scholarly journals Effectiveness and Safety of S-1-Based Therapy Compared with 5-Fluorouracil-Based Therapy for Advanced Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiaxiang Ye ◽  
Jiawei Chen ◽  
Lianying Ge ◽  
Aiqun Liu ◽  
Shaozhang Zhou

Objectives.The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy and safety of S-1-based therapy (SBT) versus 5-fluorouracil-based therapy (FBT) for advanced colorectal cancer (ACRC).Methods.A meta-analysis of all eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed using RevMan 5.1.0 software.Results.A total of 1625 patients from twelve RCTs including 820 patients in the SBT group and 805 patients in the FBT group were available for analysis. The meta-analysis of overall survival (hazards ratio HR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.80–1.10), progression-free survival (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.91–1.18), and overall response rate (odds ratio OR = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.00–1.53) showed no statistical significance between SBT group and FBT group. The statistically significant differences in the meta-analysis indicated less incidence of graded 3-4 neutropenia (OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.35–0.68) and nausea/vomit (OR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.23–0.72) in the SBT group, and there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of grade 3-4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, leucopenia, diarrhea, and treatment-related deaths between two groups.Conclusions.SBT had similar efficacy and better safety than FBT and was an attractive alternative to FBT for patients of ACRC, but further investigations in different populations would be needed to confirm it.

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Yang ◽  
R. Chen ◽  
T. Sun ◽  
L. Zhao ◽  
F. Liu ◽  
...  

Background Combined androgen blockade (cab) is a promising treatment modality for prostate cancer (pca). In the present meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of first-line cab using an antiandrogen (aa) with castration monotherapy in patients with advanced pca.Methods PubMed, embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized controlled trials (rcts) published through 12 December 2016. Hazard ratios (hrs) with 95% confidence intervals (cis) were determined for primary outcomes: overall survival (os) and progression-free survival (pfs). Subgroup analyses were performed for Western compared with Eastern patients and use of a nonsteroidal aa (nsaa) compared with a steroidal aa (saa).Results Compared with castration monotherapy, cab using an aa was associated with significantly improved os (n = 14; hr: 0.90; 95% ci: 0.84 to 0.97; p = 0.003) and pfs (n = 13; hr: 0.89; 95% ci: 0.80 to 1.00; p = 0.04). No significant difference in os (p = 0.71) and pfs (p = 0.49) was observed between the Western and Eastern patients. Compared with castration monotherapy, cab using a nsaa was associated with significantly improved os (hr: 0.88; 95% ci: 0.82 to 0.95; p = 0.0009) and pfs (hr: 0.85; 95% ci: 0.73 to 0.98; p = 0.007)—a result that was not achieved with cab using a saa. The safety profiles of cab and monotherapy were similar in terms of adverse events, including hot flushes, impotence, and grade 3 or 4 events, with the exception of risk of diarrhea and liver dysfunction or elevation in liver enzymes, which were statistically greater with cab using an aa.Conclusions Compared with castration monotherapy, first-line cab therapy with an aa, especially a nsaa, resulted in significantly improved os and pfs, and had an acceptable safety profile in patients with advanced pca.


Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 2663
Author(s):  
Tung Hoang ◽  
Jeongseon Kim

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of systemic therapies in the treatment of unresectable advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer. Predicted hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% credible intervals (CrIs) for overall survival (OS) were calculated from the odds ratio (OR) for the overall response rate and/or HR for progression-free survival using multivariate random effects (MVRE) models. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) of 49 articles to compare the efficacy and safety of FOLFOX/FOLFIRI±bevacizumab (Bmab)/cetuximab (Cmab)/panitumumab (Pmab), and FOLFOXIRI/CAPEOX±Bmab. The NMA showed significant OS improvement with FOLFOX, FOLFOX+Cmab, and FOLFIRI+Cmab compared with that of FOLFIRI (HR = 0.84, 95% CrI = 0.73–0.98; HR = 0.76, 95% CrI = 0.62–0.94; HR = 0.80, 95% CrI = 0.66–0.96, respectively), as well as with FOLFOX+Cmab and FOLFIRI+Cmab compared with that of FOLFOXIRI (HR = 0.69, 95% CrI = 0.51–0.94 and HR = 0.73, 95% CrI = 0.54–0.97, respectively). The odds of adverse events grade ≥3 were significantly higher for FOLFOX+Cmab vs. FOLFIRI+Bmab (OR = 2.34, 95% CrI = 1.01–4.66). Higher odds of events were observed for FOLFIRI+Pmab in comparison with FOLFIRI (OR = 2.16, 95% CrI = 1.09–3.84) and FOLFIRI+Bmab (OR = 3.14, 95% CrI = 1.51–5.89). FOLFOX+Cmab and FOLFIRI+Bmab showed high probabilities of being first- and second-line treatments in terms of the efficacy and safety, respectively. The findings of the efficacy and safety comparisons may support the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020153640.


