Aim: To help to remove misperception of an appropriate position of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Materials & methods: The RAND Corporation/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used by a panel of Italian experts to develop recommendations concerning daily practice with FTD/TPI. Forty-three clinical scenarios were discussed in two rounds and the resulting statements were rated as appropriate, uncertain or inappropriate, according to the median score. Results: Several topics were dealt with, covering the profile of eligible patients, therapeutic options beyond the second line, the practice of treatment with FTD/TPI, evaluation and efficacy and toxicity, as well as costs and compliance. Conclusion: FTD/TPI is an important therapeutic resource in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer that combines manageability and safety.

Lay abstract

To remove misperception of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. An established Method for evaluating appropriateness of new drugs was used. Forty-three clinical scenarios were discussed in two rounds and the resulting statements were rated as appropriate, uncertain or inappropriate, according to the median score. Several topics were dealt with, covering the profile of eligible patients, therapeutic options beyond the second line, efficacy and toxicity, as well as compliance. FTD/TPI is an important therapeutic resource in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer that combines manageability and safety.

Keywords:

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

1. Fukushima M, Suzuki N, Emura T et al. Structure and activity of specific inhibitors of thymidine phosphorylase to potentiate the function of antitumor 2′-deoxyribonucleosides. Biochem. Pharmacol. 59(10), 1227–1236 (2000).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
2. Emura T, Suzuki N, Fujioka A et al. Potentiation of the antitumor activity of α,α,α-trifluorothydine by the co-administration of an inhibitor of thymidine phosphorylase at a suitable molar ratio in vivo. Int. J. Oncol. 27(3), 449–455 (2005).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
3. Emura T, Murakami Y, Nakagawa F et al. A novel antimetabolite, TAS-102, retains its effect on FU-related resistant cancer cells. Int. J. Mol. Med. 13(4), 545–549 (2004).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
4. Suzuki N, Iwaizumi M, Hamaya Y et al. Trifluridine to enhance cytotoxicity by DNA mismatch repair deficiency and subsequent MBD4 frameshift mutation in colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 34(Suppl. 4), abstract 608 (2016).
Google Scholar
5. Hong DS, Abbruzzese JL, Bogaard K et al. Phase I study to determine the safety and pharmacokinetic of oral administration of TAS-102 in patients with solid tumors. Cancer 107(6), 1383–1390 (2006).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
6. Doi T, Ohtsu A, Yoshino T et al. Phase I study of TAS-102 treatment in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors. Br. J. Cancer 107(3), 429–434 (2012).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
7. Bendell JC, Rosen LS, Mayer RJ et al. Phase I study of oral TAS-102 in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 76(5), 925–932 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
8. Cleary JM, Mayer RJ, van Cutsem E et al. Population pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis of TAS-102 in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): results from 3 Phase I trials and the Phase 3 RECOURSE trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 33(Suppl. 1), abstract 2579 (2015).
Google Scholar
9. Yoshino T, Mizunuma N, Yamazaki K et al. TAS-102 monotherapy for pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled Phase II trial. Lancet Oncol. 13(10), 993–1001 (2012). • The first randomized study showing activity and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
10. Mayer RJ, van Cutsem E, Falcone A et al. Randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 1909–1919 (2015). •• A seminal large trial demonstrating the efficacy of FTD/TPI in refractory mCRC.
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Brook RH, Gompert DC. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness Method. “Clinical practice guidelines development: methodology perspective”. Public Health Service, AHCR, MD, USA (1994).
Google Scholar
12. Pinto C, Barone C, Girolomoni G et al. Management of skin toxicity associated with cetuximab treatment in combination with chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Oncologist 16(2), 228–238 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. van Cutsem E, Benedetti F, Mizuguchi H et al. TAS-102 vs placebo in patients ≥65 years with metastatic colorectal cancer: an age-based analysis of the RECOURSE trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 33(Suppl. 15), Abstract 3595 (2015).
Google Scholar
14. van Cutsem E, Mayer RJ, Laurent S et al. The subgroups of the Phase III RECOURSE trial of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) versus placebo with best supportive care in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 90, 63–72 (2018). • Subgroup analysis showing that FTD/TPI is effective in all the preplanned subgroup.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
15. Falcone A, Garcia-Carbonero R, Tabernero J et al. Low rates of hospitalizations with TAS-102 in the European (EU) subregion of the Phase III RECOURSE trial in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 51(Suppl. 3), Abstract S383 (2015).
Google Scholar
16. Kimura M, Usami E, Iwai M et al. Severe neutropenia: a prognosticator in patients with advanced/recurrent colorectal cancer under oral trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) chemotherapy. Pharmazie 72(1), 49–52 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
17. Hamauchi S, Yamazaki K, Masuishi T et al. Neutropenia as a predictive factor in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with TAS-102. Clin. Colorectal Cancer 16(1), 51–57 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
