scholarly journals Triplet Chemotherapy (FOLFOXIRI) Plus Bevacizumab Versus Doublet Chemotherapy (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI) Plus Bevacizumab in Conversion Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: a Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 1870-1881 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lin Shui ◽  
Yu-Shen Wu ◽  
Huapeng Lin ◽  
Pixian Shui ◽  
Qin Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Conversion Therapy ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
Triplet Chemotherapy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Doublet Chemotherapy

Background/Aims: Conversion therapy can convert unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) into resectable. However, the optimal conversion regimen was not yet defined. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the triplet chemotherapy (FOLFOXIRI) plus bevacizumab (Bev) with doublet chemotherapy (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI) plus Bev in conversion therapy. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from databases, including Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane clinical trials, clinicaltrial.gov and some conferences, were searched from the inception to November 2017. The R0 resection, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and the incidence of adverse events were pooled with the use of hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR). Results: Four RCTs with 1013 patients were included. FOLFOXIRI plus Bev regimen significantly improved the overall R0 resection rate (RR 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.85, I2=37%), liver R0 resection rate (RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.34-3.89, I2=0%), ORR (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.09-1.32, I2=0%), PFS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62-0.84, I2=36%) and OS (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66-0.97, I2=0%). There was no significant difference in any Grade≥3 adverse event (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.99-1.17, I2=0%) between two regimens. FOLFOXIRI-Bev was associated with a higher risk of neutropenia (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.13-2.79, I2=68%) and diarrhea (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.17-2.32, I2=0%). Conclusions: Triplet chemotherapy plus Bev significantly improved the R0 resection rates, ORR, PFS and OS in comparison with doublet chemotherapy plus Bev in conversion therapy for mCRC patients, with a higher risk of neutropenia and diarrhea.

Doublet (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) versus triplet (FOLFOXIRI) backbone chemotherapy regimen as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3593-3593
Author(s):  
Vishal Jindal ◽  
Ruby Gupta ◽  
Kamal Kant Sahu ◽  
Mandeep Singh Rahi ◽  
Michael J. Stender ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
First Line ◽  
Triplet Chemotherapy ◽  
Doublet Chemotherapy ◽  
First Line Treatment

3593 Background: Doublet chemotherapy FOLFOX and FOLFIRI are standard for first‐line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Recently, use of triplet chemotherapy FOLFOXIRI has shown an increased anti-cancer activity but still there is uncertainty regarding first line backbone chemotherapy. Therefore, we conducted this metanalysis to determine the efficacy, safety and outcome of triplet vs doublet chemotherapy. Methods: The study protocol was published at PROSPERO (CRD42020166745) and prepared as per PRISMA guidelines. Total 10 studies were included, with sample size of 1536 participants in triplet arm and 1535 participants in doublet arm. The primary outcome is Response rate (RR) and secondary outcomes are Progression-free survival (PFS), Overall survival (OS), post chemotherapy radical (R0) surgical resection rate of metastases. Quantitative synthesis was performed using “R” statistical package. Dichotomous outcomes were summarized using odds ratio (OR) and time to event data was summarized using hazard ratio (HR). Results: A total of 678 articles were retrieved. The Medline article search gave a result of 271 article, Embase 296, the Cochrane Library 100 and Clinical tral.gov 11, when searched through April 2020. Total 10 studies were included. All the studies were randomized, open-label, multicenter study. Out of the 10 trials 5 each were phase II and phase III studies. The pooled odds ratio for RR was 1.66 (95% CI 1.42 to 1.93) and PFS was (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63–0.78) in favor of triplet chemotherapy. There was significant improvement in radical resection (R0) of metastases (OR 1.59; 95% CI, 1.27–1.98) in triplet arm. Triplet arm was also associated with increased toxicity especially neurological events 2.51(0.88-7.16), diarrhea 2.40(1.74-3.31), neutropenia, 2.23(1.71-2.90) and thrombocytopenia 1.94(1.05-3.59). Conclusions: Findings in this meta-analysis showed that FOLFOXIRI significantly improves the PFS, RR, OS, and R0 resection rate of overall metastases over the doublet chemotherapy. The incidence of fatal adverse events was found to be more in triplet chemotherapy compared to doublet therapy. Therefore, we concluded that with moderate evidence FOLFOXIRI provide clinically meaningful efficacy benefit at cost of increased toxicity.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals Comparison of Irinotecan and Oxaliplatin as the First-Line Therapies for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sadayuki Kawai ◽  
Nozomi Takeshima ◽  
Yu Hayasaka ◽  
Akifumi Notsu ◽  
Mutsumi Yamazaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
First Line ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
High Incidence

