scholarly journals P-168 Second-line, anti-VEGF based after first-line, anti-EGFR based treatment in RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: The multicenter, retrospective, real-life SLAVE study

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. S144-S145
Author(s):  
A. Parisi ◽  
F. Camarda ◽  
M. Ribelli ◽  
D. Rossini ◽  
M. Germani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Anti Vegf

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Second-Line Treatment in RAS Wild-Type/Mutated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the Precision Medicine Era

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (14) ◽  
pp. 7717
Author(s):  
Guido Giordano ◽  
Pietro Parcesepe ◽  
Giuseppina Bruno ◽  
Annamaria Piscazzi ◽  
Vincenzo Lizzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Mutational Status ◽  
First Line Treatment

Target-oriented agents improve metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) survival in combination with chemotherapy. However, the majority of patients experience disease progression after first-line treatment and are eligible for second-line approaches. In such a context, antiangiogenic and anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) agents as well as immune checkpoint inhibitors have been approved as second-line options, and RAS and BRAF mutations and microsatellite status represent the molecular drivers that guide therapeutic choices. Patients harboring K- and N-RAS mutations are not eligible for anti-EGFR treatments, and bevacizumab is the only antiangiogenic agent that improves survival in combination with chemotherapy in first-line, regardless of RAS mutational status. Thus, the choice of an appropriate therapy after the progression to a bevacizumab or an EGFR-based first-line treatment should be evaluated according to the patient and disease characteristics and treatment aims. The continuation of bevacizumab beyond progression or its substitution with another anti-angiogenic agents has been shown to increase survival, whereas anti-EGFR monoclonals represent an option in RAS wild-type patients. In addition, specific molecular subgroups, such as BRAF-mutated and Microsatellite Instability-High (MSI-H) mCRCs represent aggressive malignancies that are poorly responsive to standard therapies and deserve targeted approaches. This review provides a critical overview about the state of the art in mCRC second-line treatment and discusses sequential strategies according to key molecular biomarkers.

Cetuximab with irinotecan or oxaliplatin for first-line metastatic colorectal cancer: Effectiveness in the EREBUS cohort compared to pivotal trials.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14542-e14542
Author(s):  
Annie Fourrier-Réglat ◽  
Magali Rouyer ◽  
Pernelle Noize ◽  
Emmanuelle Bignon ◽  
Alise Le Monies ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Treatment Initiation ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Multicenter Cohort Study ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
One Year

e14542 Background: Cetuximab (CTX) has demonstrated improved survival outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) but information from real-life use is sparse. Here, CTX survival and safety outcomes in real-life are compared to those observed in OPUS and CRYSTAL trials. Methods: EREBUS is a French multicenter cohort study that included over two years (2009-2010) patients with unresectable mCRC and wild-type KRAS initiating CTX as 1st-line therapy in 65 centres and followed for 12 months from treatment initiation. Results: We included 389 patients treated with a combination of CTX with irinotecan-based (56.0%) or CTX with oxaliplatin-based (37.8%) chemotherapy. The main characteristics, safety, response rate, and one year survival of this cohort are presented in the Table below in parallel with results obtained in pivotal trials. Conclusions: Despite differences in baseline characteristics between real-life and pivotal trials (such as ECOG status), the response rate and PFS were comparable in mCRC patients with wt KRAS treated with 1st-line CTX. The nature of adverse events was in-line with the trials but the frequency was lower probably owing to under-notification in real-life. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Optimal Sequence and Second-Line Systemic Treatment of Patients with RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (21) ◽  
pp. 5166
Author(s):  
Chih-Chien Wu ◽  
Chao-Wen Hsu ◽  
Meng-Che Hsieh ◽  
Jui-Ho Wang ◽  
Min-Chi Chang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Optimal Sequence ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

Although several sequential therapy options are available for treating patients with RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the optimal sequence of these therapies is not well established. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies were performed, resulting from a search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases. Overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly in patients with RAS-WT failure who were administered a second-line regimen of changed chemotherapy (CT) plus anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) versus only changed CT, changed CT plus bevacizumab versus changed CT plus anti-EGFR, or changed CT versus maintaining CT plus anti-EGFR after first-line therapy with CT, plus bevacizumab. However, OS was significantly different with a second-line regimen that included changed CT plus bevacizumab, versus only changing CT. Analysis of first-line therapy with CT plus anti-EGFR for treatment of RAS-WT mCRC indicated that second-line therapy of changed CT plus an anti-EGFR agent resulted in better outcomes than changing CT without targeted agents. The pooled data study demonstrated that the optimal choice of second-line treatment for improved OS was an altered CT regimen with retention of bevacizumab after first-line bevacizumab failure. The best sequence for first-to-second-line therapy of patients with RAS-WT mCRC was cetuximab-based therapy, followed by a bevacizumab-based regimen.

First line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: Are clinical trial results reproducible in real-life practice?

