scholarly journals Phase 1 study of efatutazone, a novel oral peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma agonist, in combination with FOLFIRI as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

2013 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 473-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshito Komatsu ◽  
Takayuki Yoshino ◽  
Kentaro Yamazaki ◽  
Satoshi Yuki ◽  
Nozomu Machida ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 718-724 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wen-Cong Ruan ◽  
Yue-Ping Che ◽  
Li Ding ◽  
Hai-Feng Li

Background: Pre-treated patients with first-line treatment can be offered a second treatment with the aim of improving their poor clinical prognosis. The therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who did not respond to first-line therapy has limited treatment options. Recently, many studies have paid much attention to the efficacy of bevacizumab as an adjuvant treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy compared with bevacizumab-naive based chemotherapy as second-line treatment in people with metastatic CRC. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for eligible studies updated to March 2018. Randomized-controlled trials comparing addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy without bevacizumab in MCRC patients were included, of which, the main interesting results were the efficacy and safety profiles of the addition of bevacizumab in patients with MCRC as second-line therapy. Result: Five trials were eligible in the meta-analysis. Patients who received the combined bevacizumab and chemotherapy treatment in MCRC as second-line therapy showed a longer overall survival (OS) (OR=0.80,95%CI=0.72-0.89, P<0.0001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (OR=0.69,95%CI=0.61-0.77, P<0.00001). In addition, there was no significant difference in objective response rate (ORR) (RR=1.36,95%CI=0.82-2.24, P=0.23) or severe adverse event (SAE) (RR=1.02,95%CI=0.88-1.19, P=0.78) between bevacizumab-based chemotherapy and bevacizumabnaive based chemotherapy. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the addition of bevacizumab to the chemotherapy therapy could be an efficient and safe treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer as second-line therapy and without increasing the risk of an adverse event.


BMC Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hironaga Satake ◽  
Koji Ando ◽  
Eiji Oki ◽  
Mototsugu Shimokawa ◽  
Akitaka Makiyama ◽  
...  

Abstract Background FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab is used as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. However, there are no clear recommendations for second-line therapy after FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab combination. Here, we describe our planning for the EFFORT study to investigate whether FOLFIRI plus aflibercept has efficacy following FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab for mCRC. Methods EFFORT is an open-label, multicenter, single arm phase II study to evaluate whether a FOLFIRI plus aflibercept has efficacy following FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab for mCRC. Patients with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer who received FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as a first-line therapy will receive aflibercept and FOLFIRI (aflibercept 4 mg/kg, irinotecan 150 mg/m2 IV over 90 min, with levofolinate 200 mg/m2 IV over 2 h, followed by fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion over 46 h) every 2 weeks on day 1 of each cycle. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). To achieve 80% power to show a significant response benefit with a one-sided alpha level of 0.10, assuming a threshold progression-free survival of 3 months and an expected value of at least 5.4 months, we estimated that 32 patients are necessary. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, overall response rate, safety, and exploratory biomarker analysis for differentiating anti-VEGF drug in 2nd-line chemotherapy for unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. Discussion This is the first study to investigate whether FOLFIRI plus aflibercept has efficacy following FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. Switching to a different type of anti-VEGF drug in second-line therapy after FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab appears to be an attractive treatment strategy when considering survival benefit. It is expected that this phase II study will prove the efficacy of this strategy and that a biomarker for drug selection will be discovered. Trial registration Japan Registry of Clinical Trials jRCTs071190003. Registered April 18, 2019.


2000 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 15-17
Author(s):  
E. Jäger ◽  
D. Jäger ◽  
J. Orth ◽  
A. Knuth

Cancer ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 124 (15) ◽  
pp. 3118-3126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanna K. Sanoff ◽  
Richard M. Goldberg ◽  
Anastasia Ivanova ◽  
Seamus O'Reilly ◽  
Samer S. Kasbari ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS162-TPS162 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. R. Townsend ◽  
L. Pirc ◽  
J. Hardingham ◽  
C. S. Karapetis ◽  
N. C. Tebbutt ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3525-3525 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominik Paul Modest ◽  
Sebastian Stintzing ◽  
Ludwig Fischer von Weikersthal ◽  
Thomas Decker ◽  
Alexander Kiani ◽  
...  

3525 Background: FIRE3 compared 1st-line therapy with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab (arm A) or bevacizumab (arm B) in 592 patients (pts) with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Second-line therapies appeared more successful in arm A compared to arm B. The impact of primary tumor location on this observation is unclear. Methods: Pts. were stratified for primary tumor site (left- vs. right-sided). Duration of 2nd-line therapy was calculated as time from first to last application. Progression-free survival (PFS2nd) and overall survival (OS2nd) of second-line therapy) were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log rank test as well as Cox regression. All analyses were performed in the RAS wild-type population of the trial and reported according to drug sequences. Results: 272 of 400 pts. (68%) received 2nd-line therapy, of those 206 (109 in arm A, 97 in arm B) pts. presented left-sided, whereas 66 (26 in arm A, 40 in arm B) pts. presented right-sided primaries. PFS2nd was markedly longer in pts. with left-sided as compared to right-sided primary tumors (6.0 (95% CI: 5.5-6.7) vs. 3.4 (95% CI: 3.0-5.8) months, hazard ratio (HR): 0.64 (95% CI: 0.47-0.87), P = 0.005). Differences in PFS2nd between study-arms were evident in pts. with left-sided primaries (arm A: 7.3 (95% CI: 6.4-7.7) vs. arm B: 5.3 (95% CI: 4.3-5.9) months, HR: 0.61 (95% CI: 0.44-0.84), P = 0.002), but not in pts. with right-sided primaries (arm A: 4.0 (95% CI: 3.0-6.3) vs. arm B: 3.3 (95% CI: 2.6-5.8) months, HR: 1.09 (95% CI: 0.62-1.90). Consistent observations were also made for treatment duration and OS2nd. Conclusions: This retrospective analysis indicates that treatment duration and efficacy of second-line therapy are associated with primary tumor location. Efficacy of second-line therapy was significantly greater in pts. with left-sided tumors as compared to right sided tumors. This difference was driven by superior activity of second-line regimens of arm A compared to arm B in left-sided tumors. Our observations confirm the strong prognostic value of primary tumor location in mCRC across treatment lines. Clinical trial information: NCT00433927.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document