scholarly journals Effectiveness of bevacizumab in first- and second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: ITACa randomized trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175883592093742
Author(s):  
Elisabetta Petracci ◽  
Emanuela Scarpi ◽  
Alessandro Passardi ◽  
Annibale Biggeri ◽  
Carlo Milandri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Risk Reduction ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Weighting Method ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

Background: Cancer trials involving multiple treatment lines substantially increase our understanding of therapeutic strategies. However, even when the primary end-point of these studies is progression-free survival (PFS), their statistical analysis usually focuses on each line separately, or does not consider repeated events, thus missing potentially relevant information. Consequently, the evaluation of the effectiveness of treatment strategies is highly impaired. Methods: We evaluated the potentially different effect of bevacizumab (B) administered for the first- or second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the ITACa (Italian Trial in Advanced Colorectal Cancer) randomized trial. The ITACa trial consisted of two arms: first-line chemotherapy (CT)+B followed by second-line CT alone versus first-line CT alone followed by second-line CT+B or CT+B+cetuximab according to KRAS status. Cox models for repeated disease progression were performed, and potential selection bias was adjusted using the inverse probability of censoring weighting method. Hazard ratios (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] for PFS (primary endpoint) were reported. Results: The overall effect of B across the two lines resulted in a HR = 0.80 (95% CI 0.68–0.95, p = 0.008). Evaluating the differential effect of B in first- and second-line, the addition of B to first-line chemotherapy (CT) produced a 10% risk reduction (HR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.72–1.12, p = 0.340) versus CT alone; B added to second-line CT produced a 36% risk reduction (HR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.49–0.84, p = 0.0011) versus CT alone. Conclusion: Our results seem to suggest that B confers a PFS advantage when administered in combination with second-line chemotherapy, which could help to improve current international guidelines on optimal sequential treatment strategies.

Irinotecan in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: Clinical Overview

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 1501-1518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Udo Vanhoefer ◽  
Andreas Harstrick ◽  
Wolf Achterrath ◽  
Shousong Cao ◽  
Siegfried Seeber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Topoisomerase I ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

PURPOSE AND METHODS: For more than three decades, the therapeutic options for patients with advanced colorectal cancer have almost exclusively been based on fluoropyrimidines. With the recognition that topoisomerase-I (TOP-I) is an important therapeutic target in cancer therapy, irinotecan, a semisynthetic TOP-I–interactive camptothecin derivative, has been clinically established in the treatment of colorectal cancer. RESULTS: Irinotecan was investigated as second-line chemotherapy after prior treatment with fluorouracil (FU)-based regimens in two large randomized phase III trials comparing irinotecan with either best supportive care or an infusional FU/leucovorin (LV) regimen. The outcomes of these trials established irinotecan as the standard therapy in the second-line treatment of colorectal cancer. The therapeutic value of irinotecan in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer was investigated in two large randomized phase III trials comparing the combination of irinotecan and FU/LV with FU/LV alone. Both trials demonstrated significant superior efficacy for the combination of irinotecan and FU/LV in terms of response rate, median time to disease progression, and median survival time. Consequently, the combination of irinotecan and FU/LV has been approved as first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and constitutes the reference therapy against which other treatment options must be tested in the future. CONCLUSION: In this review, the clinical rationale and update of the present clinical status of irinotecan in the treatment of colorectal cancer and future prospects of irinotecan-based combinations are discussed.

Bevacizumab continuation versus no continuation after first-line chemo-bevacizumab therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A randomized phase III noninferiority trial (SAKK 41/06).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3503-3503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dieter Koeberle ◽  
Daniel C. Betticher ◽  
Roger Von Moos ◽  
Daniel Dietrich ◽  
Peter Brauchli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Line Chemotherapy ◽  
First Line Treatment

3503 Background: Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab is a standard option for first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. We assessed whether no continuation is non-inferior to continuation of bevacizumab after stop of first-line chemotherapy. Methods: In an open-label, phase 3 multicenter study conducted in Switzerland, patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer having non-progressive disease after 4-6 months of standard first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to continuing bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg every 3 weeks) or no treatment. CT scans were done every 6 weeks between randomization and disease progression. The primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP). A non-inferiority limit for hazard ratio (HR) of 0.727 was chosen to detect a difference in TTP of 6 weeks or less, with a one-sided significant level of 10% and a statistical power of 85%. Results: The per-protocol population comprised 262 patients. Median follow-up is 28.6 months (range, 0.6-54.9 months). Median TTP was 17.9 weeks (95% CI 13.3-23.4) for bevacizumab continuation and 12.6 weeks (95% CI 12.0-16.4) for no continuation; HR 0.72 (95% CI 0.56-0.92). Median progression free-survival and overall survival, both measured from start of first-line treatment, was 9.5 months and 24.9 months for bevacizumab continuation and 8.5 months (HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.57 - 0.94)) and 22.8 months (HR 0.87 (95% CI 0.64 – 1.18)) for no continuation. Median time from randomization to second-line treatment was 5.9 months for bevacizumab and 4.8 for no continuation. Grade 3-4 adverse events in the bevacizumab continuation arm were uncommon. Conclusions: Non-inferiority could not be demonstrated. The 95% confidence intervals for the TTP HR indicate superiority of bevacizumab continuation after stop of first-line chemotherapy. The median differences in TTP and in time between randomization and start of second-line treatment were of moderate magnitude being less than 6 weeks. The results of an accompanying cost analysis will be presented at the meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT00544700.

