Evidence Hub

Liver metastases do not predict resistance to the addition of atezolizumab to first-line FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab in proficient MMR metastatic colorectal cancer: a secondary analysis of the AtezoTRIBE study

C. Antoniotti, M. Carullo, D. Rossini, F. Pietrantonio, L. Salvatore, S. Lonardi, S. Tamberi, C. Sciortino et al.

ESMO Open, 2025

202 participants · 14 citations

Abstract

Background Liver metastases (LMs) are related to poor efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-containing therapies. In the AtezoTRIBE trial, Immunoscore-Immune-Checkpoint (immunoscore-IC) was a predictor of benefit from atezolizumab in mismatch repair-proficient (pMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients and methods In pMMR patients enrolled in the AtezoTRIBE study, we investigated the association of LMs with immune-related biomarkers and treatment outcomes, and the predictive role of immunoscore-IC in the LMs group. Results Out of 202 pMMR patients, 151 (75%) had LMs. No differences in immune-related features were observed according to the presence or not of LMs, except for a lower prevalence of tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes-high tumours in the LMs group (33% versus 52%, P = 0.03). Worse outcomes were observed among patients with LMs [progression-free survival (PFS), P = 0.002; overall survival (OS), P = 0.011], also in multivariable models. The effect of adding atezolizumab to FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab was independent from LMs in terms of PFS (Pint = 0.990) and OS (Pint = 0.800). Among patients with pMMR mCRC and LMs, those with immunoscore-IC-high but not those with immunoscore-IC-low tumours achieved benefit from atezolizumab, though in the absence of a statistically significant interaction effect (Pint for PFS and OS = 0.166 and 0.473, respectively). Conclusions LMs are associated with poor prognosis in pMMR mCRC and do not predict resistance to the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 202 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free