Abstract BackgroundIrinotecan (IRI) and oxaliplatin (Ox) are standard therapeutic agents of the first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that treatment with Ox-based compared with IRI-based regimens was associated with better overall survival (OS). However, these reports did not include trials of molecular targeting agents and did not take methods for the administration of concomitant drugs, such as bolus or continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil, into account. A systematic literature review was performed to compare the efficacy and toxicity profiles between IRI- and Ox-based regimens as the first-line treatments for mCRC.MethodsThis meta-analysis used data from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and SCOPUS. The primary endpoint was OS, and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs).ResultsNineteen trials involving 4,571 patients were included in the analysis. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of OS, PFS, and ORR. There was no significant heterogeneity. Regarding ≥ grade 3 AEs, IRI-based regimens were associated with a high incidence of leukopenia, febrile neutropenia, and diarrhea. Moreover, there was a high incidence of thrombocytopenia and peripheral sensory neuropathy in patients who received Ox-based regimens. In a subgroup analysis, IRI combined with bevacizumab was correlated with a better PFS (HR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.82–0.98, P = 0.02), but not with OS.ConclusionAlthough the safety profiles of IRI- and Ox-based regimens varied, their efficacy did not significantly differ. Therefore, both regimens could be used as the first-line treatments for mCRC with consideration of the patients’ condition or toxicity profiles.

scholarly journals Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of FOLFOXIRI Plus Bevacizumab Versus Doublets Plus Bevacizumab as Initial Therapy of Unresectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (28) ◽  
pp. 3314-3324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chiara Cremolini ◽  
Carlotta Antoniotti ◽  
Alexander Stein ◽  
Johanna Bendell ◽  
Thomas Gruenberger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Individual Patient Data ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient Data ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
End Points ◽  
Grade 3

PURPOSE A proper estimation of the magnitude of the overall survival (OS) benefit from infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) plus bevacizumab versus doublets + bevacizumab is lacking because all trials that have investigated this regimen had primary end points other than OS. To test OS with higher power and to explore the interaction of treatment effect with main patient and disease characteristics, we performed an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS IPD from 5 eligible trials were collected: CHARTA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01321957 ), OLIVIA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00778102 ), STEAM (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01765582 ), TRIBE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00719797 ), and TRIBE2 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02339116 ). The primary end point was OS. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), R0 resection rate, grade 3/4 adverse events, and subgroup analyses according to clinical and molecular characteristics. RESULTS A total of 1,697 patients were randomly assigned to FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab (n = 846) or doublets + bevacizumab (n = 851). Most (78%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0, and the median age was 61 years. After a median follow-up of 39.9 months, patients assigned to FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab had significantly longer OS than those assigned to doublets + bevacizumab (median, 28.9 v 24.5 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.91; P < .001), with no significant heterogeneity among trials ( P = .39; I2 = 2%). No significant interaction effect between treatment arm and investigated characteristics was demonstrated. Patients assigned to FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab had longer PFS (median, 12.2 v 9.9 months; HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.82; P < .001), higher ORR (64.5% v 53.6%; P < .001), higher R0 resection rate (16.4% v 11.8%; P = .007), and higher rates of grade 3/4 neutropenia (45.8% v 21.5%; P < .001), febrile neutropenia (6.3% v 3.7%; P = .019), and diarrhea (17.8% v 8.4%; P < .001). CONCLUSION FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab significantly and meaningfully improves survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer compared with doublets + bevacizumab and provides advantage in PFS, ORR, and R0 resection rate at the price of a moderate increase in toxicity. No increased benefit is observed among patients with BRAF-mutant tumors.

