Skip to main content
Download PDF

Single-organ pulmonary metastasis is a favorable prognostic factor in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with FOLFIRI and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors

BMC Cancer volume 23, Article number: 634 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Few studies have focused on the impact of single-organ pulmonary metastases on progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Recognizing differences in prognosis and chemotherapeutic efficacy based on metastasized organs may help in optimizing treatment strategies. The exploratory study was conducted to evaluate the comparative clinical outcomes and prognoses of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer presenting with single-organ pulmonary metastases and treated with folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors as second-line chemotherapy.

Methods

This retrospective study included 289 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with second-line folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors. The response rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival were assessed in the participants.

Results

Among the 289 patients enrolled, 26 (9.0%) had single-organ pulmonary metastasis with left-sided primary locations, lower levels of tumor markers at the initiation point of chemotherapy, a significantly higher disease control rate (96.2% vs. 76.7%, P = .02), and a longer progression-free survival (median 29.6 months vs. 6.1 months, P < .001) and overall survival (median 41.1 months vs. 18.7 months, P < .001) than patients with other forms of metastatic colorectal cancer. Multivariate analysis showed that single-organ pulmonary metastasis was an independent predictor of longer progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.35, P = .00075) and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.2, P = .006).

Conclusion

Single-organ pulmonary metastasis was a strong predictor of progression-free survival and overall survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors as second-line chemotherapy; this provides preliminary evidence for medical guidelines and clinical decision-making on novel therapeutic strategies for these patients.

Peer Review reports

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most fatal cancer worldwide, with approximately 900,000 deaths annually. Moreover, this cancer accounts for approximately 10% of all cancers diagnosed and cancer-related deaths worldwide each year [1]. It is the second most common cancer in women and the third most common cancer in men [2]. Among those diagnosed with CRC, 20% have metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), and 40% of patients with localized cancer present with recurrence following previous treatment [3]. Although new treatment strategies (including molecularly-targeted drugs) have been developed and the prognosis of CRC has consequently improved, the prognosis for metastatic CRC remains poor, with a five-year survival rate of less than 20% [4].

The lungs are one of the most frequent metastatic sites arising from mCRC, with an incidence of approximately 10–25% [5,6,7]. The most common primary tumors to result in pulmonary metastases include breast cancer, CRC, renal carcinoma, uterine leiomyosarcoma, and head and neck carcinoma [8]. Compared to colon cancer, patients with rectal cancer are at higher risk of synchronous and metachronous pulmonary metastases [9,10,11] due to the direct spread of rectal cancer cells into the systemic circulation through the hemorrhoidal veins [12]. In a multivariate analysis of 5,673 Stage I–IV CRC patients, those with single-organ pulmonary metastases showed a significantly better prognosis compared to those with metastasis at a different location in addition to lung metastasis [10]. According to another retrospective study, patients with single-organ pulmonary lesions have a significantly better prognosis as compared to those with a single-organ metastasis to another organ [13].

Surgical resection has gradually been accepted as an appropriate treatment for single-organ pulmonary metastases arising from mCRC [5, 7, 14]. In Japan, indications for pulmonary metastasectomy follow the criteria outlined in the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines [15] which are as follows: (1) the patient is capable of tolerating surgery; (2) the primary colorectal tumor is controlled or can be controlled; (3) the metastatic lung tumor can be completely resected; (4) any extra-thoracic metastases can be controlled; and (5) the function of the remaining lung would be adequate after metastasectomy.

Although the efficacy of pulmonary resection for solitary pulmonary metastases has been established, pulmonary resection for multiple or bilateral lesions remains controversial. Recently, several studies have reported on novel treatment strategies, including stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA), for addressing pulmonary metastases arising from mCRC [16, 17]. However, these strategies have not yet been established. Patients with multiple metastatic pulmonary lesions are treated with chemotherapy as these multiple lesions are thought to represent systemic dissemination and are unresectable [2]. Although there have been several reports related to the treatment of single-organ liver metastasis of mCRC [18,19,20], few studies are related to the treatment of single-organ pulmonary metastasis of mCRC. Therefore, it is unclear wheather single-organ metastases to the lung can affect the outcomes of patients with mCRC treated with chemotherapy.

