scholarly journals FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after first-line bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based therapy: the randomized phase III EAGLE study

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 1427-1433 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Iwamoto ◽  
T. Takahashi ◽  
H. Tamagawa ◽  
M. Nakamura ◽  
Y. Munemoto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Eagle Study

Efficacy and Toxicity of Addition of Bevacizumab to Chemotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 718-724 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wen-Cong Ruan ◽  
Yue-Ping Che ◽  
Li Ding ◽  
Hai-Feng Li
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Clinical Prognosis ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference

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.

Survival of Patients With Advanced Colorectal Cancer Improves With the Availability of Fluorouracil-Leucovorin, Irinotecan, and Oxaliplatin in the Course of Treatment

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 1209-1214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel Grothey ◽  
Daniel Sargent ◽  
Richard M. Goldberg ◽  
Hans-Joachim Schmoll
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Advanced Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cytotoxic Agents ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Purpose Fluorouracil (FU)-leucovorin (LV), irinotecan, and oxaliplatin administered alone or in combination have proven effective in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Combination protocols using FU-LV with either irinotecan or oxaliplatin are currently regarded as standard first-line therapies in this disease. However, the importance of the availability of all three active cytotoxic agents, FU-LV, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin, on overall survival (OS) has not yet been evaluated. Materials and Methods We analyzed data from seven recently published phase III trials in advanced CRC to correlate the percentage of patients receiving second-line therapy and the percentage of patients receiving all three agents with the reported median OS, using a weighted analysis. Results The reported median OS is significantly correlated with the percentage of patients who received all three drugs in the course of their disease (P = .0008) but not with the percentage of patients who received any second-line therapy (P = .19). In addition, the use of combination protocols as first-line therapy was associated with a significant improvement in median survival of 3.5 months (95% CI, 1.27 to 5.73 months; P = .0083). Conclusion Our results support the strategy of making these three active drugs available to all patients with advanced CRC who are candidates for such therapy to maximize OS. In addition, our findings suggest that, with the availability of effective salvage options, OS should no longer be regarded as the most appropriate end point by which to assess the efficacy of a palliative first-line treatment in CRC.

scholarly journals Protocol of the EFFORT study: a prospective study of FOLFIRI plus aflibercept as second-line treatment after progression on FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab or during maintenance treatment in patients with unresectable/metastatic colorectal cancer

BMC Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hironaga Satake ◽  
Koji Ando ◽  
Eiji Oki ◽  
Mototsugu Shimokawa ◽  
Akitaka Makiyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

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.

scholarly journals Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as second-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III noninferiority study

2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 1720-1726 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.L. Rothenberg ◽  
J.V. Cox ◽  
C. Butts ◽  
M. Navarro ◽  
Y.-J. Bang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Folinic Acid ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

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.

A multinational, randomized, phase III trial of XELIRI with or without bevacizumab versus FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab as second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: Safety analysis of Asian XELIRI project (AXEPT).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 681-681
Author(s):  
Masato Nakamura ◽  
Tae Won Kim ◽  
Rui-hua Xu ◽  
Young Suk Park ◽  
Yong Sang Hong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Safety Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

681 Background: Several studies have shown that capecitabine plus irinotecan (XELIRI) has promising efficacy and safety in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. AXEPT is a non-inferiority, phase III comparison of XELIRI with or without bevacizumab vs 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus irinotecan (FOLFIRI) with or without bevacizumab as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods: We undertook an open-label, non-inferiority, randomized phase III trial in South Korea, China and Japan. Patients were randomized 1:1 to XELIRI (irinotecan 200 mg/m2 on day 1 plus capecitabine 800 mg/m2 twice daily for 2 weeks in a 3-week cycle) with or without bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Results: From December 2013 to August 2015, 650 patients were enrolled and 625 (311 in FOLFIRI and 314 in XELIRI) were included to safety analysis at the cutoff dates on August 31, 2016. Patient baseline characteristics including KRAS status and UGT1A1 gene polymorphism were similar between the two treatment arms. Prior chemotherapy with oxaliplatin was given to 97.4% in both arms. The overall incidence of grade 3-4 toxicity was 73% in FOLFIRI arm and 53.2% in XELIRI arm. Whereas FOLFIRI was associated with more grade 3-4 neutropenia (43.7% vs 16.2%), leucopenia (13.5% vs 7.3%) and all grades anemia (80.4% vs 69.4%) than XELIRI, XELIRI was associated with more all grades hand-foot syndrome (34.1% vs 14.8%) and grade 3-4 diarrhea (7.0% vs 3.2%). There was no significant difference in febrile neutropenia (4.2% in FOLFIRI and 2.9% in XELIRI). The addition of bevacizumab did not alter safety profiles between XELIRI and FOLFIRI. There was a treatment-related death in FOLFIRI arm (0.3%). Conclusions: Both FOLFIRI and XELIRI were safe and well tolerated, though there were differences in the rates and toxicity profiles at which adverse events occur. Clinical trial information: NCT01996306. UMIN000012263.

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