Survival benefit with regorafenib and/or trifluridine/tipiracil sequencing to rechallenge with anti-EGFR-based third-line regimens in metastatic colorectal cancer: A multicenter retrospective real-world subgroups comparison.
Authors: Signorelli Carlo , Chilelli Mario Giovanni , Basso Michele , Calegari Maria Alessandra , Anghelone Annunziato , Lucchetti Jessica , Minelli Alessandro , Angotti Lorenzo , Zurlo Ina Valeria , Schirripa Marta , Morelli Cristina , Dell'Aquila Emanuela , Gemma Donatello , Corsi Domenico Cristiano , Arrivi Giulia , Zoratto Federica , Morandi Maria Grazia , Santamaria Fiorenza , Saltarelli Rosa , Ruggeri Enzo Maria 
Published: June 2024

e15553

Background: Rechallenge with anti-EGFR drugs has recently proven therapeutic activity in a subset of RAS wild type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients who had previously benefited from cetuximab- or panitumumab-based first-line regimen. Regorafenib (R) and Trifluridine/tipiracil (T) have been found to improve survival in patients with refractory mCRC. This real-life subgroup survival analysis focused on treatment with R and T, sequential or not, in patients who had received prior third-line anti-EGFR therapy. Methods: Clinical data of patients diagnosed with mCRC who received R and/or T between July 2012 and March 2022, were retrospectively collected from 13 Italian cancer institutes. The objective of this subgroup analysis was to compare overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients who received late-line R and/or T according to prior third-line anti-EGFR-based treatment. Results: The entire study enrolled 866 patients. 146 (16.8%) of them received the T/R sequence (T/R), 116 (13.3%) the reverse sequence (R/T), 325 (37.5%) T, and 279 (32.5%) R. For the purpose of this subgroup analysisi we identified 338 RAS wt patients (39%) who were eligible. Of these, 290/338 patients (85.8%) did not receive the previous third-line anti-EGFR therapy, while 48 patients (14.2%) did it (12 T/R, 10 R/T, 13 T, 13 R). When comparing T/R to R/T in patients who did not previously received third-line anti-EGFR drug rechallenge, we observed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS. In detail, the median PFS benefit was 67,5% when treating patients with T/R sequence vs. the reverse sequence (11,4 vs. 3,7 months, respectively, ∆ = 7,7 months; p = < 0,0001; HR = 0,17; 95% CI = 0,09-0,32). In patients who received T/R or R/T following rechallenge with anti-EGFR drug, we also observed a comparable, albeit smaller and non-statistically significant, improvement in PFS (8.1 vs. 7.8 months, respectively; p = 0.22; HR 0,51; 95% CI = 0,17-1,50). There were no statistically significant differences in OS between these groups. Anti-EGFR rechallenge data analysis showed that the non-sequential administration of R and T had no statistically significant impact on survival outcomes. Conclusions: With the limit of the sample size, our retrospective subgroup analysis failed to validate the promising beneficial effects of anti-EGFR rechallenge prior to R and/or T treatment. A statistically significant longer PFS was only observed in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer receiving T/R sequence without prior cetuxumab- or panitumumab-based regimens.