Cost-effectiveness of capecitabine and bevacizumab maintenance treatment after first-line induction treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer

2017 ◽  
Vol 75 ◽  
pp. 204-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.D. Franken ◽  
E.M. van Rooijen ◽  
A.M. May ◽  
H. Koffijberg ◽  
H. van Tinteren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
Induction Treatment ◽  
First Line

Comparative analysis of different maintenance regimens after first-line induction in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 789-789
Author(s):  
AMR Mohamed ◽  
Nadine Abdallah ◽  
Hibah Ismail ◽  
Wei Chen ◽  
Hyejeong Jang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Random Effect Model ◽  
Induction Treatment ◽  
P Value ◽  
First Line ◽  
Significant Difference

789 Background: Although, previous trials have demonstrated the benefits of maintenance chemotherapy for unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC), the optimal maintenance regimen with acceptable safety profile is still undetermined. The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the effectiveness of the most common clinically used maintenance regimens after first line therapy in MCRC. Methods: Among 52 prospective studies published 2009-2017, 14 were qualified for inclusion. Random-effect model was used for pooled effects within different categories include those with no maintenance treatment versus different maintenance regimens (Bevacizumab, capecitabine, bevacizumab plus capecitabine, bevacizumab plus erlotinib, and cetuximab). Primary endpoint was median progression free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoint was median overall survival (OS). All statistical tests were two-sided and p values < 0.05 were considered significant. Results: 14 studies with 3553 patients (57% males) were included in final analysis. Induction treatment was 5-FU or capecitabine - based chemotherapy with either oxaliplatin or irinotecan with or without bevacizumab. After stratifying for induction status, patients who did not receive treatment had worse PFS compared to maintenance treatment [pooled median PFS 3.52 months, 95% CI (2.97- 4.07) Vs 5.08 months, 95% CI (4.59- 5.57), z-test adjusted p-value 0.0005]. Among different maintenance regimens, capecitabine /bevacizumab combination showed better PFS [pooled median PFS 6.87 month, 95% CI (5.17- 8.57)], however the results were not significant (z test adjusted p-value 0.1383). No statistical significant difference in median OS between maintenance regimens. Conclusions: MCRC patients who did not receive maintenance treatment had shorter PFS. Although the superiority of bevacizumab plus capecitabine maintenance cannot be confirmed, there was a trend towards better PFS. This study suggests that bevacizumab plus capecitabine may be an appropriate maintenance option after first induction therapy depending on the tolerability and compliance with oral capecitabine.

The JPJDF has Synergistic Effect with Fluoropyrimidine in the Maintenance Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-269
Author(s):  
Xiaoling Fu ◽  
Yanbo Zhang ◽  
Lisheng Chang ◽  
Dengcheng Hui ◽  
Ru Jia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Synergistic Effect ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
Advanced Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Treated Group ◽  
Induction Treatment ◽  
Chemotherapeutic Regimen ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Maintenance chemotherapeutic regimen with low toxicity is needed for metastatic colorectal cancer. A recent patent has been issued on the spleen-strengthening and detoxification prescription (JPJDF), a traditional Chinese herbal medicinal formula with anti-angiogenesis effect. The clinical effect of JPJDF on the maintenance treatment of advanced colorectal cancer has not been evaluated. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of JPJDF in combination with fluoropyrimidine compared to fluoropyrimidine alone as maintenance therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods: We applied a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, single center clinical study design. A total of 137 patients with advanced colorectal cancer were recruited. Patients received either Fluoropyrimidine (Flu-treated group, n = 68), or Fluoropyrimidine plus JPJDF (Flu-F-treated group, n = 69) as maintenance treatment after 6-cycle of FOLFOX4 or FOLFORI induction treatment. The primary endpoints were Progression-Free Survival (PFS) and Overall Survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were safety, Performance Status (PS) score and other symptoms. Results: The endpoint of disease progression was observed in 91.7% of patients. The PFS was 5.0 months and 3.0 months in the Flu-F-treated and Flu-treated groups, respectively. The OS was 15.0 months and 9.0 months in the Flu-F-treated and Flu-treated groups, respectively. Some common symptoms, such as hypodynamia, anepithymia, dizziness and tinnitus and shortness of breath, were improved in the Flu-F-treated group. There was no significant difference in the common adverse reactions between the two groups. Conclusion: JPJDF and fluoropyrimidine have synergistic effect in the maintenance treatment of mCRC.