Sequencing of different targeted therapies in management of KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 679-679
Author(s):  
Jin Li ◽  
Gong Chen ◽  
Weijia Fang ◽  
Yongsong Tang
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Targeted Therapies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Significant Difference

679 Background: First-line (1L) antiendothelial growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) is considered suitable in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. As no treatment guidelines recommend target therapy sequence in mCRC, this meta-analysis determined the optimal sequence of targeted therapies in patients with KRAS wild type (WT) mCRC. Methods: PICO framework was used to retrieve relevant studies from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. mCRC patients treated with 1L anti-EGFR and second-line (2L) anti -VEGF were compared with 1L anti-VEGF and 2L anti-EGFR treatment (gp. A). Patients treated with 1L anti-VEGF and 2L anti-EGFR treatment were compared with anti-VEGF in 1L and 2L (gp. B). We also compared 2L and 3L anti-EGFR therapies (gp. C). Primary and secondary outcomes of overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were presented as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Objective response rate (ORR) was evaluated in terms of relative risk (RR) and 95% CI. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: We identified nine studies for this analysis including 1478 KRAS WT mCRC patients. In gp. p A (three studies; two retrospective and one post-hoc analysis; 450 patients), 1L anti-EGFR and 2L anti-VEGF treatment had a significantly higher OS (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53-1.32; p = 0.0022) and PFS (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76- 0.96; p = 0.0081) than 1L anti-VEGF and 2L anti-EGFR. Comparison in gp. B (n = 3 RCTs involving 431 mCRC KRAS WT patients) showed no significant difference in OS (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70- 1.29; p = 0.6897; I2 = 42.69%) and PFS (HR 1.43, 95% CI 0.83- 2.47; p = 0.1962; I2 = 81.55%) between the two lines of treatment. ORR was higher with anti-VEGF in both 1L and 2L in gp. B (RR 3.58, 95% CI 0.72- 17.85; p = 0.1191). In gp. C, indirect comparison showed similar OS with 3L and 2L anti-EGFR therapies ((3L and 2L: n = 2 studies each; HR 0.86. 95% CI 0.71-1.04; HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51-1.20; 2L vs. 3L; p = 0.06). Conclusions: Patients with KRAS WT mCRC achieved maximum benefit with 1L anti-EGFR and 2L anti-VEGF than with 1L anti-VEGF and 2L anti-EGFR or 1L and 2L anti-VEGF. Hence, it is suggested to initiate the therapy with 1L anti-EGFR to derive the maximum clinical benefit.

scholarly journals P-0253 The Addition of a Third Active Drug Increases R0 Resection Rate in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
pp. iv103
Author(s):  
Lucjan Wyrwicz ◽  
Agnieszka Byszek ◽  
Agnieszka Domurad ◽  
Joanna Chodzyn´ska ◽  
Maciej Krzakowski
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Active Drug ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Resection Rate

scholarly journals Comparison of irinotecan and oxaliplatin as the first-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sadayuki Kawai ◽  
Nozomi Takeshima ◽  
Yu Hayasaka ◽  
Akifumi Notsu ◽  
Mutsumi Yamazaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
First Line ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
High Incidence

Abstract Background Irinotecan (IRI) and oxaliplatin (Ox) are standard therapeutic agents of the first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that treatment with Ox-based compared with IRI-based regimens was associated with better overall survival (OS). However, these reports did not include trials of molecular targeting agents and did not take methods for the administration of concomitant drugs, such as bolus or continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil, into account. A systematic literature review was performed to compare the efficacy and toxicity profiles between IRI- and Ox-based regimens as the first-line treatments for mCRC. Methods This meta-analysis used data from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and SCOPUS. The primary endpoint was OS, and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). Results Nineteen trials involving 4571 patients were included in the analysis. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of OS, PFS, and ORR. There was no significant heterogeneity. Regarding ≥ grade 3 AEs, IRI-based regimens were associated with a high incidence of leukopenia, febrile neutropenia, and diarrhea. Moreover, there was a high incidence of thrombocytopenia and peripheral sensory neuropathy in patients who received Ox-based regimens. In a subgroup analysis, IRI combined with bevacizumab was correlated with a better PFS (HR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.82–0.98, P = 0.02), but not with OS (pooled HR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.80–1.03, P = 0.15). Conclusion Although the safety profiles of IRI- and Ox-based regimens varied, their efficacy did not significantly differ. The combination of anti-VEGF antibody and IRI was associated with better PFS compared with anti-VEGF antibody and Ox. Both regimens could be used as the first-line treatments for mCRC with consideration of the patients’ condition or toxicity profiles.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of regorafenib as beyond second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: an adjusted indirect meta-analysis and systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175883592094093
Author(s):  
Yinying Wu ◽  
Yangwei Fan ◽  
Danfeng Dong ◽  
Xuyuan Dong ◽  
Yuan Hu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line