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 836-836
Author(s):  
Ron Lewin ◽  
Omer Gal ◽  
Aaron Sulkes ◽  
Noa Gordon ◽  
Irit Ben-Aharon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Group Analysis ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Primary Tumor Site ◽  
Ras Status

836 Background: Treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has greatly advanced over the past decade, based on data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This raises the question whether results of RCTs, performed on selected patients (pts), do reflect outcomes in real-life practice. The aim of this study was to summarize our experience in the treatment of mCRC and compare it to data reported in RCTs. Methods: A retrospective single-institution study on consecutive mCRC pts treated with first-line bevacizumab-containing regimens in our institute between 2006 and 2014. Results: The study included 300 pts, of whom 54% were males. Median age was 67 years (range 28-90), 26% aged ≥ 75 years. ECOG performance status was ≤1 in 93%. The primary tumor site was right colon in 37%, left colon in 40%, rectal in 23% and 1% of pts had synchronous tumors. RAS status was available in 60%, of whom 55% had wild-type alleles. 46% of pts had a single metastatic site, including 27% with liver-limited disease, and 54% had multiple metastatic sites. Irinotecan-based chemotherapy was used in 66%, oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in 29% and flouropyrimidine monotherapy in 5%. Curative metastasectomy during 1st line treatment was performed in 29%. Grade ≥3 hematological and non-hematological toxicities were reported in 24% and 38% of pts, respectively. Second and third line treatments were administered to 75% and 66% of pts, respectively; 73% of pts received both irinotecan and oxaliplatin through their treatment course and 76% of those with wild-type RAS were treated with anti-EGFR therapy. Overall response rate and disease control rate were 69% and 89%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 17 and 28 months, respectively. In a sub-group analysis on "RCT-like population", excluding pts ≥ 75 years, ECOG PS ≥ 3 and/or mutated/unknown RAS status, median PFS and OS were 15 and 29 months, respectively. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that, if adhered to international clinical guidelines, outcomes reported in RCTs are indeed reproducible in routine clinical practice in unselected real-life pts. Additional data, with more pts and longer follow-up, will be presented.

Phase III randomized sequential open-label study to evaluate the efficacy of FOLFOX + panitumumab followed by FOLFIRI + bevacizumab (Sequence 1) versus FOLFOX+ bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI + panitumumab (Sequence 2) in untreated patients with wild-type RAS metastatic, primary left (L)-sided, unresectable colorectal cancer (CRC): The CR-SEQUENCE.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS3618-TPS3618
Author(s):  
Ramon Salazar ◽  
Alfredo Carrato ◽  
Teresa Garcia Garcia ◽  
Javier Gallego Plazas ◽  
Auxiliadora Gómez-España ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Anti Vegf

TPS3618 Background: Both anti-EGFR and anti-VEGF therapies have shown clinical benefit when they are added in first and second-line in L-sided CRC. The conflicting results in anti-VEGF vs. anti-EGFR studies (FIRE-3, PEAK and CALGB/SWOG 80405 studies) suggest that the sequence of targeted therapies added to FOLFOX or FOLFIRI regimens in first- and second-line treatment could be an important factor in the overall survival (OS) of mCRC patients. Currently, there are no randomized data on the sequential use of an anti-EGFR followed by an anti-VEGF or vice versa. Therefore, the aim of this randomized clinical trial is to compare the efficacy of two treatment sequences, panitumumab followed by bevacizumab versus bevacizumab followed by panitumumab in combination with FOLFOX chemotherapy in first-line and with FOLFIRI in second-line in patients with wild-type RAS, primary L-sided, metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Methods: A phase III, multicentre, open-label and randomized two-arm clinical trial. Untreated patients with wild-type RAS mCRC (determined locally), primary L-sided and unresectable will be screened for this trial. Eligible patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive first-line (1L) panitumumab plus FOLFOX and then bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI as second-line (2L) treatment (Seq. 1) or bevacizumab plus FOLFOX as 1L and then panitumumab plus FOLFIRI as 2L treatment (Seq. 2). Randomization will be stratified by number of metastatic organs involved (1 vs > 1). Primary objective is the comparison of the progression free survival (PFS) rate at 35 months (m) of Seq 1 vs Seq. 2. Secondary objectives: PFS from randomization to 2nd progression or death, OS rate at 35 months and OS of Seq. 1 vs Seq. 2; PFS, objective response rate, disease control rate, early tumour shrinkage, Depth of Response, duration and time to response and safety in 1L treatment and in 2L treatment in each Sequence arm. Exploratory objectives: impact of baseline biomarkers predictive of the efficacy in each Sequence arm and the clinical impact of clonal dynamics by longitudinal analysis of circulating tumour deoxyribonucleic acid (ctDNA) in plasma. The trial is in progress; 28 of up to 370 planned patients have been recruited at the end of January 2019 (first patient in 31 October 2018). Clinical trial information: NCT03635021.

