Article

Key clinical point: Use of beta-adrenergic receptor blockers is associated with decreased tumor-specific mortality in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), with the association with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) being particularly significant in those with advanced CRC.

Major finding: Beta-blocker use was significantly associated with a lower cancer-specific (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87; P  =  .04) and overall 1-year (HR 0.54; P < .00001) mortality but not with overall survival (HR 0.95; P  =  .28) and exerted a significant positive effect on PFS (HR 0.76; P  =  .005) in patients with stage IV CRC.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 14 retrospective cohort studies involving 85,993 patients with CRC and data on beta-blocker treatment outcomes for ≥1 endpoints (overall survival, PFS, and cancer-specific mortality).

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang J et al. Beta adrenergic blockade and clinical outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pharmacol. 2022;929:175135 (Jul 4). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2022.175135

Key clinical point: Use of beta-adrenergic receptor blockers is associated with decreased tumor-specific mortality in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), with the association with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) being particularly significant in those with advanced CRC.

Major finding: Beta-blocker use was significantly associated with a lower cancer-specific (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87; P  =  .04) and overall 1-year (HR 0.54; P < .00001) mortality but not with overall survival (HR 0.95; P  =  .28) and exerted a significant positive effect on PFS (HR 0.76; P  =  .005) in patients with stage IV CRC.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 14 retrospective cohort studies involving 85,993 patients with CRC and data on beta-blocker treatment outcomes for ≥1 endpoints (overall survival, PFS, and cancer-specific mortality).

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang J et al. Beta adrenergic blockade and clinical outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pharmacol. 2022;929:175135 (Jul 4). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2022.175135

Key clinical point: Use of beta-adrenergic receptor blockers is associated with decreased tumor-specific mortality in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), with the association with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) being particularly significant in those with advanced CRC.

Major finding: Beta-blocker use was significantly associated with a lower cancer-specific (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87; P  =  .04) and overall 1-year (HR 0.54; P < .00001) mortality but not with overall survival (HR 0.95; P  =  .28) and exerted a significant positive effect on PFS (HR 0.76; P  =  .005) in patients with stage IV CRC.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 14 retrospective cohort studies involving 85,993 patients with CRC and data on beta-blocker treatment outcomes for ≥1 endpoints (overall survival, PFS, and cancer-specific mortality).

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang J et al. Beta adrenergic blockade and clinical outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pharmacol. 2022;929:175135 (Jul 4). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2022.175135

Key clinical point: Hepatic arterial infusion (HAI)-fluorouracil-oxaliplatin-irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) has a similar efficacy but worse safety profile compared with HAI-oxaliplatin in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer (LMCRC) resistant to previous lines of therapy.

Major finding: HAI-FOLFIRINOX vs HAI-oxaliplatin did not significantly improve the median overall survival (17.0 vs 26.2 months; P  =  .1), median progression-free survival (5.9 vs 6.4 months; P  =  .6), or objective response rate (43.2% vs 45.9%) but led to significantly higher secondary hepatic resection (35.6% vs 16.7%; P  =  .007) and grade ≥2 toxicity rates.

Study details: The data come from a multicenter, retrospective study that included 273 patients with LMCRC who had undergone ≥1 chemotherapy protocols and received HAI-oxaliplatin (n = 221) or HAI-FOLFIRINOX (n = 52).

Disclosures: No source of funding was disclosed. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Randrian V et al. Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with Folfirinox or oxaliplatin alone in metastatic colorectal cancer. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:830595 (Jun 16). Doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.830595

Key clinical point: Hepatic arterial infusion (HAI)-fluorouracil-oxaliplatin-irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) has a similar efficacy but worse safety profile compared with HAI-oxaliplatin in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer (LMCRC) resistant to previous lines of therapy.

Major finding: HAI-FOLFIRINOX vs HAI-oxaliplatin did not significantly improve the median overall survival (17.0 vs 26.2 months; P  =  .1), median progression-free survival (5.9 vs 6.4 months; P  =  .6), or objective response rate (43.2% vs 45.9%) but led to significantly higher secondary hepatic resection (35.6% vs 16.7%; P  =  .007) and grade ≥2 toxicity rates.

