and its removal delays initiation of systemic chemotherapy. In fact, a recent systematic review concluded that resection of the primary does not reduce complications, nor does it improve overall survival.21 Overall, the panel believes that the risks of surgery outweigh the possible benefits of resection of asymptomatic primary tumors in the setting of unresectable colorectal metastases. Therefore, the panel maintained their recommendation that palliative resection of a synchronous primary lesion should only be considered if the patient has an unequivocal imminent risk of obstruction or acute significant bleeding (see page 143 [COL-5, -7, -8]). The panel acknowledged that relevant

F5NCCN Guidelines Insights: Metastatic Colon Cancer, Version 3.2013

Version 3.2013 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2013, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

Citation: Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network J Natl Compr Canc Netw 11, 2; 10.6004/jnccn.2013.0022

trials are ongoing, but results are not expected for several years.

Chemotherapy for Advanced and Metastatic Disease

The current management of disseminated metastatic colon cancer involves various active drugs, either in combination or as single agents, given across a continuum: 5-FU/LV, capecitabine, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, bevacizumab, cetuximab, panitumumab, ziv-aflibercept, and regorafenib.22-62 The putative mechanisms of action of these agents are varied and include interference with DNA replication and inhibition of the activities of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and epidermal growth factor (EGF) receptors.63-66 The choice of therapies and their sequence is based on consideration of the goals of therapy, the type and timing of prior therapy, the differing toxicity profiles of the constituent drugs, and the KRAS status of the tumor.

This year, the panel discussed data pertaining to new drugs and other changes to the continuum of systemic therapy for patients with advanced or metastatic disease after progression, as discussed in the following sections.

Continuation of Bevacizumab After Progression on Bevacizumab

In the TML trial, patients with good performance status and metastatic colorectal cancer who progressed on regimens containing bevacizumab received second-line therapy consisting of a different chemotherapy regimen with or without bevacizumab.67 This study met its primary end point, with patients continuing on bevacizumab having a modest improvement in overall survival (11.2 vs. 9.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69–0.94; P=.0062).

The continuation of bevacizumab after progression on bevacizumab was also studied in a community oncology setting through a retrospective analysis of 573 patients from the US Oncology iKnowMed electronic medical record system.68 Bevacizumab beyond progression was associated with a longer overall survival (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61–0.95) and a longer postprogression overall survival (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60–0.93) on multivariate analysis.

Overall, the panel believes that these data (along with those from the VELOUR trial, discussed later) show that the continuation of VEGF blockade in second-line therapy offers a very modest but statistically significant overall survival benefit. The panel noted that the TML trial excluded patients whose disease progressed quickly or who had a poor performance status, and considered limiting their recommendation similarly. In the end, the panel added the continuation of bevacizumab to the second-line treatment options for the 2013 versions of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon and Rectal Cancers without these patient limitations (see all COL-C figures, pages 144–147, and in the full guidelines, available at NCCN.org). Bevacizumab may be added to any second-line regimen that does not contain an EGFR inhibitor or ziv-aflibercept. The panel recognizes the lack of data suggesting a benefit to bevacizumab with irinotecan alone in this setting, but believes that the option is acceptable, especially in patients for whom a 5-FU– or capecitabine-based regimen failed. This addition to the systemic therapy continuum was made as a category 2A recommendation because it is based on only 1 trial with a modest clinical benefit.

Ziv-Aflibercept

The panel discussed the recent data from the phase III VELOUR trial at their annual panel meeting and again on an interim call after ziv-aflibercept was approved by the FDA. Ziv-aflibercept is a recombinant protein that has part of the human VEGF receptors 1 and 2 fused to the Fc portion of human IgG1.69 It is designed to function as a VEGF trap to prevent activation of VEGF receptors and thus inhibit angiogenesis. The VELOUR trial tested second-line ziv-aflibercept in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer for whom one regimen containing oxaliplatin failed. The trial met its primary end point, with a clinically modest but statistically significant improvement in OS (13.5 months for FOLFIRI/zivaflibercept vs. 12.1 months for FOLFIRI/placebo; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71–0.94; P=.003).61

Adverse events associated with ziv-aflibercept treatment in the VELOUR trial led to discontinuation in 26.6% of patients compared with 12.1% in the placebo group.61 The most common causes for discontinuation were asthenia/fatigue, infections, diarrhea, hypertension, and venous thromboembolic events.