Blood ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 118 (21) ◽  
pp. 2704-2704
Author(s):  
Chadi Nabhan ◽  
Dana Villines ◽  
Tina V. Valdez ◽  
Michele Ghielmini ◽  
Shu-Fang Hsu Schmitz ◽  
...  

Abstract Abstract 2704 Background: MR has improved the outcome and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) in front-line and relapsed settings. However, maintenance schedules have been empirically designed based on either B-cell depletion kinetics or rituximab levels, with no consensus on the optimal regimen. Overall, toxicities have been predictable and tolerable but the impact of MR schedule on toxicities has not been previously reported and could influence selection of maintenance regimens. Methods: Using PubMed, prospective clinical trials employing MR were identified. Data presented in abstract form or at meetings were deemed incomplete and thus excluded. Data were analyzed from published manuscripts as percentages of subjects experiencing an adverse event (AE). Percentages were considered as the unit of analysis as this adjusted for the uneven sample sizes. Data were collected for overall Grade 3 and/or Grade 4 toxicity (AE reported at any phase of treatment) and was further categorized as AE occurring during initial treatment or during MR. Grade 1 and 2 toxicities were excluded from meta-analysis, given lack of consistent reporting. No grade 5 toxicities were reported. The incidence, severity, and type of toxicity was analyzed by type of induction (Rituximab (R) vs. R plus chemotherapy), histology (FL vs. FL plus other LG-NHL), setting (front-line vs. relapsed), and MR schedule (one dose every 2 months vs. one dose every 3 months vs. 4 doses every 6 months). Results: Nine clinical trials involving 1,928 patients were included in this Meta analysis (4 of which were randomized controlled in the MR phase). Of those, 1,004 patients received MR. The mean percentage of Grade 3/4 toxicities during any phase of treatment was 26% (95% CI = 0.12–51.88) but when restricted to the MR phase; it was 12.88% (95% CI = 6.50–19.26). Toxicities were numerically higher in patients receiving R induction plus chemotherapy versus R induction alone and in patients receiving MR for relapsed disease versus newly diagnosed patients, but did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.661 and 0.517, respectively). However, patients receiving MR every 2 months were significantly more likely to develop grade 3 and 4 toxicities compared to patients receiving MR every 6 months (P = 0.005). No statistical differences were demonstrated between the 2 vs. 3 months schedules or when comparing the 3 vs. 6 months schedules (P = 0.342 and 0.267, respectively) (Table 1). Statistically significant differences were also found in studies restricted to FL versus others allowing non-FL histologies (P = 0.025) with the FL patients experiencing more toxicity than others. The most frequently reported toxicities were neutropenia and infections. There were no treatment-related deaths in any of the arms. Conclusions: Approximately 13% of patients receiving MR experience grade 3 and/or 4 toxicities, mainly consisting of neutropenia and infections. MR given every 6 months appears to provide the least grade 3 and 4 toxicities. There is a suggestion of increased toxicity in FL histologies. It is important to note that this meta-analysis did not address efficacy and only a true comparative trial can definitively establish the relative risk/benefit ratios amongst MR schedules. Disclosures: Nabhan: Genentech: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Ghielmini:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Smith:Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3565-3565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suayib Yalcin ◽  
Ruchan Uslu ◽  
Faysal Dane ◽  
Ugur Yilmaz ◽  
Nurullah Zengin ◽  
...  

