LAUSR

Simple Summary Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) show modest activity and efficacy in microsatellite stable (MSS) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients harbouring a proficient mismatch repair system (pMMR). Recently, two phase 2 trials -AtezoTRIBE and MAYA- have challenged this dogma through the administration of an intense first-line chemotherapy backbone consisting of FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab in patients unselected for their microsatellite status, and immune priming with temozolomide in chemorefractory pMMR/MSS patients with silencing of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT), respectively, reporting promising results. We here present the founding biological rationale of these two studies and their main findings. At the same time, we stress their strengths and drawbacks and open questions still to be address in future clinical investigations. Abstract In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), remarkable advances have been achieved with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4, only in a small subset of tumours (4–5%), harbouring a deficient mismatch repair system (dMMR)/microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) or mutations in the catalytic subunit of polymerase epsilon (POLE). Within this framework, several combination strategies have been investigated to sensitize proficient mismatch repair (pMMR)/microsatellite stable (MSS) mCRC to ICIs, with disappointing results so far. However, at the last ESMO meeting, two phase II trials AtezoTRIBE and MAYA provided promising results in this field. In the comparative AtezoTRIBE trial, the addition of atezolizumab to FOLFOXIRI (5-fluoruracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan) and bevacizumab led to a significant advantage in terms of progression free survival (PFS) in a population of untreated mCRC patients, not selected according to MMR/MSI status. In the single-arm MAYA trial, immune priming with temozolomide in pMMR/MSS chemo-resistant mCRC patients with silencing of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) allowed reporting signals of sensitivity to the subsequent therapy with nivolumab and a low dose of ipilimumab in some patients. Here, we discuss the rationale, results, criticisms and research perspectives opened by these two studies.