Ziv-aflibercept has only shown activity when given in conjunction with FOLFIRI in FOLFIRI-naïve patients. No data suggest activity of FOLFIRI plus ziv-aflibercept in patients who experienced disease progression on FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab, or vice versa, and no data suggest activity of single-agent ziv-aflibercept. Thus, the panel added ziv-aflibercept as a second-line treatment option in combination with FOLFIRI or irinotecan only after progression on therapy not containing irinotecan (see all COL-C figures, 144–147, and in the full guidelines, available at NCCN.org). This addition to the systemic therapy continuum was made as a category 2A recommendation because currently only 1 trial has been performed, the observed benefit was quite modest, and toxicities were considerable.

Regorafenib

The panel discussed the recent data from the phase III CORRECT trial at the annual panel meeting and again on an interim call after regorafenib was approved by the FDA. Regorafenib is a small molecule inhibitor of multiple kinases (including VEGF receptors, fibroblast growth factor receptors, platelet-derived growth factor [PDGF] receptors, BRAF, KIT, and RET) that are involved with various processes, including tumor growth and angiogenesis.70 In the CORRECT trial, 760 patients who progressed on standard therapy were randomized to best supportive care with placebo or regorafenib.42,71 The trial met its primary end point of overall survival (6.4 months for regorafenib vs. 5.0 months for placebo; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64–0.94; P=.005). Progression-free survival was also significantly but modestly improved (1.9 vs. 1.7 months; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.42–0.58; P<.000001).

The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events in the regorafenib arm of the CORRECT trial were hand-foot skin reactions (17%), fatigue (10%), hypertension (7%), diarrhea (7%), and rash/desquamation (6%).42,71 Severe and fatal liver toxicity occurred in 0.3% of 1100 patients treated with regorafenib across all trials.70

Regorafenib has only shown activity in patients who have experienced progression on all standard therapies. Therefore, the panel decided to add regorafenib as an additional line of therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to chemotherapy (see all COL-C figures, 144–147, and in the full guidelines, available at NCCN.org). For patients with mutant KRAS, regorafenib can be used in the third-line setting; patients with wild-type KRAS can receive regorafenib as a third or fourth line of therapy. This addition to the systemic therapy continuum was made as a category 2A recommendation because it is based on only 1 trial with a modest clinical benefit, and toxicities associated with regorafenib are significant.

Summary of Changes to the 2013 NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer

In summary, the panel discussed many pertinent issues this year. Some recommendations were reviewed in detail and not changed (denoted by purple text in algorithms):

  • The panel reaffirmed their previous recommendation that the treatment of disseminated carcinomatosis of colorectal cancer with cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC should only occur on a clinical trial, because the risks are high and the benefits unproven.
  • The panel maintained their recommendation that palliative resection of a synchronous primary lesion in the setting of unresectable metastases should only be considered if the patient has an unequivocal, imminent risk of obstruction or acute significant bleeding.

Other discussions resulted in changes to the 2013 recommendations:

  • The panel added the continuation of bevacizumab with a different chemotherapy backbone to the second-line treatment options for patients with advanced or metastatic disease who progressed on regimens containing bevacizumab.
  • The panel added ziv-aflibercept as a second-line treatment option in combination with FOLFIRI or irinotecan for patients with advanced or metastatic disease who progressed on therapy not containing irinotecan.
  • The panel added regorafenib as an additional line of therapy for patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to all standard systemic therapy options.