18. Bendell JC, Patel MR, Yoshida K et al. Phase I study of cardiac safety of TAS-102 in patients with advanced solid tumors. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 77(6), 1275–1283 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
19. Lenz H-J, Stintzing S, Loupakis F. TAS-102, a novel antitumor agent: a review of the mechanism of action. Cancer Treat. Rev. 41(9), 777–783 (2015). • An excellent review of the mechanism of action of FTD/TPI in comparison to other fluoropyrimidines.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20. Burness CB, Duffan ST. Trifluridine/tipiracil: a review in metastatic colorectal cancer. Drugs 76(14), 1393–1402 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
21. Petrelli F, Barni S, Bertocchi P et al. TAS-102, the first “cardio-gentle” fluoropyrimidine in the colorectal cancer landscape? BMC Cancer 16, 386–389 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
22. Falcone A, Andre T, Edeline J et al. Safety and efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): preliminary results from the Phase IIIb, international, open-label, early-access PRECONNECT study. Ann. Oncol. 29(Suppl_5), V104–V105 (2018).
Google Scholar
23. Bachet J-B, Wyrwicz L, Price T et al. Safety, efficacy and patient-reported outcome with trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer: results of the PRECONNECT study. ESMO Open 5( 3), e000698 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
24. Xu J, Kim TW, Shen L et al. Results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III trial of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) monotherapy in Asian patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer: the TERRA study. J. Clin. Oncol. 36(4), 350–358 (2018). •• A large randomized trial confirming efficacy of FTD/TPI also in an Asian population.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
25. Oki E, Makiyama A, Miyamoto Y et al. Trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab as a first-line treatment for elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (KSCC1602): a multicenter Phase II trial. Cancer Medicine 1–8 (2020).
Google Scholar
26. Grothey A, van Cutsem E, Sobrero A et al. Regorafenib monotherapy for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CORRECT): an international, multicentre, randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase III trial. Lancet 381(9863), 303–312 (2013).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
27. Li J, Qin S, Xu R et al. Regorafenib plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care in Asian patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CONCUR): a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 16(6), 619–629 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
28. van Cutsem E, Martinelli E, Cascinu S et al. Regorafenib for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who progressed after standard therapy: results of the large, single-arm, open-label IIIb CONSIGN study. Oncologist 24(2), 185–192 (2019). •• A large study initiated before regulatory approval, which provides data supporting FTD/TPI indication in refractory mCRC.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
29. Kobayashi K, Kawakami K, Yokokawa T et al. Association of hand-foot skin reaction with regorafenib efficacy in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncology 96(4), 200–206 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30. Price TJ, Peeters M, Kim TW et al. Panitumumab versus cetuximab in patients with chemotherapy-refractory wild-type KRAS exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized, multicenter, open-label, non inferiority Phase III study. Lancet Oncol. 15(6), 569–579 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
31. Pfeiffer P, Yilmaz M, Möller S et al. TAS-102 with or without bevacizumab in patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer: an investigator-initiated, open-label, randomized, Phase II trial. Lancet Oncol 21(3), 412–420 (2020). • The first comparative study of bevacizumab + FTD/TPI combination in mCRC.
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32. Smith TJ, Bohlke K, Lyman GH et al. Recommendations for the use of WBC growth factors: American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guideline update. J. Clin. Oncol. 33(28), 3199–3214 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
33. Ramaekers BLT, Wolff R, van Giessen A et al. Trifluridine-tipiracil for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer: an evidence review group perspective of a NICE single technology appraisal. Pharmacoeconomics 36(3), 285–288 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
34. Bullement A, Underhill S, Fougeray R et al. Cost–effectiveness of trifluridine/tipiracil for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer in England and Wales. Clin. Colorectal Cancer 17(1), e143–151 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
35. Giuliani J, Bonetti A. Regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer? A perspective on the basis of pharmacological costs. Clin. Colorectal Cancer 17(2), e381–383 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
36. Greer JA, Amoyal N, Nistel L et al. A systematic review of adherence to oral antineoplastic therapies. Oncologist 21(3), 354–376 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
37. Patel AK, Duh MS, Barghout V et al. Real-word treatment patterns among patients with colorectal cancer treated with trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib. Clin. Colorectal Cancer 17(3), e531–539 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
38. Abrahao ABK, Ko Y-J, Berry S et al. A comparison of regorafenib and TAS-102 for metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Clin. Colorectal Cancer 17(2), 113–120 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Vol. 17, No. 14

