Effectiveness, safety and quality of life of trifluridine/tipiracil in pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Real‐world data from the noninterventional TACTIC study in Germany

The prospective, multicenter, noninterventional TACTIC study assessed effectiveness and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a real‐world setting in Germany, thus evaluating the external validity of the findings from the pivotal RECOURSE trial. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives included progression‐free survival (PFS), safety, and quality of life (QoL). Subgroups comprised patients with good (<3 metastatic sites at inclusion, ≥18 months from diagnosis of first metastasis to inclusion) or poor (remaining patients) prognostic characteristics (GPC/PPC). GPC without liver metastases was considered best prognostic characteristics (BPC). In total, 307 eligible patients (pretreated or not suitable for other available therapies) were treated with FTD/TPI. Overall, median [95%‐CI] OS was 7.4 months [6.4‐8.6], median PFS was 2.9 months [2.8‐3.3]. In BPC (n = 65) and GPC (n = 176) compared to PPC (n = 124) subgroup, median OS (13.3 [9.1‐17.6] vs 8.9 [7.6‐9.8] vs 5.1 [4.4‐7.0] months) and median PFS (4.0 [3.3‐5.3] vs 3.4 [3.0‐3.7] vs 2.6 [2.4‐2.8] months) were longer. Patient‐reported QoL, assessed by validated questionnaires (EQ‐5D‐5L, PRO‐CTCAE), was stable throughout FTD/TPI treatment. Predominant FTD/TPI‐related adverse events of grades 3 or 4 were neutropenia (13.0%), leukopenia (7.5%), and anemia (5.2%). Altogether, palliative FTD/TPI therapy in patients with pretreated mCRC was associated with prolonged survival, delayed progression, maintained health‐related QoL, and manageable toxicity. Low metastatic burden and indolent disease were favorable prognostic factors for survival. TACTIC confirms the effectiveness and safety of FTD/TPI, highlighting its value in routine clinical practice.

[1]  E. Van Cutsem,et al.  Trifluridine-Tipiracil and Bevacizumab in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. , 2023, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  N. Normanno,et al.  Metastatic colorectal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up†. , 2022, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[3]  V. Heinemann,et al.  Efficacy, safety and quality-of-life data from patients with pre-treated metastatic colorectal cancer receiving trifluridine/tipiracil: results of the TALLISUR trial , 2022, ESMO open.

[4]  R. López-López,et al.  Early Clinical Experience with Trifluridine/Tipiracil for Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The ROS Study , 2021, Cancers.

[5]  P. Jiménez-Fonseca,et al.  Prediction of survival in patients with advanced, refractory colorectal cancer in treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil: real-world vs clinical trial data , 2021, Scientific Reports.

[6]  J. Tabernero,et al.  Trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab for third-line management of metastatic colorectal cancer: SUNLIGHT study design. , 2021, Future oncology.

[7]  A. Jemal,et al.  Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries , 2021, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[8]  S. Mohile,et al.  Using machine learning to identify older adults at high risk for hospitalization and mortality via the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). , 2020, Journal of Clinical Oncology.

[9]  E. Van Cutsem,et al.  Effect of trifluridine/tipiracil in patients treated in RECOURSE by prognostic factors at baseline: an exploratory analysis , 2020, ESMO Open.

[10]  E. Van Cutsem,et al.  Safety, efficacy and patient-reported outcomes with trifluridine/tipiracil in pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer: results of the PRECONNECT study , 2020, ESMO Open.

[11]  W. Cheung,et al.  Quality of life in a real-world study of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with trifluridine/tipiracil. , 2020, Current oncology.

[12]  Versione,et al.  Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events , 2020, Definitions.

[13]  T. Yoshino,et al.  Retrospective cohort study of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) plus bevacizumab versus trifluridine/tipiracil monotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer , 2019, BMC Cancer.

[14]  A. Fernández Montes,et al.  Efficacy and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil in third-line and beyond for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in routine clinical practice: patterns of use and prognostic nomogram , 2019, Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico.

[15]  P. Pfeiffer,et al.  A systematic review of observational studies of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) for metastatic colorectal cancer , 2019, Acta oncologica.

[16]  G. Prager,et al.  Beyond second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review , 2018, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[17]  E. Van Cutsem,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 , 2017, European journal of cancer.

[18]  Tae Won Kim,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. , 2017, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[19]  F. Ciardiello,et al.  Present and future of metastatic colorectal cancer treatment: A review of new candidate targets , 2017, World journal of gastroenterology.

[20]  S. Kubicka,et al.  Treatment decisions in metastatic colorectal cancer - Beyond first and second line combination therapies. , 2017, Cancer treatment reviews.

[21]  U. Jaehde,et al.  Validation of the German patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE™). , 2016, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[22]  Ching-yi Wu,et al.  Validity, responsiveness, and minimal clinically important difference of EQ-5D-5L in stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation , 2016, Quality of Life Research.

[23]  Amy P Abernethy,et al.  Validity and Reliability of the US National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). , 2015, JAMA oncology.

[24]  Marc Peeters,et al.  Randomized trial of TAS-102 for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  N. Sugimoto,et al.  TAS-102 monotherapy for pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial. , 2012, The Lancet. Oncology.

[26]  G. Bonsel,et al.  Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) , 2011, Quality of Life Research.

[27]  K. Do,et al.  Presalvage prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) and PSA doubling time as predictors of biochemical failure of salvage cryotherapy in patients with locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy , 2006, Cancer.

[28]  E. Kaplan,et al.  Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations , 1958 .

[29]  Joseph P. Near,et al.  How to cite this article , 2011 .