EDITOR: Kerrin M. Green, MA, Assistant Managing Editor, JNCCN—Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, has disclosed that she has no relevant financial relationships.

CE AUTHORS: Nicole Harrold, BS, Manager, Continuing Education and Grants, has disclosed that she has no relevant financial relationships. Kristina M. Gregory, RN, MSN, OCN, Vice President, Clinical Information Operations, has disclosed that she has no relevant financial relationships. James Prazak, RPh, Director, Continuing Education and Grants, has disclosed the following relationships with commercial interests: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Pension; Pfizer, Inc: Stockholder; United Healthcare Group: Stockholder; Johnson & Johnson: Stockholder. Deborah Moonan, RN, BSN, Manager, Supporter Outreach, has disclosed the following relationships with commercial interests: AstraZeneca: former employee/stockholder. Deborah A. Freedman-Cass, PhD, Oncology Scientist/Senior Medical Writer, has disclosed that she has no relevant financial relationships.

References

  • 1↑

    Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012;62:10–29.

  • 2↑

    Cheng L, Eng C, Nieman LZ. Trends in colorectal cancer incidence by anatomic site and disease stage in the united states from 1976 to 2005. Am J Clin Oncol 2011;34:573–580.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3↑

    Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2011: the impact of eliminating socioeconomic and racial disparities on premature cancer deaths. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61:212–236.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4↑

    Franko J, Shi Q, Goldman CD. Treatment of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis with systemic chemotherapy: a pooled analysis of north central cancer treatment group phase III trials N9741 and N9841. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:263–267.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5↑

    Chua TC, Pelz JO, Kerscher A. Critical analysis of 33 patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis secondary to colorectal and appendiceal signet ring cell carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2009;16:2765–2770.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6↑

    Elias D, Gilly F, Boutitie F. Peritoneal colorectal carcinomatosis treated with surgery and perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy: retrospective analysis of 523 patients from a multicentric French study. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:63–68.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Esquivel J, Sticca R, Sugarbaker P. Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the management of peritoneal surface malignancies of colonic origin: a consensus statement. Society of Surgical Oncology. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14:128–133.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8↑

    Glehen O, Gilly FN, Boutitie F. Toward curative treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis from nonovarian origin by cytoreductive surgery combined with perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a multi-institutional study of 1,290 patients. Cancer 2010;116:5608–5618.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9↑

    Yan TD, Black D, Savady R, Sugarbaker PH. Systematic review on the efficacy of cytoreductive surgery combined with perioperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy for peritoneal carcinomatosis from colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:4011–4019.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10↑

    Verwaal VJ, van Ruth S, de Bree E. Randomized trial of cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus systemic chemotherapy and palliative surgery in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:3737–3743.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11↑

    Verwaal VJ, Bruin S, Boot H. 8-year follow-up of randomized trial: cytoreduction and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy versus systemic chemotherapy in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2008;15:2426–2432.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12↑

    Sugarbaker PH, Ryan DP. Cytoreductive surgery plus hyperthermic perioperative chemotherapy to treat peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer: standard of care or an experimental approach? Lancet Oncol 2012;13:e362–369.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13↑

    El Halabi H, Gushchin V, Francis J. The role of cytoreductive surgery and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC) in patients with high-grade appendiceal carcinoma and extensive peritoneal carcinomatosis. Ann Surg Oncol 2012;19:110–114.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14↑

    Chua TC, Moran BJ, Sugarbaker PH. Early- and long-term outcome data of patients with pseudomyxoma peritonei from appendiceal origin treated by a strategy of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:2449–2456.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15↑

    Klaver YL, Hendriks T, Lomme RM. Hyperthermia and intraperitoneal chemotherapy for the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis: an experimental study. Ann Surg 2011;254:125–130.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16↑

    Faron M, Bourredjem A, Pignon JP. Impact on survival of primary tumor resection in patients with colorectal cancer and unresectable metastasis: pooled analysis of individual patients' data from four randomized trials [abstract]. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:Abstract 3507.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17↑

