Controversies in the treatment of RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance for the management of RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in daily practice. METHODS: Nominal group and Delphi techniques were used. A steering committee of seven experts analyzed the current management of RAS wt mCRC, through which they identified controversies, critically analyzed the available evidence, and formulated several guiding statements for clinicians. Subsequently, a group of 30 experts (the expert panel) was selected to test agreement with the statements, through two Delphi rounds. The following response categories were established in both rounds: 1 = totally agree, 2 = basically agree, 3 = basically disagree, 4 = totally disagree. Agreement was defined if ≥ 75% of answers were in categories 1 and 2 (consensus with the agreement) or 3 and 4 (consensus with the disagreement). RESULTS: Overall, 71 statements were proposed, which incorporated the following areas: (1) overarching principles; (2) tumor location; (3) triplets; (4) maintenance; (5) second-line and beyond treatments; (6) Rechallenge and liquid biopsy. After the two Delphi rounds, only six statements maintained a lack of clear consensus. CONCLUSIONS: This document aims to describe the expert’s attitude when dealing with several common clinical questions regarding patients with RAS wt mCRC. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s12094-020-02475-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.