Study details: The data come from a multicenter, retrospective study that included 273 patients with LMCRC who had undergone ≥1 chemotherapy protocols and received HAI-oxaliplatin (n = 221) or HAI-FOLFIRINOX (n = 52).

Disclosures: No source of funding was disclosed. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Randrian V et al. Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with Folfirinox or oxaliplatin alone in metastatic colorectal cancer. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:830595 (Jun 16). Doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.830595

Key clinical point: Hepatic arterial infusion (HAI)-fluorouracil-oxaliplatin-irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) has a similar efficacy but worse safety profile compared with HAI-oxaliplatin in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer (LMCRC) resistant to previous lines of therapy.

Major finding: HAI-FOLFIRINOX vs HAI-oxaliplatin did not significantly improve the median overall survival (17.0 vs 26.2 months; P  =  .1), median progression-free survival (5.9 vs 6.4 months; P  =  .6), or objective response rate (43.2% vs 45.9%) but led to significantly higher secondary hepatic resection (35.6% vs 16.7%; P  =  .007) and grade ≥2 toxicity rates.

Study details: The data come from a multicenter, retrospective study that included 273 patients with LMCRC who had undergone ≥1 chemotherapy protocols and received HAI-oxaliplatin (n = 221) or HAI-FOLFIRINOX (n = 52).

Disclosures: No source of funding was disclosed. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Randrian V et al. Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with Folfirinox or oxaliplatin alone in metastatic colorectal cancer. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:830595 (Jun 16). Doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.830595

Key clinical point: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common cause of noncancer death among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).

Major finding: During a median follow-up of 37 months, 79,455 patient deaths occurred, of which 23,270 (29.29%) were attributed to causes other than CRC, such as CVD (9702 [41.69%] of 23,270 deaths). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year cumulative incidence functions of CVD deaths were 12.20%, 24.25%, and 30.51%, respectively, whereas those of non-CVD deaths were 1.93%, 4.13%, and 4.77%, respectively.

Study details: This real-world, retrospective study included 197,699 patients with CRC and active follow-up data, including mortality causes, from 18 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results  (SEER) registries.

Disclosures: No source of funding was reported. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhang S et al. Cardiovascular outcomes in the patients with colorectal cancer: A multi-registry-based cohort study of 197,699 cases in the real world. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:851833 (Jun 16). Doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.851833

Key clinical point: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common cause of noncancer death among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).

Major finding: During a median follow-up of 37 months, 79,455 patient deaths occurred, of which 23,270 (29.29%) were attributed to causes other than CRC, such as CVD (9702 [41.69%] of 23,270 deaths). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year cumulative incidence functions of CVD deaths were 12.20%, 24.25%, and 30.51%, respectively, whereas those of non-CVD deaths were 1.93%, 4.13%, and 4.77%, respectively.

Study details: This real-world, retrospective study included 197,699 patients with CRC and active follow-up data, including mortality causes, from 18 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results  (SEER) registries.

Disclosures: No source of funding was reported. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhang S et al. Cardiovascular outcomes in the patients with colorectal cancer: A multi-registry-based cohort study of 197,699 cases in the real world. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:851833 (Jun 16). Doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.851833

Key clinical point: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common cause of noncancer death among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).

Major finding: During a median follow-up of 37 months, 79,455 patient deaths occurred, of which 23,270 (29.29%) were attributed to causes other than CRC, such as CVD (9702 [41.69%] of 23,270 deaths). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year cumulative incidence functions of CVD deaths were 12.20%, 24.25%, and 30.51%, respectively, whereas those of non-CVD deaths were 1.93%, 4.13%, and 4.77%, respectively.

Study details: This real-world, retrospective study included 197,699 patients with CRC and active follow-up data, including mortality causes, from 18 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results  (SEER) registries.

Disclosures: No source of funding was reported. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhang S et al. Cardiovascular outcomes in the patients with colorectal cancer: A multi-registry-based cohort study of 197,699 cases in the real world. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:851833 (Jun 16). Doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.851833

Key clinical point: Compared with fecal immunochemical test (FIT), colonoscopy is a more effective method for improving survival among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).

