scholarly journals Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Multitargeted Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Patients With Intractable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 153303382094324
Author(s):  
Zhenzhen Gao ◽  
Chenxi Cao ◽  
Yi Bao ◽  
Yaohua Fan ◽  
Gang Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Network Analysis ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Free Survival

Background: The treatment options for intractable metastatic colorectal cancer include regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil, and fruquintinib. In this study, we aimed to conduct a network meta-analysis for comparing the efficacy of these agents. Methods: We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials databases for relevant literature, up to February 2020. The data were collected from randomized controlled trials on regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil, or fruquintinib, administered to patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who failed on treatment with oxaliplatin, irinotecan, or fluoropyrimidine. The primary end points, namely, the overall survival and progression-free survival, were analyzed for subsequent network analysis using the Review Manager and Aggregate Data Drug Information System software for performing direct and indirect comparisons. Results: A total of 7 trials were analyzed in this study. Trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib proved to be superior to the placebo, with respect to the overall survival (odds ratio: 0.38, 95% confidence interval: 0.27-0.52 for trifluridine/tipiracil; odds ratio: 0.47, 95% confidence interval: 0.26-0.84 for regorafenib) and progression-free survival (odds ratio: 0.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.05-0.67 for trifluridine/tipiracil; odds ratio: 0.06, 95% confidence interval: 0.04-0.09 for regorafenib). Regorafenib (80 mg) was superior to the placebo in terms of the overall survival and progression-free survival and inferior to trifluridine/tipiracil and fruquintinib. Network analysis revealed that the efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil and fruquintinib was fundamentally similar, and both the agents were superior to regorafenib. Conclusion: Regorafenib (80 mg) was superior to the placebo, but inferior to 160 mg regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil, and fruquintinib. This study further revealed that the efficiency of trifluridine/tipiracil and fruquintinib is identical, but their toxicity profiles are different.

scholarly journals A meta-analysis comparing regorafenib with TAS-102 for treating refractory metastatic colorectal cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (7) ◽  
pp. 030006052092640
Author(s):  
Guan-Li Su ◽  
Yuan-Yuan Wang ◽  
Jin-Cheng Wang ◽  
Hao Liu
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome

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.

Meta-analysis of the association between progression-free survival and overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer

2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 623-634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Costel Chirila ◽  
Dawn Odom ◽  
Giovanna Devercelli ◽  
Shahnaz Khan ◽  
Bintu N. Sherif ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival

Effect of the addition of bevacizumab to first-line FOLFOX on efficacy, including response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival, in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 588-588
Author(s):  
M. Suenaga ◽  
N. Mizunuma ◽  
S. Matsusaka ◽  
E. Shinozaki ◽  
M. Ogura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
First Line Treatment

588 Background: Bevacizumab (BV) is a recombinant, humanized monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor. Used in combination with chemotherapy, BV has been shown to improve survival in both first- and second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, it was reported that addition of BV to FOLFOX conferred only little survival benefit (Saltz et al. JCO2008). The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of addition of BV to FOLFOX in first-line treatment for patients with mCRC. Methods: Bevacizumab was approved for mCRC in July 2007 in Japan. This study was conducted at a single institution and comprised 217 consecutive patients receiving first-line treatment for mCRC between 2005 and 2009. The primary objective was to compare survival benefit in patients treated with FOLFOX4 (FF) between 2005 and 2007 with that in patients receiving FOLFOX4+BV 5 mg/kg (FF+BV) between 2007 and 2009. Results: Total number of patients in the FF and FF+BV groups was 132 and 85, respectively. Characteristics of patients were as follows (FF vs. FF+B): median age, 62 yrs (range 28-76 yrs) vs. 60 yrs (range16-74 yrs); ECOG PS0, 98.8% vs. 81.8%; and median follow-up time, 20.8 months vs. 24.4 months. Median progression-free survival (PFS) in the FF and FF+BV groups was 10 months (95% CI, 8.7-11.3) and 17 months (95% CI, 10.2-14.1), while median overall survival (OS) was 21 months (95% CI, 17.9-24.1) and not reached, respectively. Response rate was 46% (95% CI, 37- 54) in FF, and 62% (95% CI, 51-73) in FF+BV. Addition of BV to FOLFOX4 significantly improved PFS (p=0.002) and OS (p<0.001). Conclusions: The additive effect of BV for first-line FOLFOX was reconfirmed. These data indicate potential survival benefits from the addition of BV to FOLFOX in first-line treatment of mCRC. In addition, PFS may be a sensitive indicator of outcome prior to post-treatment. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