Angiogenesis is closely related to pulmonary metastasis in some cancers. Ghouse et al. found that angiogenic switching in the lungs prior to the arrival of tumor cells in a mouse model of breast carcinoma and the subsequent angiogenesis contributes to the premetastatic niche in rapidly progressing cancers and that inhibiting this process is beneficial for reducing pulmonary metastases [21]. Clinical trials have shown that vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors in combination with folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) significantly improved overall survival (OS) as compared with FOLFIRI alone [22,23,24]; therefore, these combination therapies are a standard second-line treatment.

We conducted the exploratory study to evaluate the comparative clinical outcomes and prognoses of patients with mCRC presenting with single-organ pulmonary metastases and treated with FOLFIRI and VEGF inhibitors as second-line chemotherapy.

Methods

Study population

This retrospective study included 289 patients with mCRC who were treated with FOLFIRI and VEGF inhibitors as a second-line chemotherapy regimen from January 2017 to December 2019 at our institution. The study cohort included patients with mCRC at the lungs, livers, lymph nodes, and peritoneum as well as other locations and patients with mCRC who consistently had only pulmonary metastasis from the time of initial diagnosis until the start of the second line were considered mCRC patients with single-organ pulmonary metastasis. For the analysis, we investigated the association between single-organ pulmonary metastases and treatment efficacy and prognosis in patients treated with FOLFIRI and VEGF inhibitors as second-line chemotherapy.

This study was approved by the institutional review board of the Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation of Cancer Research (IRB receipt number: 2020-GA-1017) and was conducted in accordance with the principles of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was described on the hospital website, and the patients were provided the opportunity to opt out. Therefore, no additional consent was required from the enrolled patients.

Treatment schedule

Bevacizumab (BEV) was administered at the recommended dose of 5 mg/kg, ramucirumab (RAM) at the recommended dose of 8 mg/kg, and aflibercept (AFL) at the recommended dose of 4 mg/kg. The concomitant chemotherapy was FOLFIRI (irinotecan 150–180 mg/m2, L-leucovorin 200 mg/m2, bolus 5-FU 400 mg/m2, 46-h infusion of 5-FU 2,400 mg/m2). Prophylactic treatments and dose reductions were performed based on the recommendations delineated within the established guidelines and the physician’s judgment.

Assessments

Patient data were collected from medical records and imaging scans (enhanced or plain Computed Tomography (CT)) for age, sex, primary tumor location (right-sided [cecum, ascending colon, or transverse colon] or left-sided colon [descending colon, sigmoid colon, or rectum]), metastatic site, RAS status in the tissue, prior BEV exposure in first-line chemotherapy, first-line progression-free survival (PFS; in patients treated with BEV only), relapse within 6 months of completing oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy, and serum markers (carcinoembryonic antigen [CEA], carbohydrate antigen 19–9 [CA19-9] and lactate dehydrogenase [LDH]).

Complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) were defined based on the RECIST guidelines (v1.1) [25]. The response rate (RR) denotes the proportion of patients experiencing a CR or PR to second-line chemotherapy, and the disease control rate (DCR) indicates the proportion of patients experiencing a CR, PR, or SD response to chemotherapy. PFS was defined as the time elapsing from the first day of second-line treatment to either the first objective evidence of disease progression or death from any cause; and OS was the time elapsing from the first day of second-line treatment to death. The grade of adverse events (AEs) was assessed using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0 [26].

Statistical analyses

The primary endpoints of this study were PFS and OS from the time of induction of FOLFIRI and VEGF inhibitors as second-line chemotherapy. Data are reported as medians (ranges), means (ranges), or counts (percentages), as appropriate. Categorical variables were compared using Fisher’s exact tests, while continuous variables were compared using two-sample t-tests. Time-to-event analyses using Kaplan–Meier curves were performed to compare groups using log-rank tests. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to adjust for possible confounders, including sex, age, primary tumor location, the presence of lung metastases only, tissue RAS mutations, prior BEV exposure in first-line chemotherapy, and treatment regimen.

All statistical tests were two-sided, and the significance was set at P < 0.05. The statistical analyses were performed using EZR statistical software (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan), a graphical user interface for R (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). More precisely, EZR is a modified version of the R commander designed to add specific statistical functions frequently used in biostatistics [27].