Major finding: Compared with no screening, colonoscopy led to a 44% decrease in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.56; 95% CI 0.53-0.59), whereas FIT reduced mortality by 22% (aHR 0.78; 95% CI 0.74-0.82).

Study details: This nationwide population-based retrospective study included 24,875 patients with CRC who underwent colonoscopy (n = 9619), FIT (n = 6936), or no screening (n = 8320).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by the Catholic Medical Center Research Foundation, USA. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Sung S-Y et al. Colonoscopy decreases mortality in colorectal cancer patients compared with fecal immunochemical test. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 (Jun 23). Doi: 10.1111/jgh.15924

Key clinical point: Compared with fecal immunochemical test (FIT), colonoscopy is a more effective method for improving survival among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).

Major finding: Compared with no screening, colonoscopy led to a 44% decrease in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.56; 95% CI 0.53-0.59), whereas FIT reduced mortality by 22% (aHR 0.78; 95% CI 0.74-0.82).

Study details: This nationwide population-based retrospective study included 24,875 patients with CRC who underwent colonoscopy (n = 9619), FIT (n = 6936), or no screening (n = 8320).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by the Catholic Medical Center Research Foundation, USA. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Sung S-Y et al. Colonoscopy decreases mortality in colorectal cancer patients compared with fecal immunochemical test. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 (Jun 23). Doi: 10.1111/jgh.15924

Key clinical point: Compared with fecal immunochemical test (FIT), colonoscopy is a more effective method for improving survival among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).

Major finding: Compared with no screening, colonoscopy led to a 44% decrease in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.56; 95% CI 0.53-0.59), whereas FIT reduced mortality by 22% (aHR 0.78; 95% CI 0.74-0.82).

Study details: This nationwide population-based retrospective study included 24,875 patients with CRC who underwent colonoscopy (n = 9619), FIT (n = 6936), or no screening (n = 8320).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by the Catholic Medical Center Research Foundation, USA. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Sung S-Y et al. Colonoscopy decreases mortality in colorectal cancer patients compared with fecal immunochemical test. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 (Jun 23). Doi: 10.1111/jgh.15924

Key clinical point: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improves the survival of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and peritoneal metastasis.

Major finding: The CRS plus HIPEC vs control group had a longer overall survival (hazard ratio 0.53; P < .00001).

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 10 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 7 cohort studies) including 3200 patients with CRC and peritoneal metastasis who were assigned to the CRS plus HIPEC (n = 788) or control (n = 2412) group.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Li J et al. Effect of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in combination with cytoreductive surgery on the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2022;20:200 (Jun 14). Doi: 10.1186/s12957-022-02666-3.

Key clinical point: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improves the survival of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and peritoneal metastasis.

Major finding: The CRS plus HIPEC vs control group had a longer overall survival (hazard ratio 0.53; P < .00001).

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 10 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 7 cohort studies) including 3200 patients with CRC and peritoneal metastasis who were assigned to the CRS plus HIPEC (n = 788) or control (n = 2412) group.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Li J et al. Effect of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in combination with cytoreductive surgery on the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2022;20:200 (Jun 14). Doi: 10.1186/s12957-022-02666-3.

Key clinical point: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improves the survival of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and peritoneal metastasis.

Major finding: The CRS plus HIPEC vs control group had a longer overall survival (hazard ratio 0.53; P < .00001).

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 10 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 7 cohort studies) including 3200 patients with CRC and peritoneal metastasis who were assigned to the CRS plus HIPEC (n = 788) or control (n = 2412) group.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Li J et al. Effect of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in combination with cytoreductive surgery on the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2022;20:200 (Jun 14). Doi: 10.1186/s12957-022-02666-3.

Key clinical point: Colonoscopy screening prevents both distal and proximal colorectal cancer (CRC) with similar efficacy.

Major finding: After 11 years of follow-up, the colonoscopy screening vs no screening group showed an adjusted CRC risk of 1.62% vs 2.38%, respectively, with the adjusted relative risk (aRR) being 0.68 (95% CI 0.63-0.73). The aRR for distal vs proximal CRC was 0.67 (95% CI 0.62-0.73) vs 0.70 (95% CI 0.63-0.79), respectively.

Study details: This study analyzed the observational data of 307,158 participants from a German claims database who were 55-69 years old, at an average risk for CRC, and did (n = 198,389) or did not (n = 117,399) undergo colonoscopy screening.