3565 Background: Colorectal cancer is one of the most frequent malignancies, second after breast cancer in women and third after lung cancer and prostate cancer in men. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the progression-free survival (PFS) between two arms: Arm A is a combination of BEV + XELOX; Arm B is a combination of BEV + XELOX for 6 cycles followed by maintenance BEV + capecitabine as first-line therapy in mCRC. Methods: BEV (7.5 mg/kg) + XELOX (capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 bid d1–14 + oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 d1 q3w) were administered until progression (Arm A) or 6 cycles of BEV + XELOX followed by BEV + capecitabine were administered until progression (Arm B). PFS was the primary endpoint; secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. A sample size of 118 pts was required to detect with 80% power an increase of 1.5 months in median PFS between two arms with a standard deviation of 3.9 months and significance level of 0.05 (10% drop-out rate). Results: A total of 123 pts were randomized. Demographic characteristics were balanced between the arms. Median treatment period was 7.5 (range 0.5–13.9) and 8.1 (range 0.1–20.7) months in Arms A and B, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in median PFS between arms, although there was no significant difference in ORR and OS (see table). Tolerability was acceptable in both arms with the following grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs): Arm A 48.4%; Arm B 34.4% (p=0.116). Grade 3/4 diarrhoea occurred in 9.7% vs. 3.3%, weakness in 8.1% vs. 8.2%, hand-foot syndrome in 3.2% vs. 1.6%, and neuropathy in 4.8% vs. 3.3% of pts in Arms A and B, respectively. Conclusions: These findings suggest that maintenance therapy with BEV + capecitabine following induction with 6 cycles of BEV + XELOX may be superior to continuous BEV + XELOX until progression inpts with previously untreated mCRC. [Table: see text]


2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (20) ◽  
pp. 2781-2786 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles D. Blanke ◽  
Brian M. Bot ◽  
David M. Thomas ◽  
Archie Bleyer ◽  
Claus-Henning Kohne ◽  
...  

Purpose Colorectal cancer predominantly occurs in the elderly, but approximately 5% of patients are 50 years old or younger. We sought to determine whether young age is prognostic, or whether it influences efficacy/toxicity of chemotherapy, in patients with advanced disease. Methods We analyzed individual data on 6,284 patients from nine phase III trials of advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC) that used fluorouracil-based single-agent and combination chemotherapy. End points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), and grade 3 or worse adverse events. Stratified Cox and adjusted logistic-regression models were used to test for age effects and age-treatment interactions. Results A total of 793 patients (13%) were younger than 50 years old; 188 of these patients (3% of total patients) were younger than 40 years old. Grade 3 or worse nausea (10% v 7%; P = .01) was more common, and severe diarrhea (11% v 14%; P = .001) and neutropenia (23% v 26%; P < .001) were less common in young (younger than 50 years) than in older (older than 50 years) patients. Age was prognostic for PFS, with poorer outcomes occurring in those younger than 50 years (median, 6.0 v 7.5 months; hazard ratio, 1.10; P = .02), but it did not affect RR or OS. In the subset of monotherapy versus combination chemotherapy trials, the relative benefits of multiagent chemotherapy were similar for young and older patients. Results were comparable when utilizing an age cut point of 40 years. Conclusion Young age is modestly associated with poorer PFS but not OS or RR in treated patients with aCRC, and young patients have more nausea but less diarrhea and neutropenia with chemotherapy in general. Young versus older patients derive the same benefits from combination chemotherapy. Absent results of a clinical trial, standard combination chemotherapy approaches are appropriate for young patients with aCRC.


2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (7) ◽  
pp. 030006052092640
Author(s):  
Guan-Li Su ◽  
Yuan-Yuan Wang ◽  
Jin-Cheng Wang ◽  
Hao Liu