Results

Cohort characteristics

In total, 289 patients were treated with second-line FOLFIRI and VEGF inhibitors (BEV, RAM, and AFL), of whom 137 (47.4%) were males and 152 (52.6%) were females, with a median age of 63 (range: 31–84) years; 26 patients (9.0%) had single-organ pulmonary metastasis. The liver was the most frequent site of metastasis (51.2% [148/289]), followed by the lungs (50.2% [145/289]), lymph nodes (34.3% [99/289]), and peritoneum (33.6% [97/289]). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0/1/2 was 232(80.3%) /56(19.4) /1(0.3%), respectively. Patients with single-organ pulmonary metastasis had significantly better PS than others (P = 0.036).

The study included 22 patients (84.6%) with pulmonary lesions on both sides and 4 patients (15.4%) with unilateral lesions. The median number of pulmonary lesions was 4.5 (1–53) lesions with a median maximum diameter of 12.5 mm (5–33) mm. Second-line treatment regimens were as follows: 119 patients (41.2%) received FOLFIRI and BEV, 107 patients (37.0%) underwent FOLFIRI and RAM, and 63 patients(21.8%) underwent FOLFIRI and AFL regimens. There were no significant differences in age, sex, or type of VEGF inhibitor between the study groups. None of the patients underwent any surgeries and locoregional therapies for metastases just before and after second line chemotherapy. This cohort also included 41 patients (14.2%) treated with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies as first line treatment.

Of the 289 patients, 93 (32.2%) had right-sided colon tumors and 196 (67.8%) had left-sided tumors. The primary tumor sites were right-sided in 4 (15.4%) and left-sided in 22 (84.6%) patients with single-organ pulmonary metastases (P = 0.08).

In terms of RAS/BRAF status in the tissue, 132 (45.7%) of the tumors were wild-type, 151 (52.2%) showed mutations, and 6 (2.1%) had an unknown status. RAS variants are shown in Table 1. In cases with single-organ pulmonary metastases, RAS status in the tissue was wild-type in 12 patients (46.2%) and mutant in 14 patients (53.8%). The identified RAS variants were as follows: KRAS G12D (five patients [19.2%, P > 0.99]), KRAS G13D (three patients [11.5%, P = 0.72]), KRAS G12V (two patients [7.7%, P > 0.99]), KRAS G12C (two patients [7.7%, P = 0.16]), and NRAS Q61 (two patients [7.7%, P = 0.13]). The rates of KRAS G12C and NRAS Q61H mutations tended to be high in patients with single-organ pulmonary metastases, whereas none of the patients with single-organ pulmonary metastases had a BRAF V600E mutation. It was noted that 159 patients (55%) underwent prior BEV treatment in first-line chemotherapy.

Table 1 Patient demographic and clinical characteristics
Full size table

The median CEA of the patients was 17.3 (range: 0.5–17,056.1) ng/mL and the median CA19-9 was 32.7 (2.0–50,000) U/mL. The evaluated tumor markers (CEA and CA19-9) were significantly lower at the time of initiation of chemotherapy (CEA, P = 0.004; CA19-9, P < 0.001) in patients with single-organ pulmonary metastases than tumor markers in those with other forms of mCRC. In addition, the mean LDH level at the start of second-line chemotherapy treatment was 204 (119–307) U/L in patients with single-organ pulmonary metastases, while the mean LDH level was 316 (134–5,753) U/L in patients without these metastases (P = 0.18). The mean LDH level of patients with single-organ pulmonary metastases tended to be lower than that of patients with other forms of mCRC.

Clinical outcomes

To assess the efficacy of FOLFIRI and VEGF inhibitors in patients with mCRC presenting with single-organ pulmonary metastases, we compared the clinical outcomes between mCRC patients with or without single-organ pulmonary metastases. The response rate (RR) for second-line FOLFIRI and VEGF inhibitors was 23.1% (6/26) in mCRC patients with single-organ pulmonary metastases and 16.1% (38/236) in patients with other forms of mCRC (P = 0.41). The DCR was 96.2% (25/26) in patients with single-organ pulmonary metastases and 76.7% (181/236) in patients with other forms of mCRC. (P = 0.02).

