Terms of use This work is brought to you by the University of Southern Denmark through the SDU Research Portal. Unless otherwise specified it has been shared according to the terms for self-archiving. If no other license is stated, these terms apply: • You may download this work for personal use only. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying this open access version T h e ne w e ngl a nd jou r na l o f m e dicine n engl j med 381;17 nejm.org

This pooled analysis showed a worse prognosis for OS, PFS and ORR for patients with right-sided tumours compared with those with left-sided tumours in patients with RAS wt mCRC and a predictive effect of tumour side, with a greater effect of chemotherapy plus EGFR antibody therapy compared with chemotherapy or chemotherapy and bevacizumab, the effect being greatest in patients with left-sided tumours. These predictive results should be interpreted with caution due to the retrospective nature of the analysis, which was carried out on subpopulations of patients included in these trials, and because none of these studies contemplated a full treatment sequence strategy.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) consensus guidelines for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was published in 2016, identifying both a more strategic approach to the administration of the available systemic therapy choices, and a greater emphasis on the use of ablative techniques, including surgery. At the 2016 ESMO Asia Meeting, in December 2016, it was decided by both ESMO and the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO) to convene a special guidelines meeting, endorsed by both ESMO and JSMO, immediately after the JSMO 2017 Annual Meeting. The aim was to adapt the ESMO consensus guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences relating to the toxicity as well as other aspects of certain systemic treatments in patients of Asian ethnicity. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with mCRC identified by the Presidents of the oncological societies of Japan (JSMO), China (Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology), Korea (Korean Association for Clinical Oncology), Malaysia (Malaysian Oncological Society), Singapore (Singapore Society of Oncology) and Taiwan (Taiwan Oncology Society). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of both the current treatment practices and the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the individual participating Asian countries.

PURPOSE BEACON CRC evaluated encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib versus investigators' choice of irinotecan or FOLFIRI plus cetuximab in patients with BRAFV600E–mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), after progression on 1-2 prior regimens. In the previously reported primary analysis, encorafenib, binimetinib plus cetuximab (ENCO/BINI/CETUX; triplet) and encorafenib plus cetuximab (ENCO/CETUX; doublet) regimens improved overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR; by blinded central review) versus standard of care. The purpose of this analysis was to report updated efficacy and safety data. METHODS In this open-label, phase III trial, 665 patients with BRAF V600E–mutant mCRC were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive triplet, doublet, or control. Primary end points were OS and independently reviewed ORR comparing triplet to control. OS for doublet versus control was a key secondary end point. Updated analyses include 6 months of additional follow-up and ORR for all randomized patients. RESULTS Patients received triplet (n = 224), doublet (n = 220), or control (n = 221). Median OS was 9.3 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 10.8) for triplet and 5.9 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 7.1) for control (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.75]). Median OS for doublet was 9.3 months (95% CI, 8.0 to 11.3) (HR v control, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.77]). Confirmed ORR was 26.8% (95% CI, 21.1% to 33.1%) for triplet, 19.5% (95% CI, 14.5% to 25.4%) for doublet, and 1.8% (95% CI, 0.5% to 4.6%) for control. Adverse events were consistent with the prior primary analysis, with grade ≥ 3 adverse events in 65.8%, 57.4%, and 64.2% for triplet, doublet, and control, respectively. CONCLUSION In the BEACON CRC study, encorafenib plus cetuximab improved OS, ORR, and progression-free survival in previously treated patients in the metastatic setting compared with standard chemotherapy. Based on the primary and updated analyses, encorafenib plus cetuximab is a new standard care regimen for previously treated patients with BRAF V600E mCRC.

The cancer burden is rising globally, exerting significant strain on populations and health systems at all income levels. In May 2017, world governments made a commitment to further invest in cancer control as a public health priority, passing the World Health Assembly Resolution 70.12 on cancer prevention and control within an integrated approach. In this manuscript, the 2016 European Society for Medical Oncology Leadership Generation Programme participants propose a strategic framework that is in line with the 2017 WHO Cancer Resolution and consistent with the principle of universal health coverage, which ensures access to optimal cancer care for all people because health is a basic human right. The time for action is now to reduce barriers and provide the highest possible quality cancer care to everyone regardless of circumstance, precondition or geographic location. The national actions and the policy recommendations in this paper set forth the vision of its authors for the future of global cancer control at the national level, where the WHO Cancer Resolution must be implemented if we are to reduce the cancer burden, avoid unnecessary suffering and save as many lives as possible.