Background Immune-inflammatory biomarkers (IIBs) showed a prognostic relevance in patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC). We aimed at evaluating the prognostic power of a new comprehensive biomarker, the Pan-Immune-Inflammation Value (PIV), in patients with mCRC receiving first-line therapy. Methods In the present pooled-analysis, we included patients enrolled in the Valentino and TRIBE trials. PIV was calculated as: (neutrophil count × platelet count × monocyte count)/lymphocyte count. A cut-off was determined using the maximally selected rank statistics method. Generalised boosted regression (GBR), the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox hazards regression models were used for survival analyses. Results A total of 438 patients were included. Overall, 208 patients (47%) had a low-baseline PIV and 230 (53%) had a high-baseline PIV. Patients with high PIV experienced a worse PFS (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.36–2.03, P < 0.001) and worse OS (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.57–2.57; P < 0.001) compared to patients with low PIV. PIV outperformed the other IIBs in the GBR model and in the multivariable models. Conclusion PIV is a strong predictor of survival outcomes with better performance than other well-known IIBs in patients with mCRC treated with first-line therapy. PIV should be prospectively validated to better stratify mCRC patients undergoing first-line therapy.

No abstract

BRAF codon 594 or 596 mutated mCRCs are different from BRAF V600E ones in terms of molecular features, pathological characteristics and clinical outcome. This is consistent with preclinical evidences of a kinase inactivating effect of these mutations. The role of CRAF in transducing the intracellular signal downstream BRAF 594 or 596 mutated proteins opens the way to further preclinical investigation.

Background. The efficacy of risk model scores to predict venous thromboembolism (VTE) in ambulatory cancer patients is under investigation, aiming to stratify on an individual risk basis the subset of the cancer population that could mostly benefit from primary thromboprophylaxis. Materials and Methods. We prospectively assessed 843 patients with active cancers, collecting clinical and laboratory data. We screened all the patients with a duplex ultrasound (B-mode imaging and Doppler waveform analysis) of the upper and lower limbs to evaluate the right incidence of VTE (both asymptomatic and symptomatic). The efficacy of the existing Khorana risk model in preventing VTE was also explored in our population. Several risk factors associated with VTE were analyzed, leading to the construction of a risk model. The Fine and Gray model was used to account for death as a competing risk in the derivation of the new model.

The response to first-line therapy is a primary determinant of outcome in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), for three main reasons: effective upfront therapy provides a unique opportunity to cure some patients; can be crucial in delaying disease progression and achieving symptom relief; and can improve patient eligibility for, and the effectiveness of, further treatments. In the past decade, decision-making regarding the choice of first-line therapy for mCRC has been complicated by the availability of many different options without a definitive consensus on a specific standard of care (despite major advances in categorizing predictive molecular disease subtypes). Most of the efforts of the scientific community have been directed at establishing the best biologic agent to be combined with a chemotherapy doublet, although a different branch of research has produced new data that underscore the importance of defining the optimal chemotherapy backbone. Herein, we review the key clinical trials completed in the past 10 years that have investigated and compared the use of chemotherapy doublets, triplets, and monotherapies, with or without molecularly targeted biologic agents, in the first-line treatment of patients with mCRC. Our examination of the literature led us to propose a new patient-oriented algorithm to guide clinicians' decisions on the best choice of upfront therapy for mCRC.

The investigated panel of genomic alterations allows refining the selection of RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients candidates for anti-EGFRs, partially explaining and further corroborating the predictive ability of primary tumour sidedness.

Introduction. Right-and left-sided colorectal cancers (CRCs) differ in clinical and molecular characteristics. Some retrospective analyses suggested that patients with right-sided tumors derive less benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies; however, molecular selection in those studies was not extensive. Patients and Methods. Patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic CRC (mCRC) who were treated with single-agent anti-EGFRs or with cetuximab-irinotecan (if refractory to previous irinotecan) were included in the study. Differences in outcome between patients with right-and left-sided tumors were investigated.

FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab may be regarded as a preferred first-line treatment option for clinically selected patients with right-sided metastatic colorectal cancer irrespective of their RAS and BRAF mutational status. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00719797.