Exploratory biomarker findings from cohort 2 of MODUL: An adaptable, phase 2, signal-seeking trial of fluoropyrimidine + bevacizumab ± atezolizumab maintenance therapy for BRAFwt metastatic colorectal cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3570-3570
Author(s):  
Josep Tabernero ◽  
Axel Grothey ◽  
Dirk Arnold ◽  
Michel Ducreux ◽  
Peter J. O'Dwyer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
Predictive Biomarkers ◽  
Experimental Treatment ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
First Line ◽  
Tissue Samples ◽  
First Line Therapy

3570 Background: MODUL is an adaptable, phase 2, signal-seeking trial testing novel agents as first-line therapy for predefined subgroups of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Previously reported findings demonstrated that adding atezolizumab to fluoropyrimidine (FP)/bevacizumab as first-line maintenance treatment after induction with FOLFOX + bevacizumab did not improve efficacy outcomes in BRAFwt mCRC. Given these efficacy results, exploratory assessments on tumour samples were conducted to provide insights into factors that might affect efficacy of maintenance treatment and provide guidance on appropriate therapeutic strategies for BRAFwt mCRC. Methods: In patients with BRAFwt tumours (Cohort 2), experimental treatment was FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab. Primary efficacy endpoint: progression-free survival (PFS). Overall survival (OS) was a secondary endpoint. Archival tissue samples from 104 patients were analysed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) at HistoGeneX (PD-L1; CD8/GrB/FoxP3). SP142 antibody was used for PD-L1 IHC analysis, which evaluated PD-L1low (IC 0–1) vs PD-L1high (IC > 1) in correlation with PFS and OS in the control and experimental arms. CD8/GrB/FoxP3 triplex staining was also performed to evaluate potential correlations with efficacy. Results: 445 patients with BRAFwt mCRC were randomised (2:1 ratio) to maintenance treatment in Cohort 2. Archival samples from 104 patients were analysed: FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab (n = 82); FP/bevacizumab (n = 22). The biomarker evaluable population (BEP) for PD-L1 was n = 81 for FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab [PD-L1low n = 35 (43%); PD-L1high n = 46 (57%)] and n = 22 for FP/bevacizumab [PD-L1low n = 16 (72%); PD-L1high n = 6 (28%)]. The BEP for CD8/GrB was n = 50 for FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab and n = 16 for FP/bevacizumab. No difference in PFS or OS was observed in the FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab vs FP/bevacizumab arms for PD-L1high [PFS: HR = 1.5 (95% CI 0.45−4.8), p = 0.51; OS: HR = 1.3 (95% CI 0.38−4.1), p = 0.71] or PD-L1low [PFS: HR = 0.92 (95% CI 0.47−1.8), p = 0.81; OS: HR = 0.78 (95% CI 0.4−1.5), p = 0.48]. Similar results were observed with CD8/GrBhigh [PFS: HR = 0.73 (95% CI 0.27−2.0), p = 0.55; OS: HR = 0.66 (95% CI 0.24−1.8), p = 0.44], CD8/GrBlow [PFS: HR = 1.0 (95% CI 0.42–2.5), p = 0.96; OS: HR = 0.73 (95% CI 0.3–1.8), p = 0.5], FoxP3high [PFS: HR = 0.97 (95% CI 0.37−2.5), p = 0.95; OS: HR = 0.95 (95% CI 0.36−2.5), p = 0.91] and FoxP3low [PFS: HR = 0.73 (95% CI 0.29−1.9), p = 0.53; OS: HR = 0.5 (95% CI 0.19−1.3), p = 0.18]. Conclusions: These findings suggest that PD-L1, CD8/GrB and FoxP3 might not be predictive biomarkers in BRAFwt mCRC. Further analyses are needed to further evaluate potential predictive and prognostic factors of response in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT02291289.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab combined with chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer based on the TAILOR trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e030738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huijuan Wang ◽  
Lingfei Huang ◽  
Peng Gao ◽  
Zhengyi Zhu ◽  
Weifeng Ye ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Treatment

ObjectivesCetuximab plus leucovorin, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) is superior to FOLFOX-4 alone as a first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS wild-type (RAS wt mCRC), with significantly improved survival benefit by TAILOR, an open-label, randomised, multicentre, phase III trial. Nevertheless, the cost-effectiveness of these two regimens remains uncertain. The following study aims to determine whether cetuximab combined with FOLFOX-4 is a cost-effective regimen for patients with specific RAS wt mCRC in China.DesignA cost-effectiveness model combined decision tree and Markov model was built to simulate pateints with RAS wt mCRC based on health states of dead, progressive and stable. The health outcomes from the TAILOR trial and utilities from published data were used respectively. Costs were calculated with reference to the Chinese societal perspective. The robustness of the results was evaluated by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ParticipantsThe included patients were newly diagnosed Chinese patients with fully RAS wt mCRC.InterventionsFirst-line treatment with either cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 or FOLFOX-4.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcomes are costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).ResultsBaseline analysis disclosed that the QALYs was increased by 0.383 caused by additional cetuximab, while an increase of US$62 947 was observed in relation to FOLFOX-4 chemotherapy. The ICER was US$164 044 per QALY, which exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of US$28 106 per QALY.ConclusionsDespite the survival benefit, cetuximab combined with FOLFOX-4 is not a cost-effective treatment for the first-line regime of patients with RAS wt mCRC in China.Trial registration numberTAILOR trial (NCT01228734); Post-results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document