Phase 2 study of second-line FOLFIRI-aflibercept in prospectively stratified, RAS wild type, anti-EGFR resistant, metastatic colorectal cancer patients: The DISTINCTIVE trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15503-e15503
Author(s):  
Eleonora Lai ◽  
Fotios Loupakis ◽  
Pina Ziranu ◽  
Giuseppe Aprile ◽  
Alberto Zaniboni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Interim Analysis ◽  
Angiogenic Factors ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Phase 2 Study

e15503 Background: Data on anti-angiogenic second line treatment in RAS wild type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients (pts) progressing after first-line anti-EGFR drug are lacking and no validated biomarkers are available. We present the pre-planned interim analysis of the DISTINCTIVE trial (NCT04252456), a biologically enriched, prospectively stratified phase 2 study assessing the aflibercept use in this setting. Methods: RAS wt mCRC pts progressing after first line oxaliplatin-based + anti-EGFR therapy and candidates for second-line FOLFIRI/aflibercept are eligible for the DISTINCTIVE trial. Pts are prospectively allocated to a favorable (F) or unfavorable (U) prognostic group, according to Elisa-assessed baseline (BL) VEGFR2 plasma levels (PL). Other circulating angiogenic factors are evaluated at BL, first tumor assessment (TA1) and disease progression (PD). Primary endpoint is overall survival (OS) according to VEGFR2 levels. Secondary endpoints are OS, progression free survival (PFS), response rate, safety and angiogenic factors levels. Statistical analysis is performed with MedCalc (survival distribution: Kaplan-Meier; survival comparison: log-rank test; multivariate analysis: logistic regression). Sample size: 151 pts (one-sided test, α: 0.1, β: 0.2). Results: From 04/2018 to 06/2020, 73 pts were enrolled. Complete data from 44 pts were available for interim analysis. 33 pts (75%) achieved DCR (26 pts/59% SD, 7 pts/16% PR). Globally, median OS was 11.9 months (m) (95%CI 10 – 14.2). 24 (54.5%) pts were prospectively assigned to F group (VEGFR2 PL > 4 ng/ml) and 20 (45.5%) to U group (VEGFR2 PL ≤4 ng/ml). OS in F group was 13.1 m (95%CI 9.6 – 14.2) vs 11.9 m (95%CI 6.8 – 11.9) in U group (HR 0.76 p = 0.6218). PFS was 9.8 m [95%CI 5.7 – 24.2] in F group vs 4.2 m [95%CI 2.5 – 14.2] in U group (HR 0.41 p = 0.0105). We also found preliminary correlation with PD as shown in table. Conclusions: Interim analysis showed high activity of FOLFIRI/aflibercept in RAS WT anti-EGFR pretreated mCRC pts. VEGFR2 showed promising ability to predict aflibercept efficacy. Our data on circulating angiogenic biomarkers are likely to further compose the landscape of anti-angiogenic activity in mCRC pts. Clinical trial information: NCT04252456. [Table: see text]

Impact of Subsequent Therapies on Outcome of the FIRE-3/AIO KRK0306 Trial: First-Line Therapy With FOLFIRI Plus Cetuximab or Bevacizumab in Patients With KRAS Wild-Type Tumors in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (32) ◽  
pp. 3718-3726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominik P. Modest ◽  
Sebastian Stintzing ◽  
Ludwig Fischer von Weikersthal ◽  
Thomas Decker ◽  
Alexander Kiani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Subsequent Treatment ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
The Impact

Purpose We investigated choice and efficacy of subsequent treatment, with special focus on second-line therapy, in the FIRE-3 trial (FOLFIRI plus cetuximab [arm A] or bevacizumab [arm B]) for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients and Methods Start of subsequent-line (second or third) therapy was defined as use of an antitumor drug that was not part of the previous regimen. We evaluated choice, duration, and efficacy of subsequent therapy and determined the impact of subsequent-line treatment on outcome of patients in FIRE-3. Results Of 592 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 414 (69.9%) received second-line and 256 (43.2%) received third-line therapy. In subsequent treatment lines, 47.1% of patients originally assigned to arm A received bevacizumab, and 52.2% originally assigned to arm B received either cetuximab or panitumumab. Oxaliplatin was subsequently used in 55.9% (arm A) and 53.2% (arm B) of patients. Second-line therapy was administered for a median duration of 5.0 versus 3.2 months (P < .001) in study arm A versus B. Progression-free (6.5 v 4.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.85; P < .001) and overall survival (16.3 v 13.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.88; P = .0021) from start of second-line therapy were longer in patients in arm A compared with arm B. Conclusion Our data suggest that the sequence of drug application might be more important than exposure to single agents. In patients with RAS wild-type tumors, first-line application of anti–epidermal growth factor receptor–directed therapy may represent a favorable condition for promoting effective subsequent therapy including antiangiogenic agents.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document