The median PFS in patients with single-organ pulmonary metastases was 29.6 months, whereas that for other mCRC patients was 6.1 months (P < 0.001). Moreover, the median OS of patients with single-organ pulmonary metastases was 41.1 months, while that of other mCRC patients was 18.7 months (P < 0.001) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

PFS and OS of patients with mCRC treated with FOLFIRI and anti-angiogenic drugs. a PFS and b OS in patients with single organ pulmonary metastases arising from mCRC after second-line chemotherapy as compared to those with other metastatic lesions. CI, confidence interval; FOLFIRI, leucovorin + fluorouracil + irinotecan; mCRC, metastatic colorectal cancer; mOS, months of overall survival; mPFS, months of progression-free survival; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival

Full size image

Patients with prior BEV exposure had significantly shorter PFS than those without prior BEV exposure (mPFS: 5.6 months vs. 8.6 months, P = 0.0051). Median PFS in first line treatment was 9.5 months [0.8–68.5 months] and patients with long PFS in first line treatment (≥ 9.5 months) tended to have longer PFS in second line treatment (HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.55–1.04; P = 0.084) than those with short PFS in first line traetment (< 9.5 months).

Patients with NRAS Q61-mutated mCRC tended to have a longer PFS (P = 0.09) on univariate analysis. In the multivariate analysis, prior BEV exposure in first-line chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 1.42, P = 0.016) and ECOG PS (≧1) (HR 1.57, P = 0.0088) were independent predictors of shorter PFS and single-organ pulmonary metastasis (HR 0.35, P = 0.00075) was an independent predictor of longer PFS.

Furthermore, patients with single-organ pulmonary metastasis had a significantly longer OS (HR 0.2, P = 0.006) compared to those with other forms of mCRC. ECOG PS (HR 1.75, P = 0.011) was also an independent predictor of shorter OS than others (Table 2). Grade 3 or 4 AEs were observed in 168 patients (58.1%) in the study cohort, with the most common AEs being neutropenia (49.1%), hypertension (10.0%), and proteinuria (8.0%). Grade 3 or 4 AEs occurred in 21 patients with single-organ pulmonary metastases and 147 patients with other forms of mCRC (80.8% vs. 55.9%, P = 0.02), and patients with single-organ pulmonary metastases experienced severe AEs more frequently than those without. The most common grade 3 or 4 AE was neutropenia (71.4%). In this study, in addition to BEV, we used AFL or RAM as a VEGF inhibitor and patients treated with these types of VEGF inhibitors had experienced AEs, such as neutropenia, hypertension, and proteinuria more frequently than those treated with BEV. This result was comparable with previous reports [28]. However, nearly all the events were manageable and few patients changed regimens because of intolerance.

Table 2 Cox proportional hazard analysis for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with second-line chemotherapy
Full size table

Discussion

This retrospective study demonstrated that patients with single-organ pulmonary metastases have a longer PFS and OS than those with other forms of mCRC in patients treated with FOLFIRI and VEGF inhibitors as second-line chemotherapy. The study findings might have an impact on therapeutic strategies for mCRC patients with single-organ pulmonary metastasis.

There could be several reasons for the better prognosis in mCRC patients with single-organ pulmonary metastases than those with other forms of mCRC as evidenced by our study. First, according to the biomarker findings, the total tumor volume was comparatively smaller than that for mCRC with other metastatic lesions. More specifically, in our study, the levels of tumor markers (CEA and CA19-9) were low at the initiation of second-line chemotherapy in patients with single-organ pulmonary metastases, which indicates that the total tumor volume is smaller in cases with single-organ pulmonary metastasis than in those with other forms of mCRC. The malignant grade in these types of tumors may also be low, and CEA and CA19-9 may not be secreted aggressively. Moreover, the mean LDH at the initiation of second-line chemotherapy tended to be lower in cases with single-organ pulmonary metastasis. Overall, these findings suggest that the total tumor volume might be low in patients with single-organ pulmonary metastasis.

The number of pulmonary lesions contributes to prognostic significance in CRC [29]. Furthermore, Miyake et al. showed that the tumor doubling time (TDT) of metastatic lesions in CRC was related to OS and that the TDT of pulmonary metastases was greater than that of liver metastases [30], which suggests that the OS of mCRC patients with single-organ pulmonary metastases was better than that of those without metastases due to a smaller tumor volume and a longer TDT.