Background: The evidence base for optimum third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is not conclusive. Recent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of regorafenib as third-line therapy in mCRC. This indirect meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of regorafenib with other available third-line therapies for mCRC. Methods: A literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of fruquintinib, regorafenib, TAS-102, and nintedanib as third-line therapies in patients with mCRC. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were the primary outcomes, while objective response rate (ORR) and safety were the secondary outcomes. Hazard ratio (HR) and relative risk (RR) with their respective 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for analysis of survival, clinical response, and safety data. An adjusted indirect meta-analysis with placebo as the common comparator was performed. Results: We identified eight RCTs comparing regorafenib (two studies), fruquintinib (two studies), TAS-102 (three studies), and nintedanib (one study) against placebo. The OS with regorafenib was significantly better when compared with nintedanib (HR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45, 0.95, p = 0.02) but was similar to that of fruquintinib (HR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.67, 1.52, p = 0.94) and TAS-102 (HR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.68, 1.38, p = 0.88). The PFS and ORR for regorafenib were slightly better than those of TAS-102 (PFS: HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.54, 1.37, p = 0.5; ORR: RR = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.11, 11.05, p = 0.92) and nintedanib (PFS: HR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.42, 1.10, p = 0.12; ORR: not reported) but were lower than those for fruquintinib (PFS: HR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.93, 2.52, p = 0.08; ORR: RR = 0.68269, 95% CI: 0.045, 10.32, p = 0.79). Safety analysis showed that the RR of adverse events (AEs) was lesser in patients treated with regorafenib in comparison with that in patients treated with fruquintinib, but was similar to that in patients treated with nintedanib and TAS-102. Conclusion: Regorafenib has efficacy similar to that of TAS-102 and better safety when compared with fruquintinib. Considering the mechanism of action of regorafenib, which targets multiple factors in the angiogenic pathway, it could be an ideal option for treatment in the beyond second-line setting.

Efficacy and safety of regorafenib in combination with chemotherapy as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A network meta-analysis.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 115-115
Author(s):  
Xiaoyu Xie ◽  
Jianwei Zhang ◽  
Huabin Hu ◽  
Yue Cai ◽  
Zehua Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Biological Agents ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
R Software

115 Background: Recent studies have shown efficacy of chemotherapy (CTX) in combination with different biological agents including regorafenib (REG) in second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). As there is no evidence on the relative efficacy and safety of REG as compared to other biological agents in combination with CTX, we evaluated the same in this network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing efficacy and safety of biological agents + CTX against CTX alone as second-line treatment of mCRC were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Progression free survival (PFS) was the primary outcome, while objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and safety were secondary outcomes. Outcomes were compared by random/mixed-effects NMA using Bayesian (R software, Gemtc package) and frequentist (R software, netmeta package) approaches. Results: Twelve RCTs comparing 9 different treatment regimens with a total of 6805 patients were included for analysis. Hazard ratios (HR)/ odds ratio (OR)/ relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for PFS, ORR and grade> 3 adverse events (AE) of selected comparisons from the results of the NMA are shown in table. Conclusions: REG combined with CTX might be a potential alternative to conventional therapeutic options and could be considered as the best option for treating KRAS and BRAF mutated mCRC patients. Future RCTs are needed to confirm our results. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Efferent therapy in the first-line drug treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

2018 ◽  
pp. 172-175
Author(s):  
Z. S. Kotova ◽  
T. Yu. Semiglazova ◽  
I. A. Baldueva ◽  
D. H. Latipova ◽  
D. O. Yurlov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Drug Treatment ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
First Line ◽  
Genetic Characteristics ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Line Drug