    Karoui M, Roudot-Thoraval F, Mesli F. Primary colectomy in patients with stage IV colon cancer and unresectable distant metastases improves overall survival: results of a multicentric study. Dis Colon Rectum 2011;54:930–938.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18↑

    Venderbosch S, de Wilt JH, Teerenstra S. Prognostic value of resection of primary tumor in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer: retrospective analysis of two randomized studies and a review of the literature. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;18:3252–3260.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19↑

    McCahill LE, Yothers G, Sharif S. Primary mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab without resection of the primary tumor for patients presenting with surgically unresectable metastatic colon cancer and an intact asymptomatic colon cancer: definitive analysis of NSABP trial C-10. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:3223–3228.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20↑

    Poultsides GA, Servais EL, Saltz LB. Outcome of primary tumor in patients with synchronous stage IV colorectal cancer receiving combination chemotherapy without surgery as initial treatment. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:3379–3384.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21↑

    Cirocchi R, Trastulli S, Abraha I. Non-resection versus resection for an asymptomatic primary tumour in patients with unresectable stage IV colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;8:CD008997.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22↑

    Amado RG, Wolf M, Peeters M. Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:1626–1634.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Andre T, Louvet C, Maindrault-Goebel F. CPT-11 (irinotecan) addition to bimonthly, high-dose leucovorin and bolus and continuous-infusion 5-fluorouracil (FOLFIRI) for pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer. GERCOR. Eur J Cancer 1999;35:1343–1347.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Bartlett DL, Berlin J, Lauwers GY. Chemotherapy and regional therapy of hepatic colorectal metastases: expert consensus statement. Ann Surg Oncol 2006;13:1284–1292.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Buroker TR, O'Connell MJ, Wieand HS. Randomized comparison of two schedules of fluorouracil and leucovorin in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 1994;12:14–20.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Cassidy J, Clarke S, Diaz-Rubio E. Randomized phase III study of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2006–2012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Cheeseman SL, Joel SP, Chester JD. A ‘modified de Gramont’ regimen of fluorouracil, alone and with oxaliplatin, for advanced colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 2002;87:393–399.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Colucci G, Gebbia V, Paoletti G. 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 2005;23:4866–4875.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Cunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S. Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;351:337–345.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Cunningham D, Pyrhonen S, James RD. Randomised trial of irinotecan plus supportive care versus supportive care alone after fluorouracil failure for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Lancet 1998;352:1413–1418.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    de Gramont A, Bosset JF, Milan C. Randomized trial comparing monthly low-dose leucovorin and fluorouracil bolus with bimonthly high-dose leucovorin and fluorouracil bolus plus continuous infusion for advanced colorectal cancer: a French intergroup study. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:808–815.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    de Gramont A, Figer A, Seymour M. Leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2938–2947.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Delaunoit T, Goldberg RM, Sargent DJ. Mortality associated with daily bolus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin administered in combination with either irinotecan or oxaliplatin: results from Intergroup Trial N9741. Cancer 2004;101:2170–2176.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Douillard JY, Cunningham D, Roth AD. Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil compared with fluorouracil alone as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 2000;355:1041–1047.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

    Douillard JY, Siena S, Cassidy J. Randomized, phase III trial of panitumumab with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as first-line treatment in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: the PRIME study. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:4697–4705.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    Falcone A, Ricci S, Brunetti I. Phase III trial of infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) compared with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: the Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1670–1676.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    Fuchs CS, Moore MR, Harker G. Phase III comparison of two irinotecan dosing regimens in second-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:807–814.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    Giantonio BJ, Catalano PJ, Meropol NJ. Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX4) for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study E3200. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1539–1544.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39

    Goldberg RM. Therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncologist 2006;11:981–987.