In addition, there is a possibility that VEGF inhibitors are therapeutically effective in mCRC patients with single-organ pulmonary metastasis. A study by Ghouse et al. showed that therapeutic targeting of the vasculature in the premetastatic and metastatic niches reduced pulmonary metastases [21]. Shen et al. also revealed that tissue stiffness was higher in liver metastases than that in primary colorectal tumors. Highly activated metastasis-associated fibroblasts increase tissue stiffness, which enhances angiogenesis and anti-angiogenic therapy resistance [31]. Considering the good prognosis evidenced in our study, we hypothesized that if the metastasis-associated fibroblast activity and the tissue stiffness of pulmonary metastases are lower than that of liver metastases, anti-angiogenic therapy may be effective. Therefore, future studies must focus on modulating the mechanical microenvironment for therapeutic regimens. However, our study did not include a control group to enable this analysis. Therefore, additional studies are needed to verify our hypotheses.

It should also be considered that a good prognosis may also be related to genetic status. Several studies have uncovered a relationship between genetic mutations and pulmonary metastasis. Alamo et al. demonstrated higher pulmonary metastasis and poor survival rates with KRAS G12V mutations in colorectal cancer [32]. The mechanisms by which KRAS G12V mutation drives aggressive pulmonary tumor growth are not fully known. However, some studies have reported that KRAS G12V mutations upregulate the expression of CXCR4 and proinflammatory genes in the tumor microenvironment, leading to immune suppression and promoting tumor growth and metastases [33, 34].

This study could not identify the correlation between KRAS G12V mutations and pulmonary metastases. In our retrospective analysis, NRAS Q61-mutated mCRC cases with single-organ pulmonary metastases showed a tendency towards a longer PFS (P = 0.09). Giannou et al. showed that NRAS mutations promote colonization of the lungs by various tumor types in mouse models [35]. However, Ikoma et al. investigated the prognostic features of patients with RAS mutant CRC in Japan and showed that NRAS mutant CRC tended to have a short OS [36]. The number of NRAS-mutated CRC cases was small in our cohort, and our findings require replication in larger investigations. Moreover, in our study, there were no BRAF V600E-mutated cases of single-organ pulmonary metastases.

In general, BRAF mutations may confer mCRC with a worse prognosis as well as resistance to chemotherapy [37]. The association between pulmonary metastases and BRAF V600E mutations has not been studied. However, these genetic factors might have a good prognosis in cases with single-organ pulmonary metastases arising from mCRC. Our results showed a relationship between distinctive genetic status and good prognosis in mCRC patients with single-organ pulmonary metastasis. However, further comprehensive analysis is needed to validate this relationship.

Based on the results of our retrospective study, we suggest several therapeutic strategies for mCRC with single-organ pulmonary metastases. First, our study revealed that the prognosis for single-organ pulmonary metastasis in mCRC patients treated with FOLFIRI and VEGF inhibitors was generally favorable. Therefore, these patients may not necessarily require intensive chemotherapy for mCRC. In this retrospective study, we assumed that the patients with single-organ pulmonary metastases have a good prognosis and are a less aggressive subgroup considering their biological behavior. However, the better prognosis could be attributed to the therapeutic agents. Therefore, prospective clinical trials are needed to determine whether non-intensive treatment is acceptable for these patients. In addition, as the prevalence of mCRC is increasing, the number of older patients and those with multiple comorbidities undergoing chemotherapy has also increased [38]. In view of this increase, we propose that reduced-intensity chemotherapy may be implemented for mCRC patients with single-organ pulmonary metastases. If these strategies are introduced, many unnecessary AEs can be avoided and good performance status (PS) can be maintained in patients, thereby improving their treatment efficacy and quality of life.

Next, regarding treatment strategies (including resection of metastases), previous studies have reported that pulmonary resection for metastases arising from CRC may contribute to prolonged OS [39]. Our study reports a good prognosis for single-organ pulmonary metastases following second-line chemotherapy, even though the RR for second-line chemotherapy for mCRC is approximately 10–20% (which is lower than that for first-line chemotherapy) [40] and has the possibility of suppressing tumor growth for a long time in mCRC patients with single-organ pulmonary metastases. However, some of these patients may be eligible for surgery. Despite the difficulty in performing curative surgery, a potential strategy that combines surgery with several locoregional therapies, such as SRT and RFA, could be implemented for successful R0 resection.