Disclosures: This study was supported by intramural funding from the Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology–BIPS, Germany. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Braitmaier M et al. Screening colonoscopy similarly prevented distal and proximal colorectal cancer: a prospective study among 55–69-year-olds J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;149:118-126 (Jun 6). Doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.024

Key clinical point: Colonoscopy screening prevents both distal and proximal colorectal cancer (CRC) with similar efficacy.

Major finding: After 11 years of follow-up, the colonoscopy screening vs no screening group showed an adjusted CRC risk of 1.62% vs 2.38%, respectively, with the adjusted relative risk (aRR) being 0.68 (95% CI 0.63-0.73). The aRR for distal vs proximal CRC was 0.67 (95% CI 0.62-0.73) vs 0.70 (95% CI 0.63-0.79), respectively.

Study details: This study analyzed the observational data of 307,158 participants from a German claims database who were 55-69 years old, at an average risk for CRC, and did (n = 198,389) or did not (n = 117,399) undergo colonoscopy screening.

Disclosures: This study was supported by intramural funding from the Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology–BIPS, Germany. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Braitmaier M et al. Screening colonoscopy similarly prevented distal and proximal colorectal cancer: a prospective study among 55–69-year-olds J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;149:118-126 (Jun 6). Doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.024

Key clinical point: Colonoscopy screening prevents both distal and proximal colorectal cancer (CRC) with similar efficacy.

Major finding: After 11 years of follow-up, the colonoscopy screening vs no screening group showed an adjusted CRC risk of 1.62% vs 2.38%, respectively, with the adjusted relative risk (aRR) being 0.68 (95% CI 0.63-0.73). The aRR for distal vs proximal CRC was 0.67 (95% CI 0.62-0.73) vs 0.70 (95% CI 0.63-0.79), respectively.

Study details: This study analyzed the observational data of 307,158 participants from a German claims database who were 55-69 years old, at an average risk for CRC, and did (n = 198,389) or did not (n = 117,399) undergo colonoscopy screening.

Disclosures: This study was supported by intramural funding from the Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology–BIPS, Germany. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Braitmaier M et al. Screening colonoscopy similarly prevented distal and proximal colorectal cancer: a prospective study among 55–69-year-olds J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;149:118-126 (Jun 6). Doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.024

Key clinical point: Second-line fluorouracil-leucovorin-irinotecan (FOLFIRI)-bevacizumab is associated with a longer overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and better tolerance than FOLFIRI-aflibercept in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after progression on fluorouracil-leucovorin-oxaliplatin (FOLFOX)-bevacizumab.

Major finding: After a 31.2-month median follow-up, the FOLFIRI-bevacizumab vs FOLFIRI-aflibercept group had a significantly longer median OS (13.0 vs 10.4 months; P < .0001) and PFS (6.01 vs 5.09 months; P < .0001) and a lower grade 3-4 toxicity rate (P < .0001), with bevacizumab being associated with better OS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.71; P  =  .0003) and PFS (aHR 0.70; P  =  .0001) even after confounder adjustment.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, real-world cohort study, BEFLICO, that included 681 patients with mCRC who received FOLFIRI-aflibercept (n = 326) or FOLFIRI-bevacizumab (n = 355) in the second-line setting.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Association des Gastro-entérologues Oncologues (AGEO). Some authors reported receiving speaker/advisor honoraria, consulting/personal fees, and/or research/travel funding from various sources.

Source: Torregrosa C et al. FOLFIRI plus BEvacizumab or aFLIbercept after FOLFOX-bevacizumab failure for COlorectal cancer (BEFLICO): An AGEO multicenter study. Int J Cancer. 2022 (Jun 15). Doi:  10.1002/ijc.34166

Key clinical point: Second-line fluorouracil-leucovorin-irinotecan (FOLFIRI)-bevacizumab is associated with a longer overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and better tolerance than FOLFIRI-aflibercept in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after progression on fluorouracil-leucovorin-oxaliplatin (FOLFOX)-bevacizumab.