scholarly journals Prognostic value of the C-reactive protein to albumin ratio in colorectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chun-Kai Liao ◽  
Yen-Lin Yu ◽  
Yueh-Chen Lin ◽  
Yu-Jen Hsu ◽  
Yih-Jong Chern ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Prognostic Value ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Poor Overall Survival ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Pre Treatment ◽  
Disease Free

Abstract Backgrounds The inflammatory biomarker “C-reactive protein to albumin ratio (CAR)” has been reported to significantly correlate to a variety of human cancers. However, there are conflicting results regarding the prognostic value of CAR in colorectal cancer. Previous studies mainly assessed patients in Eastern countries, so their findings may not be applicable to the Western population. Therefore, this updated meta-analysis aimed to investigate the prognostic value of pre-treatment CAR and outcomes of patients with colorectal cancer. Methods We conducted a systematic search for eligible literature until October 31, 2020, using PubMed and Embase databases. Studies assessing pre-treatment CAR and outcomes of colorectal cancer were included. Outcome measures included overall survival, disease-free survival, progression-free survival, and clinicopathological features. The pooled hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used as effective values. Results A total of 15 studies involving 6329 patients were included in this study. The pooled results indicated that a high pre-treatment CAR was associated with poor overall survival (HR 2.028, 95% CI 1.808−2.275, p < 0.001) and poor disease-free survival/progression-free survival (HR 1.768, 95% CI 1.321–2.365, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed a constant prognostic value of the pre-treatment CAR despite different study regions, sample size, cancer stage, treatment methods, or the cut-off value used. We also noted a correlation between high pre-treatment CAR and old age, male sex, colon cancer, advanced stage (III/IV), large tumor size, poor differentiation, elevated carcinoembryonic antigen levels, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and the modified Glasgow prognostic score. Conclusions High pre-treatment CAR was associated with poor overall survival, disease-free survival, and progression-free survival in colorectal cancer. It can serve as a prognostic marker for colorectal cancer in clinical practice.

scholarly journals Bevacizumab in combination with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

2010 ◽  
Vol 14 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. 47-53
Author(s):  
S Whyte ◽  
A Pandor ◽  
M Stevenson ◽  
A Rees
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Absolute Difference ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Open Label Study ◽  
Free Survival

This paper presents a summary of the evidence review group (ERG) report into the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bevacizumab in combination with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer based on the manufacturer’s submission to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) as part of the single technology appraisal (STA) process. Evidence was available in the form of one phase III, multicentre, multinational, randomised, open-label study (NO16966 trial). This two-arm study was originally designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of oral capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) compared with 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX)-4 in adult patients with histologically confirmed metastatic colorectal cancer who had not previously been treated. Following randomisation of 634 patients, the open-label study was amended to include a 2 × 2 factorial randomised (partially blinded for bevacizumab) phase III trial with the coprimary objective of demonstrating superiority of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone. Measured outcomes included overall survival, progression-free survival, response rate, adverse effects of treatment and health-related quality of life. The manufacturer’s primary pooled analysis of superiority (using the intention-to-treat population) showed that after a median follow-up of 28 months, the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in adult patients with histologically confirmed metastatic colorectal cancer who were not previously treated [median progression-free survival 9.4 vs 7.7 months (absolute difference 1.7 months); hazard ratio (HR) 0.79, 97.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.87; p = 0.0001; median overall survival 21.2 vs 18.9 months (absolute difference 2.3 months); HR 0.83, 97.5% CI 0.74 to 0.93; p = 0.0019]. The NO16966 trial was of reasonable methodological quality and demonstrated a significant improvement in both progression-free survival and overall survival when bevacizumab was added to XELOX or FOLFOX. However, the size of the actual treatment effect of bevacizumab is uncertain. The ERG believed that the modelling structure employed was appropriate, but highlighted several key issues and areas of uncertainty. At the time of writing, NICE was yet to issue the guidance for this appraisal.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document