Objective We performed this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and toxicity of regorafenib and TAS-102. Methods Electronic databases were searched to identify studies comparing the efficacy and safety of regorafenib and TAS-102 in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer using pooled analyses. Results Three clinical trials were included in this analysis. Regarding the reasons for treatment discontinuation, regorafenib was significantly associated with disease progression (odds ratio [OR] = 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.21–0.50) and adverse events (OR = 4.38, 95% CI = 2.69–7.13). However, overall (OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.81–1.17) and progression-free survival (OR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.86–1.18) did not significantly differ between the groups. The most common treatment-related adverse events in the regorafenib group were neutropenia (OR = 0.06, 95% CI = 0.03–0.11), hand–foot syndrome (OR = 50.34, 95% CI = 10.44–242.84), and liver dysfunction (OR = 34.51, 95% CI = 8.30–143.43). Conversely, the incidence of thrombocytopenia did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions Regorafenib and TAS-102 have similar efficacy but different adverse event profiles. Differences in the toxicity profiles of the two drugs will help guide treatment selection.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 541-541
Author(s):  
Yoshimitsu Kobayashi ◽  
Hiraku Fukushima ◽  
Takahide Sasaki ◽  
Satoshi Yuki ◽  
Hiroyuki Okuda ◽  
...  

541 Background: In the previous studies, panitumumab (Pmab) has been demonstrated the efficacy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in all treatment lines. It is still controversial about the efficacy of Pmab for patients that had progressed on prior cetuximab (Cmab), though there had been a few reports (from Metges et al. and Wadlow et al.) regarding the efficacy of Pmab after Cmab refractory or intolerance. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Pmab in patients with cetuximab-refractory mCRC, in comparison with anti-EGFR antibody naïve patients (Cmab-naïve) and Cmab-refractory or intolerance patients (prior-Cmab). Methods: Two hundred patients with mCRC treated by Pmab contained chemotherapy were retrospectively registered from 20 centers in Japan (HGCSG 1002 study). Of these, the patients that were refractory to or intolerant for 5-FU/ irinotecan/ oxaliplatin, and were administered Pmab monotherapy were included in this analysis. Results: Of 93 patients (44 prior-Cmab and 49 Cmab-naïve) were evaluated. There were no significant differences in the baseline characteristics of the patients in each group. The incidence of Grade 3 or higher any skin toxicities were higher in the Cmab-naïve (26.5.%) than in the prior-Cmab (11.4%). The overall response rate (RR) was not significantly difference (prior-Cmab/ Cmab-naïve, 9.1%/ 10.2%), but the disease control rate (DCR) was slightly higher in Cmab-naïve group (38.6%/ 55.1%, p=0.15). Progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were follows: prior-Cmab/ Cmab-naïve, 2.8m/ 3.1m, 6.8m / 9.5m. There was a significant difference between the two groups in OS curve (p=0.04). Conclusions: Pmab was safely administered to heavily pretreated mCRC patients in daily practice. Although there were no significant differences in RR, DCS and PFS between prior-Cmab and Cmab-naïve, but the median OS was longer for the Cmab-naïve group compared with the prior-Cmab group. Therapeutic efficacies of Pmab for prior-Cmab patients did not comparable to those for Cmab-naïve patients. We are now performing a phase II trial on the efficacy of Pmab for Cmab-refractory mCRC patients.


1997 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 808-815 ◽  
Author(s):  
A de Gramont ◽  
J F Bosset ◽  
C Milan ◽  
P Rougier ◽  
O Bouché ◽  
...  

PURPOSE This multicenter study compared the therapeutic ratio of a monthly schedule of low-dose leucovorin (LV) and fluorouracil (5-FU) bolus with a bimonthly schedule of high-dose LV and 5-FU bolus plus continuous infusion in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Of the 448 patients randomly assigned to treatment, 433 were assessable. Treatment A was a monthly regimen of intravenous (IV) LV 20 mg/m2 plus bolus 5-FU 425 mg/m2 for 5 days every 4 weeks. Treatment B was a bimonthly regimen of IV LV 200 mg/m2 as a 2-hour infusion followed by bolus 5-FU 400 mg/m2 and 22-hour infusion 5-FU 600 mg/m2 for 2 consecutive days every 2 weeks. Therapy was continued until disease progression. Second-line chemotherapy, which included 5-FU continuous infusion, was allowed in both arms. RESULTS The response rates in 348 patients with measurable lesions were 14.4% (monthly regimen) and 32.6% (bimonthly regimen) (P = .0004). The median progression-free survival times were 22 weeks (monthly regimen) and 27.6 weeks (bimonthly regimen) (P = .0012). The median survival times were 56.8 weeks (monthly regimen) and 62 weeks (bimonthly regimen) (P = .067). Grade 3-4 toxicities occurred in 23.9% of patients in the monthly arm compared with 11.1% of those in the bimonthly arm (P = .0004). Patients in arm A more frequently experienced severe granulocytopenia (7.3% v 1.9%), diarrhea (7.3% v 2.9%), and mucositis (7.3% v 1.9%) than patients in arm B. CONCLUSION The bimonthly regimen was more effective and less toxic than the monthly regimen and definitely increased the therapeutic ratio. However, there was no evidence of increased survival.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 108-108
Author(s):  
Atsushi Ishiguro ◽  
Hiroshi Nakatsumi ◽  
Tetsuhito Muranaka ◽  
Yasuyuki Kawamoto ◽  
Satoshi Yuki ◽  
...  

