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.

SummaryBackgroundData suggest selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) in third-line or subsequent therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer has clinical benefit in patients with colorectal liver metastases with liver-dominant disease after chemotherapy. The FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX, and FOXFIRE-Global randomised studies evaluated the efficacy of combining first-line chemotherapy with SIRT using yttrium-90 resin microspheres in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with liver metastases. The studies were designed for combined analysis of overall survival.MethodsFOXFIRE, SIRFLOX, and FOXFIRE-Global were randomised, phase 3 trials done in hospitals and specialist liver centres in 14 countries worldwide (Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, New Zealand, Portugal, South Korea, Singapore, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA). Chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (WHO performance status 0 or 1) with liver metastases not suitable for curative resection or ablation were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (FOLFOX: leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) or FOLFOX plus single treatment SIRT concurrent with cycle 1 or 2 of chemotherapy. In FOXFIRE, FOLFOX chemotherapy was OxMdG (oxaliplatin modified de Gramont chemotherapy; 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin infusion over 2 h, L-leucovorin 175 mg or D,L-leucovorin 350 mg infusion over 2 h, and 400 mg/m2 bolus fluorouracil followed by a 2400 mg/m2 continuous fluorouracil infusion over 46 h). In SIRFLOX and FOXFIRE-Global, FOLFOX chemotherapy was modified FOLFOX6 (85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin infusion over 2 h, 200 mg leucovorin, and 400 mg/m2 bolus fluorouracil followed by a 2400 mg/m2 continuous fluorouracil infusion over 46 h). Randomisation was done by central minimisation with four factors: presence of extrahepatic metastases, tumour involvement of the liver, planned use of a biological agent, and investigational centre. Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population, using a two-stage meta-analysis of pooled individual patient data. All three trials have completed 2 years of follow-up. FOXFIRE is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83867919. SIRFLOX and FOXFIRE-Global are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00724503 (SIRFLOX) and NCT01721954 (FOXFIRE-Global).FindingsBetween Oct 11, 2006, and Dec 23, 2014, 549 patients were randomly assigned to FOLFOX alone and 554 patients were assigned FOLFOX plus SIRT. Median follow-up was 43·3 months (IQR 31·6–58·4). There were 411 (75%) deaths in 549 patients in the FOLFOX alone group and 433 (78%) deaths in 554 patients in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group. There was no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·90–1·19; p=0·61). The median survival time in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group was 22·6 months (95% CI 21·0–24·5) compared with 23·3 months (21·8–24·7) in the FOLFOX alone group. In the safety population containing patients who received at least ...

The use of rituximab has been associated with increased risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in patients who are hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) negative and antihepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) positive. We aim to determine the rate of HBV reactivation in this group of patients who received rituximab-containing combination chemotherapy without concomitant antiviral prophylaxis and to identify potential risk factors for reactivation. Sixty-two HBsAg negative/anti-HBc positive patients with B-cell lymphoma treated with rituximab-based immunochemotherapy from 2006 to 2009 were included. None of the patients received concomitant antiviral prophylaxis. In this cohort, 48 (77%) patients received rituximab with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP), eight (13%) received rituximab with cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisolone, and six (10%) received other chemotherapy regimens. Two patients suffered HBV reactivation; both were above 70 years of age, received R-CHOP chemotherapy and were negative for antihepatitis B surface antibody (anti-HBs) at baseline. One of the two patients reactivated shortly after completion of R-CHOP chemotherapy while the other reactivated during rituximab maintenance treatment. Thus, the overall reactivation rate in this cohort of patients is 3% (2/62), 4% (2/48), and 25% (1/4) in patients who received R-CHOP chemotherapy and who received rituximab maintenance, respectively. The rate of HBV reactivation is low in patients who are HBsAg negative/anti-HBc positive receiving rituximab-based combination chemotherapy without concomitant antiviral prophylaxis. However, elderly patients, particularly those without anti-HBs, seemed particularly at risk.

CitationTumor-derived circulating endothelial cell clusters in colorectal cancer. 2016, 8 (345) * Clusters of tumor cells are often observed in the blood of cancer patients. These structures have been described as malignant entities for more than 50 years, although their comprehensive characterization is lacking. Contrary to current consensus, we demonstrate that a discrete population of circulating cell clusters isolated from the blood of colorectal cancer patients are not cancerous but consist of tumor-derived endothelial cells. These clusters express both epithelial and mesenchymal markers, consistent with previous reports on circulating tumor cell (CTC) phenotyping. However, unlike CTCs, they do not mirror the genetic variations of matched tumors. Transcriptomic analysis of single clusters revealed that these structures exhibit an endothelial phenotype and can be traced back to the tumor endothelium. Further results show that tumor-derived endothelial clusters do not form by coagulation or by outgrowth of single circulating endothelial cells, supporting a direct release of clusters from the tumor vasculature. The isolation and enumeration of these benign clusters distinguished healthy volunteers from treatment-naïve as well as pathological early-stage (≤IIA) colorectal cancer patients with high accuracy, suggesting that tumor-derived circulating endothelial cell clusters could be used as a means of noninvasive screening for colorectal cancer. In contrast to CTCs, tumorderived endothelial cell clusters may also provide important information about the underlying tumor vasculature at the time of diagnosis, during treatment, and throughout the course of the disease.