Major finding: After a 31.2-month median follow-up, the FOLFIRI-bevacizumab vs FOLFIRI-aflibercept group had a significantly longer median OS (13.0 vs 10.4 months; P < .0001) and PFS (6.01 vs 5.09 months; P < .0001) and a lower grade 3-4 toxicity rate (P < .0001), with bevacizumab being associated with better OS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.71; P  =  .0003) and PFS (aHR 0.70; P  =  .0001) even after confounder adjustment.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, real-world cohort study, BEFLICO, that included 681 patients with mCRC who received FOLFIRI-aflibercept (n = 326) or FOLFIRI-bevacizumab (n = 355) in the second-line setting.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Association des Gastro-entérologues Oncologues (AGEO). Some authors reported receiving speaker/advisor honoraria, consulting/personal fees, and/or research/travel funding from various sources.

Source: Torregrosa C et al. FOLFIRI plus BEvacizumab or aFLIbercept after FOLFOX-bevacizumab failure for COlorectal cancer (BEFLICO): An AGEO multicenter study. Int J Cancer. 2022 (Jun 15). Doi:  10.1002/ijc.34166

Key clinical point: Second-line fluorouracil-leucovorin-irinotecan (FOLFIRI)-bevacizumab is associated with a longer overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and better tolerance than FOLFIRI-aflibercept in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after progression on fluorouracil-leucovorin-oxaliplatin (FOLFOX)-bevacizumab.

Major finding: After a 31.2-month median follow-up, the FOLFIRI-bevacizumab vs FOLFIRI-aflibercept group had a significantly longer median OS (13.0 vs 10.4 months; P < .0001) and PFS (6.01 vs 5.09 months; P < .0001) and a lower grade 3-4 toxicity rate (P < .0001), with bevacizumab being associated with better OS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.71; P  =  .0003) and PFS (aHR 0.70; P  =  .0001) even after confounder adjustment.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, real-world cohort study, BEFLICO, that included 681 patients with mCRC who received FOLFIRI-aflibercept (n = 326) or FOLFIRI-bevacizumab (n = 355) in the second-line setting.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Association des Gastro-entérologues Oncologues (AGEO). Some authors reported receiving speaker/advisor honoraria, consulting/personal fees, and/or research/travel funding from various sources.

Source: Torregrosa C et al. FOLFIRI plus BEvacizumab or aFLIbercept after FOLFOX-bevacizumab failure for COlorectal cancer (BEFLICO): An AGEO multicenter study. Int J Cancer. 2022 (Jun 15). Doi:  10.1002/ijc.34166

Key clinical point: In combination with 6 months of fluoropyrimidine therapy, 3 vs 6 months of oxaliplatin treatment (3- vs 6-month arm, respectively) is noninferior in patients with high-risk stage II or III colorectal cancer (CRC).

Major finding: The 3- vs 6-month arm showed significantly lower any-grade neuropathy rates (58.3% vs 69.5%; P < .0001) and comparable 3-year disease-free survival rates (84.7% vs 83.7%) with a hazard ratio of 0.953 (P_{noninferiority}  =  .0065), which was within the noninferiority margin of 1.25.

Study details: Findings are from a multicenter, phase 3 trial that included 1788 patients with high-risk stage II or III CRC who were randomly assigned to receive 3 (n = 893) or 6 (n = 895) months of oxaliplatin with 6 months of fluoropyrimidine therapy.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by the Colorectal Cancer Committee of the Korean Cancer Study Group and Sanofi. Some authors declared serving as consultants or advisors for or receiving research funding from various sources, including Sanofi.

Source: Kim ST et al. Oxaliplatin (3 months v 6 months) with 6 months of fluoropyrimidine as adjuvant therapy in patients with stage II/III colon cancer: KCSG CO09-07. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (Jun 30). Doi:  10.1200/JCO.21.02962

Key clinical point: In combination with 6 months of fluoropyrimidine therapy, 3 vs 6 months of oxaliplatin treatment (3- vs 6-month arm, respectively) is noninferior in patients with high-risk stage II or III colorectal cancer (CRC).

Major finding: The 3- vs 6-month arm showed significantly lower any-grade neuropathy rates (58.3% vs 69.5%; P < .0001) and comparable 3-year disease-free survival rates (84.7% vs 83.7%) with a hazard ratio of 0.953 (P_{noninferiority}  =  .0065), which was within the noninferiority margin of 1.25.

