METHODS: OPTIM1SE was a prospective, open-label, observational study. Patients with untreated KRAS wild-type mCRC and distant metastases were treated per locally approved labels and monitored for 3 years via electronic medical records. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS: From November 19, 2013, to June 30, 2016, 520 patients were enrolled in 51 sites. Patients were mostly male (61.2%), with a mean age of 58.5 (±12.0) years; 420 patients received leucovorin, 5-FU, and irinotecan-based regimens and 94 received leucovorin, 5-FU, and oxaliplatin. The most common primary tumor site was the rectum (38.8%), with liver metastases (65.0%). ORR was 45.4% (95% CI, 41.1%-49.7%), including 26 patients (5.0%) with a complete response. Median PFS was 9.9 months (95% CI, 8.2-11.0); median OS (mOS) was 30.8 months (95% CI, 27.9-33.6). Higher mOS was associated with tumors of left compared with right-sided origin (hazard ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.49-0.99]); higher ORR was also associated with liver metastases compared with all other metastases (55.4% vs. 40.2%). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of cetuximab.
CONCLUSION: Cetuximab-based 5-FU regimens were effective first-line treatments for mCRC in routine practice, particularly in patients with left-sided disease and liver metastases only.
METHODS: The retrospective arm (2011-2014) included adults with metastatic colorectal cancer who had initiated first-line therapy with ≥1 post-baseline visit and survival data. The prospective arm (2014-2019) enrolled newly diagnosed patients with histologically proven metastatic colorectal cancer with ≥1 measurable lesion per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and tissue availability for biomarker analysis. Data look-back and follow-up were 2 years; the rate of RAS mutation was evaluated.
RESULTS: RAS testing was ordered for patients in retrospective (326/417) and prospective (407/500) studies. In the former, testing was typically prescribed after first-line treatment initiation, significantly more in patients with stage IV disease (P < .005), resulting in the addition of targeted therapy (41.8% anti-epidermal growth factor receptor, 30.2% anti-vascular endothelial growth factor) in wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, and significantly impacted the treatment of left-sided tumors (P = .037). In the latter, 58.4% were RAS wild-type; 41.6% were RAS mutant. Non-prescription of RAS testing was attributed to test unavailability, financial, or medical rea sons; predictors of testing prescription were older age, primary tumor in ascending colon, and high tumor grade. RAS status knowledge resulted in the addition of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (20.4%) or anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy (21.2%).
CONCLUSION: Before 2014, RAS testing in patients with colorectal cancer in the Middle East and North Africa was often performed after first-line treatment. Testing is more routine in newly diagnosed patients, potentially shifting early treatment patterns.
Case presentation: We present a case of 15-year-old boy from rural area, presented with chronic diarrhea and per rectal bleeding for 3 months. The diagnosis was determined by colonoscope which revealed a fungating mass identified at 10cm from anal verge. Histological examination confirmed diagnosis of signet ring cell adenocarcinoma. CT scan of the abdomen showed thickening involving the recto-sigmoid colon and rectal mass, without evidence of distant metastatic disease. The patient's carcinoembryonic antigen level was within the normal range. He underwent a colostomy and was subjected to neoadjuvant CCRT and surgery.
Discussion: This CASE highlights the importance and challenges in achieving early diagnosis and surgical intervention of signet-ring cell carcinoma in adolescents, as most cases are detected at an advanced stage coupled with the scarcity of information on these rarer subtypes which leads to a poor prognosis.
Conclusion: In managing Signet cell carcinoma of the colorectal, physician have to know that it has a poor prognosis in patients of any age. However, in young teenagers delayed diagnosis and treatment option are narrowed to palliative management. Genetic profiling of family members and similar environment population may be a key to early detection.
CASE REPORT: A 69-year-old lady presented with one year history of intermittent rectal bleed and an anorectal mass that was initially treated as haemorrhoid. Colonoscopy showed a hyperpigmented mass in the anorectal region which was confirmed as malignant melanoma on histopathological examination. Imaging with CT and MRI demonstrated locally advanced tumour with distant metastases to the liver and lung. Patient was referred for palliative management.
CONCLUSION: ARMM is a rare malignancy and often presented with non-specific clinical signs. Diagnosis is frequently delayed without high index of suspicion. MRI pelvis is the imaging of choice to assess local extent of disease. Histologic evaluation with special immunohistochemical stains is often necessary for definitive diagnosis. Prognosis is poor despite surgical and chemotherapeutic interventions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of the Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents and PubMed databases identified English-language randomized clinical trials comparing LARR and ORR. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Thirteen outcome variables were analyzed. Random effects meta-analyses were performed due to heterogeneity.
RESULTS: A total of 14 randomized clinical trials that included 3843 rectal resections (LARR 2096, ORR 1747) were analyzed. The summary point estimates favored LARR for the intraoperative blood loss, commencement of oral intake, first bowel movement, and length of hospital stay. There was significantly longer duration of operating time of 38.29 minutes for the LARR group. Other outcome variables such as total complications, postoperative pain, postoperative ileus, abdominal abscesses, postoperative anastomotic leak, reintervention and postoperative mortality rates were found to have comparable outcomes for both cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: LARR was associated with significantly reduced blood loss, quicker resumption of oral intake, earlier return of gastrointestinal function, and shorter length of hospital stay at the expense of significantly longer operating time. Postoperative morbidity and mortality and analgesia requirement for both these groups were comparable. LARR seems to be a safe and effective alternative to ORR; however, it needs to be performed in established colorectal units with experienced laparoscopic surgeons.
DATA SOURCES: A search of PubMed and other electronic databases comparing LARR and ORR between Jan 2000 and June 2016 was performed. Histopathological variables analyzed included; location of rectal tumors; complete and incomplete TME; positive and negative circumferential resection margins (+/-CRM); positive distal resected margins (+DRM); distance of tumor from DRM; number of lymph nodes harvested; resected specimen length; tumor size and perforated rectum.
RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs totaling 3843 patients (LARR = 2096, ORR = 1747) were analyzed. Comparable effects were noted for all these histopathological variables except for the variable perforated rectum which favored ORR.
CONCLUSIONS: LARR compares favorably to ORR for rectal cancer treatment. However, there is significantly higher risk of rectal perforation during LARR compared to ORR.