108 Background: IRIS (irinotecan plus S-1) plus bevacizumab (IRIS/Bev) is one of the standard chemotherapies in Japan for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) as the first-line or second-line therapy. The most frequent non-hematological adverse event of IRIS was diarrhea. Hange-shashin-to (HST) is a Kampo medicine which is used in Japan for the treatment of gastritis, stomatitis, and diarrhea. We conducted this study to evaluate the usefulness of HST to prevent diarrhea in patients with mCRC receiving IRIS/Bev as the second-line therapy. Methods: This trial was designed as a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. We administrated HST 2.5g or placebo PO t.i.d. x 3 months from the first treatment course of IRIS/Bev. The primary endpoint is proportion of ≥grade 3 diarrhea assessed by CTCAE v4.0. This study is registered with UMIN-CTR, number UMIN000012276. Results: Between Jan 1, 2014 and Mar 31, 2017, 59 patients from 11 institutes in Japan were randomly assigned to receive HST (n = 28, Group H) or placebo (n = 29, Group P). The proportions of ≥grade 3 diarrhea was 10.7% in Group H and 13.8% in Group P (p = 1.00). The other major adverse events of ≥grade 3 in Group H vs Group P were fatigue (3.6% vs 10.3%), anorexia (14.3% vs 10.3%), and nausea (0.0% vs 3.4%). The overall response rate was 13.6% in Group H vs 7.7% in Group P (p = 0.65). There were not statistically significant differences in median progression-free survival (mPFS), median time to treatment failure (mTTF), and median overall survival (mOS) between Group H and Group P ( mPFS 7.9 vs 5.9 months; p = 0.35; mTTF 3.8 vs 5.6; p = 0.466; mOS 17.0 vs 15.3 months; p = 0.750). Conclusions: Prophylactic HST could not reduce the severity of diarrhea during IRIS/Bev. The update analysis of anti-tumor efficacy showed that IRIS/Bev had promising survival benefit but there is not statistically significant difference between HST and placebo. Clinical trial information: UMIN000012276.


Author(s):  
Fanzhong Lin ◽  
Hongyun Li ◽  
Jianzhu Wang ◽  
Fang Wang

Purpose: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and toxicities of combination maintenance therapy for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods: Relevant trials were identified by searching electronic databases and conference meetings. Prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing combination maintenance therapy in advanced CRC patients were included. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and grade 3-4 toxicities. Results: A total of 3,174 advanced CRC patients received combination maintenance treatment from 6 RCTs were included for analysis. The use of combination maintenance therapy did not significantly improved PFS (HR 0.95, 95%CI: 0.75-1.20, p=0.67) and OS (HR 1.05, 95%CI: 0.93-1.17, p=0.45) in comparison with single bevacizumab maintenance therapy for the treatment of advanced CRC, similar results were observed in sub-group analysis according to treatment regimens. In addition, combination maintenance therapy significantly improved PFS (HR 0.57, 95%CI: 0.41-0.80, p=0.001), but not for OS (HR 0.93, 95%CI: 0.76-1.14, p=0.47) in comparison with observation. Additionally, more incidences of any grade 3-4 toxicities (diarrhea, fatigue and hand-foot skin reaction) were observed in the combination maintenance therapy. Conclusions: The findings of this study show that the efficacy of combination maintenance therapy is comparable to that of bevacizumab alone in terms of PFS and OS for advanced CRC patients, but at the cost of increased grade 3-4 toxicities. Thus single agent bevacizumab remains the recommended maintenance treatment for advanced CRC patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document