Study details: Findings are from a multicenter, phase 3 trial that included 1788 patients with high-risk stage II or III CRC who were randomly assigned to receive 3 (n = 893) or 6 (n = 895) months of oxaliplatin with 6 months of fluoropyrimidine therapy.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by the Colorectal Cancer Committee of the Korean Cancer Study Group and Sanofi. Some authors declared serving as consultants or advisors for or receiving research funding from various sources, including Sanofi.

Source: Kim ST et al. Oxaliplatin (3 months v 6 months) with 6 months of fluoropyrimidine as adjuvant therapy in patients with stage II/III colon cancer: KCSG CO09-07. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (Jun 30). Doi:  10.1200/JCO.21.02962

Key clinical point: In combination with 6 months of fluoropyrimidine therapy, 3 vs 6 months of oxaliplatin treatment (3- vs 6-month arm, respectively) is noninferior in patients with high-risk stage II or III colorectal cancer (CRC).

Major finding: The 3- vs 6-month arm showed significantly lower any-grade neuropathy rates (58.3% vs 69.5%; P < .0001) and comparable 3-year disease-free survival rates (84.7% vs 83.7%) with a hazard ratio of 0.953 (P_{noninferiority}  =  .0065), which was within the noninferiority margin of 1.25.

Study details: Findings are from a multicenter, phase 3 trial that included 1788 patients with high-risk stage II or III CRC who were randomly assigned to receive 3 (n = 893) or 6 (n = 895) months of oxaliplatin with 6 months of fluoropyrimidine therapy.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by the Colorectal Cancer Committee of the Korean Cancer Study Group and Sanofi. Some authors declared serving as consultants or advisors for or receiving research funding from various sources, including Sanofi.

Source: Kim ST et al. Oxaliplatin (3 months v 6 months) with 6 months of fluoropyrimidine as adjuvant therapy in patients with stage II/III colon cancer: KCSG CO09-07. J Clin Oncol. 2022 (Jun 30). Doi:  10.1200/JCO.21.02962

Key clinical point: A Western-style diet (rich in red and processed meat) is more strongly associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence for tumors containing higher amounts of polyketide synthase (pks)+ Escherichia coli.

Major finding: The association between the Western diet score and CRC incidence was stronger for tumors with higher pks+ E. coli levels (P_{heterogeneity}  =  .014). Individuals in the highest vs lowest tertile of diet score with pks+ E. coli-high, -low, and -negative tumors had adjusted hazard ratios of 3.45 (95% CI 1.53-7.78; P_trend  =  .001), 1.22 (95% CI 0.57-2.63), and 1.10 (95% CI 0.85-1.42), respectively.

Study details: This study analyzed the dietary information of 134,775 individuals enrolled in 2 U.S.-wide longitudinal prospective cohort studies using semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by the US National Institutes of Health, among others. Some authors declared previously serving as advisors or consultants for or receiving research grants from various sources.

Source: Arima K et al. Western-style diet, pks island-carrying Escherichia coli, and colorectal cancer: Analyses from two large prospective cohort studies. Gastroenterology. 2022 (Jun 24). Doi:  10.1053/j.gastro.2022.06.054

Key clinical point: A Western-style diet (rich in red and processed meat) is more strongly associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence for tumors containing higher amounts of polyketide synthase (pks)+ Escherichia coli.

Major finding: The association between the Western diet score and CRC incidence was stronger for tumors with higher pks+ E. coli levels (P_{heterogeneity}  =  .014). Individuals in the highest vs lowest tertile of diet score with pks+ E. coli-high, -low, and -negative tumors had adjusted hazard ratios of 3.45 (95% CI 1.53-7.78; P_trend  =  .001), 1.22 (95% CI 0.57-2.63), and 1.10 (95% CI 0.85-1.42), respectively.

Study details: This study analyzed the dietary information of 134,775 individuals enrolled in 2 U.S.-wide longitudinal prospective cohort studies using semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by the US National Institutes of Health, among others. Some authors declared previously serving as advisors or consultants for or receiving research grants from various sources.