This study might have an impact on therapeutic strategies for synchronous liver and pulmonary metastases. Mise et al. conducted a retrospective analysis showing that patients with liver and unresectable, low-volume pulmonary metastases arising from CRC demonstrated improved survival with liver resection as compared to chemotherapy alone [41]. In addition, another study demonstrated a relationship between the site of metastasis and the cause of death and reported that liver metastases are the most common cause of death in mCRC patients [42]. Therefore, in mCRC patients with both liver and lung metastases, R0 resection of liver metastases may lead to prolonged survival. Currently, a prospective, randomized trial of liver resection vs. no surgery in patients with liver and unresectable pulmonary metastases arising from CRC is being carried out to support the findings of a previous retrospective study conducted by the same group [41]. Based on the results of this randomized study, clinicians might need to plan a therapeutic strategy of chemotherapy for unresectable pulmonary metastases following debulking surgery for liver metastases.

Despite the major strengths of our study as elucidated, we also acknowledge several limitations of our work herein. First, the retrospective nature of our study is the major limitation of this work as this precludes treatment assignments and drawing causal inferences. In addition, this study included a small sample size, limiting the study’s statistical power. Finally, the study did not include control cases that were treated with FOLFIRI alone, limiting the generalizability of its findings.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the study showed that the prognosis of mCRC patients with single-organ pulmonary metastases treated with FOLFIRI and VEGF inhibitors as second-line chemotherapy was significantly better than that of patients with other forms of mCRC. In the future, if larger prospective studies confirm these findings, novel therapeutic strategies may be available for these patients.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

5-FU:

5-Fluorouracil

AEs:

Adverse events

AFL:

Aflibercept

BEV:

Bevacizumab

CA19-9:

Carbohydrate antigen 19–9

CEA:

Carcinoembryonic antigen

CRC:

Colorectal cancer

CR:

Complete response

CTCAE:

Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events

DCR:

Disease control rate

FOLFIRI:

Leucovorin + fluorouracil + irinotecan

JSCCR:

Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum

LDH:

Lactate dehydrogenase

mCRC:

Metastatic colorectal cancer

OS:

Overall survival

PD:

Progressive disease

PFS:

Progression-free survival

PR:

Partial response

PS:

Performance status

RAM:

Ramucirumab

RFA:

Radiofrequency ablation

RR:

Response rate

SD:

Stable disease

SRT:

Stereotactic radiation therapy

TDT:

Tumor doubling date

VEGF:

Vascular endothelial growth factor

References

  1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394–424.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dekker E, Tanis PJ, Vleugels JLA, Kasi PM, Wallace MB. Colorectal cancer. Lancet. 2019;394:1467–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kahi CJ, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, Giardiello FM, Johnson DA, Kaltenbach T, et al. Colonoscopy Surveillance after Colorectal Cancer Resection: Recommendations of the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;11:337–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Biller LH, Schrag D. Diagnosis and Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Review. JAMA. 2021;325:669–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Inoue M, Ohta M, Iuchi K, Matsumura A, Ideguchi K, Yasumitsu T, et al. Benefits of surgery for patients with pulmonary metastases from colorectal carcinoma. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;78:238–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lucena JR. Resection of lung metastases from colorectal cancer. Cir Esp. 2005;78:362–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Iwasaki A, Shirakusa T, Yamashita Y, Noritomi T, Maekawa T, Hamada T. Characteristic differences between patients who have undergone surgical treatment for lung metastasis or hepatic metastasis from colorectal cancer. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;53:358–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stella GM, Kolling S, Benvenuti S, Bortolotto C. Lung-Seeking Metastases. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11:1010.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kobayashi H, Mochizuki H, Sugihara K, Morita T, Kotake K, Teramoto T, et al. Characteristics of recurrence and surveillance tools after curative resection for colorectal cancer: a multicenter study. Surgery. 2007;141:67–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mitry E, Guiu B, Cosconea S, Jooste V, Faivre J, Bouvier AM. Epidemiology, management and prognosis of colorectal cancer with lung metastases: a 30-year population-based study. Gut. 2010;59:1383–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pihl E, Hughes ES, McDermott FT, Johnson WR, Katrivessis H. Lung recurrence after curative surgery for colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 1987;30:417–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hughes ES, Cuthbertson AM. Recurrence after curative excision of carcinoma of the large bowel. JAMA. 1962;182:1303–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Khattak MA, Martin HL, Beeke C, Price T, Carruthers S, Kim S, et al. Survival differences in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and with single site metastatic disease at initial presentation: results from South Australian clinical registry for advanced colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2012;11:247–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rena O, Casadio C, Viano F, Cristofori R, Ruffini E, Filosso PL, et al. Pulmonary resection for metastases from colorectal cancer: factors influencing prognosis. Twenty-year experience Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2002;21:906–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hashiguchi Y, Muro K, Saito Y, Ito Y, Ajioka Y, Hamaguchi T, et al. Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2019 for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol. 2020;25:1–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yamamoto T, Niibe Y, Matsumoto Y, Onishi H, Aoki M, Nishikawa A, et al. Analyses of local control and survival after stereotactic body radiotherapy for pulmonary oligometastases from colorectal adenocarcinoma. J Radiat Res. 2020;61:935–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. de Baère T, Aupérin A, Deschamps F, Chevallier P, Gaubert Y, Boige V, et al. Radiofrequency ablation is a valid treatment option for lung metastases: experience in 566 patients with 1037 metastases. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:987–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Ji JH, Park SH, Lee J, Kim TW, Hong YS, Kim K, et al. Prospective phase II study of neoadjuvant FOLFOX6 plus cetuximab in patients with colorectal cancer and unresectable liver-only metastasis. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2013;72:223–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Varol U, Karaca B, Cakar B, Sezgin C, Karabulut B, Uslu R. Comparing time to disease progression of irinotecan and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapies in colorectal cancer patients with liver only metastasis. Am J Clin Oncol. 2013;36:388–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shepherdson M, Kilburn D, Ullah S, Price T, Karapetis CS, Nguyen P, et al. Survival outcomes for patients with colorectal cancer with synchronous liver only metastasis. ANZ J Surg. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.18482.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ghouse SM, Vadrevu SK, Manne S, Reese B, Patel J, Patel B, et al. Therapeutic Targeting of Vasculature in the Premetastatic and Metastatic Niches Reduces Lung Metastasis. J Immunol. 2020;204:990–1000.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Van Cutsem E, Tabernero J, Lakomy R, Prenen H, Prausová J, Macarulla T, et al. Addition of aflibercept to fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan improves survival in a phase III randomized trial in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with an oxaliplatin-based regimen. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3499–506.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tabernero J, Yoshino T, Cohn AL, Obermannova R, Bodoky G, Garcia-Carbonero R, et al. Ramucirumab versus placebo in combination with second-line FOLFIRI in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma that progressed during or after first-line therapy with bevacizumab, oxaliplatin, and a fluoropyrimidine (RAISE): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:499–508.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bennouna J, Sastre J, Arnold D, Österlund P, Greil R, Van Cutsem E, et al. Continuation of bevacizumab after first progression in metastatic colorectal cancer (ML18147): a randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:29–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schwartz LH, Litière S, de Vries E, Ford R, Gwyther S, Mandrekar S, et al: RECIST 1.1-Update and clarification: From the RECIST committee. Eur J Cancer. 2016;62:132–7.

  26. National Cancer Institute. Division of Cancer Treatment & Diagnosis editors. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0. https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm#ctc_50. Accessed 1 Sept 2022.

  27. Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software “EZR” for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48:452–8.

  28. Osumi H, Shinozaki E, Ooki A, Wakatsuki T, Kamiimabeppu D, Sato T, et al. Early hypertension and neutropenia are predictors of treatment efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients administered FOLFIRI and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors as second-line chemotherapy. Cancer Med. 2021;10:615–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sclafani F, Incarbone M, Rimassa L, Personeni N, Giordano L, Alloisio M, et al. The role of hepatic metastases and pulmonary tumor burden in predicting survival after complete pulmonary resection for colorectal cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;145:97–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Miyake H, Murono K, Kawai K, Nozawa H, Maki H, Hasegawa K, et al. Impact of Surgical Resection on Metachronous Metastases of Colorectal Cancer According to Tumor Doubling Time. In Vivo. 2020;34:3367–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Shen Y, Wang X, Lu J, Salfenmoser M, Wirsik NM, Schleussner N, et al. Reduction of Liver Metastasis Stiffness Improves Response to Bevacizumab in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Cancer Cell. 2020;37:800-17.e807.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Alamo P, Gallardo A, Di Nicolantonio F, Pavón MA, Casanova I, Trias M, et al. Higher metastatic efficiency of KRas G12V than KRas G13D in a colorectal cancer model. FASEB J. 2015;29:464–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Santagata S, Napolitano M, D’Alterio C, Desicato S, Maro SD, Marinelli L, et al. Targeting CXCR4 reverts the suppressive activity of T-regulatory cells in renal cancer. Oncotarget. 2017;8:77110–20.