Efficacy of bevacizumab in second-line versus first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: Results from a new methodological approach based on the ITACa strategy trial.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3546-3546 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabetta Petracci ◽  
Emanuela Scarpi ◽  
Alessandro Passardi ◽  
Giovanni Luca Frassineti ◽  
Annibale Biggeri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Risk Reduction ◽  
Selection Bias ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Unified Framework ◽  
First Line ◽  
Analyze Data

3546 Background: Cancer trials collecting information on subsequent treatment lines offer an invaluable opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of therapeutic strategies. Still in the oncological literature, evidence comes from studies ignoring whole patient history. The few studies that consider more than one line of treatment often analyze data for each line separately. Methods: Data from the ITACa strategy trial investigating the role of bevacizumab (B) in first- and second-line of treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer patients (mCRC) were analyzed. The trial consisted of two arms with treatment crossover: chemotherapy (CT) plus B followed by CT alone vs CT alone followed by CT+B. The primary end-point was Progression-Free Survival (PFS). Our aim was to evaluate if the efficacy of B was greater or smaller in first- or second-line treatment. Survival analysis for repeated events taking into account of potential selection bias was performed. Indeed, patients starting a second-line treatment are a selected subgroup of patients initially enrolled. Results: Of the 370 patients in the intention-to-treat population, 175 (47.3%) received second-line treatment. Considering all available information from randomization to first and eventual second progression and accounting for the potential selection bias, the average effect of B in terms of PFS resulted in an HR = 0.80 [95% CI 0.68-0.95]. When evaluating the differential effect of B in first- and second-line, we found that the addiction of B to CT in first-line provided 10% (95% CI -28%; +12%) risk reduction (HR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.72–1.12) respect to CT alone and the addiction of B to CT in second-line provided 36% (95% CI -51%; -16%) risk reduction (HR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.49-0.84) respect to chemotherapy alone. Conclusions: The ITACa trial enabled us to analyze data in a unified framework considering first- and second-line treatment together. Results highlight an advantage of B when administered in combination with second-line chemotherapy, suggesting the best strategy for its administration. Clinical trial information: NCT01878422.

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.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Second-Line Treatment in RAS Wild-Type/Mutated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the Precision Medicine Era

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (14) ◽  
pp. 7717
Author(s):  
Guido Giordano ◽  
Pietro Parcesepe ◽  
Giuseppina Bruno ◽  
Annamaria Piscazzi ◽  
Vincenzo Lizzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Mutational Status ◽  
First Line Treatment

Target-oriented agents improve metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) survival in combination with chemotherapy. However, the majority of patients experience disease progression after first-line treatment and are eligible for second-line approaches. In such a context, antiangiogenic and anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) agents as well as immune checkpoint inhibitors have been approved as second-line options, and RAS and BRAF mutations and microsatellite status represent the molecular drivers that guide therapeutic choices. Patients harboring K- and N-RAS mutations are not eligible for anti-EGFR treatments, and bevacizumab is the only antiangiogenic agent that improves survival in combination with chemotherapy in first-line, regardless of RAS mutational status. Thus, the choice of an appropriate therapy after the progression to a bevacizumab or an EGFR-based first-line treatment should be evaluated according to the patient and disease characteristics and treatment aims. The continuation of bevacizumab beyond progression or its substitution with another anti-angiogenic agents has been shown to increase survival, whereas anti-EGFR monoclonals represent an option in RAS wild-type patients. In addition, specific molecular subgroups, such as BRAF-mutated and Microsatellite Instability-High (MSI-H) mCRCs represent aggressive malignancies that are poorly responsive to standard therapies and deserve targeted approaches. This review provides a critical overview about the state of the art in mCRC second-line treatment and discusses sequential strategies according to key molecular biomarkers.

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treatment to progression or Not?

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 13511-13511
Author(s):  
B. Melosky ◽  
C. Lohrisch ◽  
C. Kollmansberger ◽  
S. Gill ◽  
H. Kennecke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Number Of Cycles ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

13511 Background: Treatment until progression or planned interruption of first line chemotherapy is common in the therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer and are upon the discretion of the oncologist. A retrospective analysis was performed to determine the impact of these differing therapeutic strategies on overall survival. Methods: Eligible patients were treated between 2002 to 2004 in British Columbia. All patients received chemotherapy with both FOLFOX and FOLFIRI, either first or second line. Records were retrospectively reviewed for treatment interruption, efficacy and toxicity. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Results: 101 patients were identified. Twenty-three patients who progressed before receiving 8 cycles of chemotherapy and 9 patients who stopped their chemotherapy due to toxicity were excluded. The remaining patients were analyzed for survival. Twenty-three patients were treated to progression of whom 6 received first line FOLFIRI and 17 received first line FOLFOX. The mean number of cycles of first line therapy was was 11.5. Forty six patients received a planned break. Of these, 21pateints received first line FOLFIRI and 25 patients received first line FOLFOX. Mean number of cycles of first line therapy was 9.7. Median survival of patients treated to progression was 16 months compared to 22 months for patients with planned break of therapy (p=0.003). The Hazard ratio was 2.3 (p=0.01) in favor of patients who had a planned break. Uni-variate and multivariate analysis showed no significance of sex, age, site (colon versus rectal), sequence and ECOG status as predictive factors. Conclusion: In this study, patients who were treated until progression with first line chemotherapy with either FOLFOX or FOLFIRI had an inferior survival. Possible explanations for the detrimental hazard ratio for patients treated to progression are decreasing reserve for second line therapy when first line therapy is prolonged and increasing resistance to 5-FU based therapy with prolonged exposure. As this is a retrospective, observational study, other variables not captured by the modeled covariates that may have influenced results. This data suggests that treating to best response and then allowing a break does not detrimentally affect survival. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document