Source: Arima K et al. Western-style diet, pks island-carrying Escherichia coli, and colorectal cancer: Analyses from two large prospective cohort studies. Gastroenterology. 2022 (Jun 24). Doi:  10.1053/j.gastro.2022.06.054

Key clinical point: A Western-style diet (rich in red and processed meat) is more strongly associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence for tumors containing higher amounts of polyketide synthase (pks)+ Escherichia coli.

Major finding: The association between the Western diet score and CRC incidence was stronger for tumors with higher pks+ E. coli levels (P_{heterogeneity}  =  .014). Individuals in the highest vs lowest tertile of diet score with pks+ E. coli-high, -low, and -negative tumors had adjusted hazard ratios of 3.45 (95% CI 1.53-7.78; P_trend  =  .001), 1.22 (95% CI 0.57-2.63), and 1.10 (95% CI 0.85-1.42), respectively.

Study details: This study analyzed the dietary information of 134,775 individuals enrolled in 2 U.S.-wide longitudinal prospective cohort studies using semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by the US National Institutes of Health, among others. Some authors declared previously serving as advisors or consultants for or receiving research grants from various sources.

Source: Arima K et al. Western-style diet, pks island-carrying Escherichia coli, and colorectal cancer: Analyses from two large prospective cohort studies. Gastroenterology. 2022 (Jun 24). Doi:  10.1053/j.gastro.2022.06.054

Key clinical point: Use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-guided approach for treating stage II colon cancer decreases the use of adjuvant chemotherapy without altering the risk for recurrence.

Major finding: After a median follow-up of 37 months, patients receiving ctDNA-guided vs standard management had a lower adjuvant chemotherapy rate (15% vs 28%; relative risk 1.82; 95% CI 1.25-2.65) and a similar 2-year recurrence-free survival rate (93.5% vs 92.4%; absolute difference, 1.1 percentage points; 95% CI −4.1 to 6.2 [noninferiority margin −8.5 percentage points]).

Study details: The data come from a multicenter phase 2 trial, DYNAMIC, involving 455 patients with resected stage II colon cancer who were assigned to ctDNA-guided (n = 302) or standard (n = 153) management.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Tie J et al for the DYNAMIC Investigators. Circulating tumor DNA analysis guiding adjuvant therapy in stage II colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:2261-2272 (Jun 16). Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2200075

Key clinical point: Use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-guided approach for treating stage II colon cancer decreases the use of adjuvant chemotherapy without altering the risk for recurrence.

Major finding: After a median follow-up of 37 months, patients receiving ctDNA-guided vs standard management had a lower adjuvant chemotherapy rate (15% vs 28%; relative risk 1.82; 95% CI 1.25-2.65) and a similar 2-year recurrence-free survival rate (93.5% vs 92.4%; absolute difference, 1.1 percentage points; 95% CI −4.1 to 6.2 [noninferiority margin −8.5 percentage points]).

Study details: The data come from a multicenter phase 2 trial, DYNAMIC, involving 455 patients with resected stage II colon cancer who were assigned to ctDNA-guided (n = 302) or standard (n = 153) management.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Tie J et al for the DYNAMIC Investigators. Circulating tumor DNA analysis guiding adjuvant therapy in stage II colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:2261-2272 (Jun 16). Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2200075

Key clinical point: Use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)-guided approach for treating stage II colon cancer decreases the use of adjuvant chemotherapy without altering the risk for recurrence.

Major finding: After a median follow-up of 37 months, patients receiving ctDNA-guided vs standard management had a lower adjuvant chemotherapy rate (15% vs 28%; relative risk 1.82; 95% CI 1.25-2.65) and a similar 2-year recurrence-free survival rate (93.5% vs 92.4%; absolute difference, 1.1 percentage points; 95% CI −4.1 to 6.2 [noninferiority margin −8.5 percentage points]).

Study details: The data come from a multicenter phase 2 trial, DYNAMIC, involving 455 patients with resected stage II colon cancer who were assigned to ctDNA-guided (n = 302) or standard (n = 153) management.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Tie J et al for the DYNAMIC Investigators. Circulating tumor DNA analysis guiding adjuvant therapy in stage II colon cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:2261-2272 (Jun 16). Doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2200075