  • 40

    Goldberg RM, Rothenberg ML, Van Cutsem E. The continuum of care: a paradigm for the management of metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncologist 2007;12:38–50.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41

    Goldberg RM, Sargent DJ, Morton RF. A randomized controlled trial of fluorouracil plus leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin combinations in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:23–30.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42↑

    Grothey A, Sobrero A, Siena S. Results of a phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial (CORRECT) of regorafenib plus best supportive care (BSC) versus placebo plus BSC in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who have progressed after standard therapies [abstract]. J Clin Oncol 2012;30(Suppl 4):Abstract LBA385.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43

    Haller DG, Rothenberg ML, Wong AO. Oxaliplatin plus irinotecan compared with irinotecan alone as second-line treatment after single-agent fluoropyrimidine therapy for metastatic colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:4544–4550.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44

    Hurwitz HI, Fehrenbacher L, Hainsworth JD. Bevacizumab in combination with fluorouracil and leucovorin: an active regimen for first-line metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:3502–3508.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45

    Jager E, Heike M, Bernhard H. Weekly high-dose leucovorin versus low-dose leucovorin combined with fluorouracil in advanced colorectal cancer: results of a randomized multicenter trial. Study Group for Palliative Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Study Protocol 1. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:2274–2279.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 46

    Kabbinavar FF, Hambleton J, Mass RD. Combined analysis of efficacy: the addition of bevacizumab to fluorouracil/leucovorin improves survival for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:3706–3712.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 47

    Kelly H, Goldberg RM. Systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: current options, current evidence. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4553–4560.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 48

    Kohne C, Mineur L, Greil R. Primary analysis of a phase II study (20060314) combining first-line panitumumab (pmab) with FOLFIRI in the treatment of patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) [abstract]. Presented at the 2010 ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium; January 22–24, 2010; Orlando, Florida. Abstract 414.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 49

    Maindrault-Goebel F, Louvet C, Andre T. Oxaliplatin added to the simplified bimonthly leucovorin and 5-fluorouracil regimen as second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (FOLFOX6). GERCOR. Eur J Cancer 1999;35:1338–1342.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 50

    Peeters M, Price TJ, Cervantes A. Randomized phase III study of panitumumab with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) compared with FOLFIRI alone as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:4706–4713.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 51

    Petrelli N, Herrera L, Rustum Y. A prospective randomized trial of 5-fluorouracil versus 5-fluorouracil and high-dose leucovorin versus 5-fluorouracil and methotrexate in previously untreated patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1987;5:1559–1565.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 52

    Punt CJ, Tol J, Rodenburg CJ. Randomized phase III study of capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab with or without cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer (ACC), the CAIRO2 study of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG) [abstract]. J Clin Oncol 2008;26(Suppl):Abstract LBA4011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 53

    Reidy DL, Chung KY, Timoney JP. Bevacizumab 5 mg/kg can be infused safely over 10 minutes. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:2691–2695.

  • 54

    Saltz L, Clarke S, Diaz-Rubio E. Bevacizumab (Bev) in combination with XELOX or FOLFOX4: updated efficacy results from XELOX-1/ NO16966, a randomized phase III trial in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer [abstract]. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(Suppl):Abstract 4028.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 55

    Souglakos J, Androulakis N, Syrigos K. FOLFOXIRI (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan) vs FOLFIRI (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil and irinotecan) as first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC): a multicentre randomised phase III trial from the Hellenic Oncology Research Group (HORG). Br J Cancer 2006;94:798–805.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 56

    Van Cutsem E. Challenges in the use of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors in colorectal cancer. Oncologist 2006;11:1010–1017.