The aim of this study is to analyse the efficacy of efferent therapy (hemosorption) as part of drug treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on the use of standard first-line chemotherapy combined with the bevacizumab biosimilar. The study included 54 patients with histologically verified mCRC who received the first-line FOLFOX + bevacizumab therapy in combination with and without hemosorption. All patients of the FOLFOX + bevacizumab (+) hemosorption group (n = 32) received the hemosorption using Hemophoenix apparatus on Day 4 of the cycle during the first 6 cycles. A total of 182 hemosorption procedures were performed. The control group included 22 patients receiving the FOLFOX + bevacizumab regimen without hemosorption. The bevacizumab biosimilar was introduced in both groups throughout the treatment at standard doses once every 2 weeks. There was no statistically significant difference between the study groups in the main clinical, pathomorphological, molecular genetic characteristics (sex, age, ECOG status, localization of primary tumor, tumor differentiation, RAS, BRAF mutations, microsatellite instability, etc.).Blood sampling to evaluate the effect of hemosorption on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of bevacizumab biosimilar was performed during the 2nd cycle before (PK1) and after (PK2) hemosorption procedures. The bevacizumab biosimilar concentration in the blood of patients before and after hemosorption showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0,423).The use of pharmaceutical treatment in the FOLFOX + bevacizumab (+) hemosorption group contributed to the achievement of an objective response (OR) in 62% of patients (p = 0.001). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10 ± 0.9 months [95% CI 8.3-11.7] in the FOLFOX + bevacizumab (+) hemosorption group, and 7 ± 0.5 months [95% CI 4.4-11.6] in the FOLFOX + bevacizumab (-) hemosorption group. There was no significant difference in PFS between the groups of patients treated with FOLFOX + bevacizumab regimen with and without hemosorption (p = 0.445).There were statistically significant differences in the frequency of nausea, diarrhoea and asthenia in the FOLFOX + bevacizumab (+) hemosorption group. The analysis of the dynamics of the quality of life (QoL) level before and after treatment showed that QoL level related to health (p = 0.0001) as well as the emotional (p = 0.0001) and social (p = 0,04) functioning increased in patients receiving the FOLFOX + bevacizumab regimen in combination with hemosorption, 0,039).Thus, the addition of hemosorption to the first-line drug treatment according to the FOLFOX + bevacizumab regimen does not affect bevacizumab pharmacokinetics, increases the frequency of objective response, reduces toxicity of the therapy and improves the quality of patients’ life indicators.

Use of the intensity of membranous EGFR staining by immunohistochemistry to predict the efficacy of chemotherapy containing cetuximab in KRAS wild-type patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A retrospective analysis.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 516-516
Author(s):  
Naoki Takahashi ◽  
Yasuhide Yamada ◽  
Hirokazu Taniguchi ◽  
Kohei Akiyoshi ◽  
Yoshitaka Honma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Kras Mutation ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Endoscopic Biopsy ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Mutation Status ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Kras Mutation Status

516 Background: KRAS mutation status is a strong predictive factor for anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In the BOND trial, objective response rates to cetuximab in irinotecan-refractory mCRC were not significantly different based on the intensity of EGFR staining by immunohistrochemistry (IHC). However, this result was not evaluated by KRAS mutation status, so we retrospectively evaluated the relationship between the efficacy of chemotherapy containing cetuximab and the intensity of membranous EGFR staining in KRAS wild type (KRAS-WT) patients. Methods: Between August 2008 and July 2011, specimens of 391 CRC patients were collected by endoscopic biopsy or surgical resection. EGFR staining by IHC and genetic screening for KRAS status were performed and intensity of EGFR staining was scored by the Guidelines for Interpreting EGFR pharmDx, DAKO. We analyzed 94 KRAS-WT patients who received combination chemotherapy with an irinotecan-regimen plus cetuximab or cetuximab monotherapy and met the following criteria: histologically proven mCRC adenocarcinoma , at least 1 previous regimen of standard fluoropyrimidine - containing chemotherapy , ECOG PS score 0-2, and adequate hepatic and renal function. Patients were classified into 2 groups by intensity of EGFR staining: (A) absence of staining and weakly to moderately positive (IHC 1+ and IHC 2+), (B) strongly positive (IHC 3+). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and compared in Groups A and B by the log-rank test. Results: There was no significant difference in patient characteristics between the 2 groups except for primary site. The median PFS of Groups A (n=76) and B (n=18) were 5.4 months and 9.1 months (p= 0.029), the median OS was 8.1 months and 13.2 months (p=0.054) and response rate was 20.1% and 33.3%, respectively. Conclusions: In KRAS-WT patients with fluoropyrimidine-containing chemotherapy-refractory mCRC, strong intensity of EGFR staining by IHC might be predictive for efficacy of chemotherapy containing cetuximab.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document