Supplemental Materials

Metrics

Downloaded 1,275 times

History

Received 19 November 2020

Accepted 21 December 2020

Published online 19 January 2021

Published in print May 2021

Information

Keywords

Supplementary data

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/fon-2020-1181

Author contributions

Conception/design was done by C Barone, C Pinto. Provision of study material or patients was performed by C Barone, MD Bartolomeo, S Lonardi, E Maiello, E Martinelli, R Moretto, E Tamburini, A Zaniboni and C Pinto. Collection and/or assembly of data was done by C Barone, A Strippoli, C Pinto. Data analysis and interpretation was done by C Barone, S Lonardi, E Maiello, E Martinelli, R Moretto, E Tamburini, A Zaniboni and C Pinto. C Barone and A Strippoli assisted in drafting of manuscript. Final approval of manuscript was done by C Barone, MD Bartolomeo, S Lonardi, E Maiello, E Martinelli, R Moretto, A Strippoli, E Tamburini, A Zaniboni and C Pinto.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Panel of Oncologists (see Supplementary data) for their willingness to participate in this project.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

Carlo Barone: consulting/advisory role (Servier); research funding (Merck-Serono); meeting registration & accomodation (Daichii-Sankyo and Merck-Serono). Maria Di Bartolomeo: research funding (Eli Lilly); honoraria (Eli Lilly and MSD). Sara Lonardi: consulting/advisory role (Amgen Inc, Bayer AG, Eli Lilly, Merck-Serono and Servier); research funding (Amgen Inc and Merck-Serono); honoraria (BMS, Eli Lilly and Hoffmann La Roche). Evaristo Maiello: consulting/advisory role (Astra-Zeneca, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Merck-Serono, Hoffmann La Roche and Sanofi); research funding (MSD). Erika Martinelli: consulting/advisory role (Merck-Serono, Sanofi and Hoffmann La Roche). Roberto Moretto: consulting/advisory role (Hoffmann La Roche). Antonia Strippoli: no financial relationships. Emiliano Tamburini: no financial relationships. Alberto Zaniboni: consulting/advisory Role (Amgen Inc, Bayer AG, Merck-Serono, Sanofi and Servier). Carmine Pinto: consulting/advisory role (Amgen Inc, Bayer AG, Merck-Serono, MSD, Hoffmann La Roche and Servier); research funding (Bayer AG, BMS, Daichii-Sankyo and Eli Lilly). The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Open access

This work is licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

PDF download