  • 57

    Van Cutsem E, Hoff PM, Harper P. Oral capecitabine vs intravenous 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin: integrated efficacy data and novel analyses from two large, randomised, phase III trials. Br J Cancer 2004;90:1190–1197.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 58

    Van Cutsem E, Kohne CH, Hitre E. Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1408–1417.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 59

    Van Cutsem E, Peeters M, Siena S. Open-label phase III trial of panitumumab plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:1658–1664.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 60

    Van Cutsem E, Twelves C, Cassidy J. Oral capecitabine compared with intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results of a large phase III study. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:4097–4106.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 61↑

    Van Cutsem E, Tabernero J, Lakomy R. Addition of aflibercept to fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan improves survival in a phase III randomized trial in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with an oxaliplatin-based regimen. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:3499–3506.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 62↑

    Wolmark N, Rockette H, Fisher B. The benefit of leucovorin-modulated fluorouracil as postoperative adjuvant therapy for primary colon cancer: results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project protocol C-03. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:1879–1887.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 63↑

    Lentz F, Tran A, Rey E. Pharmacogenomics of fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin in hepatic metastases of colorectal cancer: clinical implications. Am J Pharmacogenomics 2005;5:21–33.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 64

    O’Dwyer PJ. The present and future of angiogenesis-directed treatments of colorectal cancer. Oncologist 2006;11:992–998.

  • 65

    Raymond E, Faivre S, Woynarowski JM, Chaney SG. Oxaliplatin: mechanism of action and antineoplastic activity. Semin Oncol 1998;25:4–12.

  • 66↑

    Rothenberg ML, Blanke CD. Topoisomerase I inhibitors in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Semin Oncol 1999;26:632–639.

  • 67↑

    Arnold D, Andre T, Bennouna J. Bevacizumab (BEV) plus chemotherapy (CT) continued beyond first progression in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with BEV plus CT: results of a randomized phase III intergroup study (TML study) [abstract]. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:Abstract CRA3503.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 68↑

    Cartwright TH, Yim YM, Yu E. Survival outcomes of bevacizumab beyond progression in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated in US community oncology. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2012;11:238–246.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 69↑

    ZALTRAP (ziv-aflibercept) [package insert]. Bridgewater, NJ: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. / sanofi-aventis U.S. LLC; 2012. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/125418s000lbl.pdf. Accessed August 3, 2012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 70↑

    STIVARGA (regorafenib) tablets, oral [package insert]. Wayne, NJ: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals; 2012. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/203085lbl.pdf. Accessed October 2, 2012.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 71↑

    Van Cutsem E, Sobrero AF, Siena S. Phase III CORRECT trial of regorafenib in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) [abstract]. J Clin Oncol 2012;30(Suppl):Abstract 3502.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Supplementary Materials

  • View in gallery
    NCCN Guidelines Insights: Metastatic Colon Cancer, Version 3.2013

    Version 3.2013 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2013, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

  • View in gallery
    NCCN Guidelines Insights: Metastatic Colon Cancer, Version 3.2013

    Version 3.2013 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2013, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

  • View in gallery
    NCCN Guidelines Insights: Metastatic Colon Cancer, Version 3.2013

    Version 3.2013 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2013, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

  • View in gallery
    NCCN Guidelines Insights: Metastatic Colon Cancer, Version 3.2013

    Version 3.2013 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2013, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

  • View in gallery
    NCCN Guidelines Insights: Metastatic Colon Cancer, Version 3.2013

    Version 3.2013 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2013, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Metastatic Colon Cancer, Version 3.2013

Version 3.2013 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2013, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Metastatic Colon Cancer, Version 3.2013

Version 3.2013 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2013, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Metastatic Colon Cancer, Version 3.2013

Version 3.2013 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2013, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Metastatic Colon Cancer, Version 3.2013

Version 3.2013 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2013, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
NCCN Guidelines Insights: Metastatic Colon Cancer, Version 3.2013

Version 3.2013 © National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc. 2013, All rights reserved. The NCCN Guidelines® and this illustration may not be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of NCCN®.
Copyright:
Copyright © 2013 by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 2013
Page Numbers:
141–152
Article Category:
Research Article
Print Publication Date:
01 Feb 2013
Online Publication Date:
Feb 2013
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1030 315 27
PDF Downloads 181 108 13
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0