  34. Eckert F, Schilbach K, Klumpp L, Bardoscia L, Sezgin EC, Schwab M, et al. Potential Role of CXCR4 Targeting in the Context of Radiotherapy and Immunotherapy of Cancer. Front Immunol. 2018;9:3018.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Giannou AD, Marazioti A, Kanellakis NI, Giopanou I, Lilis I, Zazara DE, et al. NRAS destines tumor cells to the lungs. EMBO Mol Med. 2017;9:672–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Ikoma T, Shimokawa M, Kotaka M, Matsumoto T, Nagai H, Boku S, et al. Clinical and prognostic features of patients with detailed RAS/BRAF-mutant colorectal cancer in Japan. BMC Cancer. 2021;21:518.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Sanz-Garcia E, Argiles G, Elez E, Tabernero J. BRAF mutant colorectal cancer: prognosis, treatment, and new perspectives. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:2648–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lund CM, Vistisen KK, Olsen AP, Bardal P, Schultz M, Dolin TG, et al. The effect of geriatric intervention in frail older patients receiving chemotherapy for colorectal cancer: a randomised trial (GERICO). Br J Cancer. 2021;124:1949–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Sakamoto T, Tsubota N, Iwanaga K, Yuki T, Matsuoka H, Yoshimura M. Pulmonary resection for metastases from colorectal cancer. Chest. 2001;119:1069–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hecht JR, Cohn A, Dakhil S, Saleh M, Piperdi B, Cline-Burkhardt M, et al. SPIRITT: A Randomized, Multicenter, Phase II Study of Panitumumab with FOLFIRI and Bevacizumab with FOLFIRI as Second-Line Treatment in Patients with Unresectable Wild Type KRAS Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2015;14:72–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Mise Y, Kopetz S, Mehran RJ, Aloia TA, Conrad C, Brudvik KW, et al. Is complete liver resection without resection of synchronous lung metastases justified? Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:1585–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Stewart CL, Warner S, Ito K, Raoof M, Wu GX, Kessler J, et al. Cytoreduction for colorectal metastases: liver, lung, peritoneum, lymph nodes, bone, brain. When does it palliate, prolong survival, and potentially cure? Curr Probl Surg. 2018;55:330–79.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ms. Yuki Horiike and Ms. Hitomi Hannan for providing data management.

Funding

This work submitted received no external funding.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Koshiro Fukuda and Hiroki Osumi contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan

    Koshiro Fukuda, Hiroki Osumi, Koichiro Yoshino, Izuma Nakayama, Shota Fukuoka, Mariko Ogura, Takeru Wakatsuki, Akira Ooki, Daisuke Takahari, Keisho Chin, Kensei Yamaguchi & Eiji Shinozaki

  2. Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

    Koshiro Fukuda

Authors
  1. Koshiro Fukuda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hiroki Osumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Koichiro Yoshino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Izuma Nakayama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shota Fukuoka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mariko Ogura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Takeru Wakatsuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Akira Ooki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Daisuke Takahari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Keisho Chin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Kensei Yamaguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Eiji Shinozaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design: KF, HO, and ES; acquisition of data: KF and HO; analysis and interpretation of data: KF, HO, and ES; writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: all authors; administrative, technical, or material support: KF, HO, and ES; study supervision: ES.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eiji Shinozaki.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This work was approved by the institutional review board of the Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation of Cancer Research (IRB receipt number: 2020-GA-1017) and was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study protocol was described on the hospital website, and the participants were provided the opportunity to opt out. The need of informed consent was waived by the institutional review board of the Cancer Institute Hospital of Japanese Foundation of Cancer Research. Therefore, no additional consent was required from the enrolled patients.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fukuda, K., Osumi, H., Yoshino, K. et al. Single-organ pulmonary metastasis is a favorable prognostic factor in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with FOLFIRI and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors. BMC Cancer 23, 634 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-11067-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-11067-y

Keywords

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us