Axel Grothey, MD:Coming back to the idea of continuum of care, later-line treatment approaches add to survival. We’ve known this for quite some time. Until recently, we didn’t have a lot of interesting third-line or fourth-line treatment options. Now we actually have 2 distinct agentsregorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, and TAS-102, which is a fluoropyrimidine, fluorothymidine chemotherapy. Those agents are now competing for the third-line space. The question is, how do we sequence these treatments? Who are these patients who should receive 1 drug or the other?
They have very distinct differences in not necessarily efficacy, but toxicity. TAS-102 is a chemotherapy agent, conventional chemotherapy. It’s main adverse effect is neutropenia. We actually know that patients who develop neutropenia have a better outcome on TAS-102 than patients who don’t develop neutropenia. This neutropenia is relatively asymptomatic. Patients normally do not have febrile neutropenia, so a lower rate of infection, and some patients might have diarrhea or fatigue. But normally TAS-102 is quite well tolerated.
The pool of patients I consider for TAS-102 is larger than for regorafenib, because regorafenib has subjective toxicitieshand-foot skin reaction, rash, fatigue, loss of appetite.
Now, we want to make sure that patients receive all active agents. That’s one of the key principles of dealing with metastatic colorectal cancer patients. So how do we ensure this best? And this is where the evaluation of toxicity comes into play. I do believe that a patient who is a candidate for regorafenib in the third-line setting should receive regorafenib before TAS-102. If we choose TAS-102 first, when patients’ performance status [PS] deteriorates, these patients might not be good candidates for regorafenib anymore.
With the goal in mind to really expose patients to all active agents, it is more prudent to use regorafenib first followed by TAS-102 in patients who are considered candidates for regorafenib. Again, the pool of patients considered for third-line treatment is probably larger for TAS-102 than for regorafenib. I would not treat a patient with a PS2 with regorafenib, but I would treat a patient with PS2 with TAS-102 up front.
This might actually change now that we have interesting data combining regorafenib with immunotherapy and TAS-102 with bevacizumab. These are new developments, new combination therapies. We will need to see what place they’ll have in the third-line treatment setting.
Transcript edited for clarity.
Retrospective Data Highlight Impact of Dose Escalation of Regorafenib in mCRC
May 9th 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Madappa Kundranda, MD, PhD, discussed recent retrospective studies that looked at outcomes of dose optimization of regorafenib for patients with relapsed/refractory advanced colorectal cancer in the first article of a 2-part series.
Read More
Retrospective Data Demonstrates Efficacy of Regorafenib in mCRC
April 16th 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Madappa Kundranda, MD, PhD, discussed recent retrospective studies that compared outcomes between the available treatment options in patients with relapsed/refractory advanced colorectal cancer in the first article of a 2-part series.
Read More
Peritoneal RFS May Be a Stronger Predictor of OS in CRC Peritoneal Metastasis
March 27th 2024In an interview with Targeted Oncology, Muhammad Talha Waheed, MBBS, discussed research on the reliability of using recurrence-free survival as an efficacy end point for trials evaluating patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastasis.
Read More