Cargando…
Rechallenge therapy and treatment holiday: different strategies in management of metastatic colorectal cancer
Fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin, irinotecan and biologic therapies (Bevacizumab, Panitumumab, and Cetuximab) represent the backbone of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment. The improvement in survival for mCRC patient led to two main outstanding issues: 1) there is a significant number of pat...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3874688/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24245912 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-9966-32-92 |
_version_ | 1782297264694231040 |
---|---|
author | Tonini, Giuseppe Imperatori, Marco Vincenzi, Bruno Frezza, Anna Maria Santini, Daniele |
author_facet | Tonini, Giuseppe Imperatori, Marco Vincenzi, Bruno Frezza, Anna Maria Santini, Daniele |
author_sort | Tonini, Giuseppe |
collection | PubMed |
description | Fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin, irinotecan and biologic therapies (Bevacizumab, Panitumumab, and Cetuximab) represent the backbone of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment. The improvement in survival for mCRC patient led to two main outstanding issues: 1) there is a significant number of patients progressing beyond the third or fourth line of treatment still suitable for further therapy when enrollment into clinical trial is not possible. In this situation, the role of any therapy rechallenge (either chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy and biologic therapy or biologic therapy alone) is still not clear, particularly in patients who had previously responded, and if treatment choice is based on traditional dogma of primary and secondary resistance, rechallenge does not seem to be justified. 2) Prolonged intensive treatment is burdened from the high risk of cumulative toxicity, worsening in quality of life and a not well defined possibility of early acquired resistance. Different hypothesis could justify the research of different strategy in treatment of mCRC: 1) Epigenetic changes might drive resistance and treatment could induce these changes. Re-expression of silenced tumor suppressive genes might resensitize tumors to therapy. It is therefore possible that a drug holiday (intermittent treatment) could allow reversion to a previous epigenetic profile. Moreover an intermittent treatment could delay acquired resistance. 2) It is plausible that tumor grows as a polyclonal mass. If it responds but then becomes resistant to one or more treatments, retreatment might be successful if changing therapies allows to that clone of cells to re-emerge. On these basis, we focused this review on the actual evidences in management of mCRC patients in terms of chemotherapy or biological therapies rechallenge and intermittent treatment. Moreover, we will discuss the potential biological mechanisms of the observed results of early clinical trials. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3874688 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-38746882013-12-31 Rechallenge therapy and treatment holiday: different strategies in management of metastatic colorectal cancer Tonini, Giuseppe Imperatori, Marco Vincenzi, Bruno Frezza, Anna Maria Santini, Daniele J Exp Clin Cancer Res Review Fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin, irinotecan and biologic therapies (Bevacizumab, Panitumumab, and Cetuximab) represent the backbone of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment. The improvement in survival for mCRC patient led to two main outstanding issues: 1) there is a significant number of patients progressing beyond the third or fourth line of treatment still suitable for further therapy when enrollment into clinical trial is not possible. In this situation, the role of any therapy rechallenge (either chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy and biologic therapy or biologic therapy alone) is still not clear, particularly in patients who had previously responded, and if treatment choice is based on traditional dogma of primary and secondary resistance, rechallenge does not seem to be justified. 2) Prolonged intensive treatment is burdened from the high risk of cumulative toxicity, worsening in quality of life and a not well defined possibility of early acquired resistance. Different hypothesis could justify the research of different strategy in treatment of mCRC: 1) Epigenetic changes might drive resistance and treatment could induce these changes. Re-expression of silenced tumor suppressive genes might resensitize tumors to therapy. It is therefore possible that a drug holiday (intermittent treatment) could allow reversion to a previous epigenetic profile. Moreover an intermittent treatment could delay acquired resistance. 2) It is plausible that tumor grows as a polyclonal mass. If it responds but then becomes resistant to one or more treatments, retreatment might be successful if changing therapies allows to that clone of cells to re-emerge. On these basis, we focused this review on the actual evidences in management of mCRC patients in terms of chemotherapy or biological therapies rechallenge and intermittent treatment. Moreover, we will discuss the potential biological mechanisms of the observed results of early clinical trials. BioMed Central 2013-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC3874688/ /pubmed/24245912 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-9966-32-92 Text en Copyright © 2013 Tonini et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Review Tonini, Giuseppe Imperatori, Marco Vincenzi, Bruno Frezza, Anna Maria Santini, Daniele Rechallenge therapy and treatment holiday: different strategies in management of metastatic colorectal cancer |
title | Rechallenge therapy and treatment holiday: different strategies in management of metastatic colorectal cancer |
title_full | Rechallenge therapy and treatment holiday: different strategies in management of metastatic colorectal cancer |
title_fullStr | Rechallenge therapy and treatment holiday: different strategies in management of metastatic colorectal cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | Rechallenge therapy and treatment holiday: different strategies in management of metastatic colorectal cancer |
title_short | Rechallenge therapy and treatment holiday: different strategies in management of metastatic colorectal cancer |
title_sort | rechallenge therapy and treatment holiday: different strategies in management of metastatic colorectal cancer |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3874688/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24245912 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-9966-32-92 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT toninigiuseppe rechallengetherapyandtreatmentholidaydifferentstrategiesinmanagementofmetastaticcolorectalcancer AT imperatorimarco rechallengetherapyandtreatmentholidaydifferentstrategiesinmanagementofmetastaticcolorectalcancer AT vincenzibruno rechallengetherapyandtreatmentholidaydifferentstrategiesinmanagementofmetastaticcolorectalcancer AT frezzaannamaria rechallengetherapyandtreatmentholidaydifferentstrategiesinmanagementofmetastaticcolorectalcancer AT santinidaniele rechallengetherapyandtreatmentholidaydifferentstrategiesinmanagementofmetastaticcolorectalcancer |