Cetuximab-based or bevacizumab-based first-line treatment in patients with KRAS p.G13D mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)? A meta-analysis of 54 cases.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 511-511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Volker Heinemann ◽  
Anke Reinacher-Schick ◽  
Sebastian Stintzing ◽  
Clemens Albrecht Giessen ◽  
Andrea Tannapfel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Treatment

511 Background: KRAS p.G13D mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been identified to represent a cetuximab-sensitive subtype of KRAS mutant mCRC. This analysis aims to answer the question whether first-line treatment of p.G13D mCRCs should contain cetuximab or bevacizumab. Methods: Fifty-four patients with p.G13D mutant mCRC were pooled in this analysis. All patients underwent systemic 1st-line treatment with a fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin/irinotecan that was combined with either cetuximab or bevacizumab. Results: Overall response rate was comparable between cetuximab- and bevacizumab-based regimens (58% vs 57%). Progression-free survival was comparable (8.0 months-cetuximab-group vs 8.7 months bevacizumab-group). Overall survival (OS) was longer in patients treated with cetuximab as first-line therapy (20.1 months vs 14.9 months). Logistic regressions modelling OS revealed oxaliplatin-based first-line treatment to correlate significantly with poor outcome (p=0.03). Moreover, a strong trend in favour of capecitabine compared to infusional 5-FU (p=0.06) was seen.. Responders among our cohort showed a benefit concerning PFS and OS undergoing cetuximab- but not bevacizumab-based regimen. Conclusions: This retrospective pooled analysis suggests that cetuximab-based first-line therapy in p.G13D mutant mCRC shows similar activity compared to bevacizumab-containing regimen. Infusional 5-FU and oxaliplatin may represent inferior options compared to capecitabine and irinotecan in p.G13D mutant mCRC 1st-line treatment.

scholarly journals Efficacy of Bevacizumab in the First-Line Treatment of Patients with RAS Mutations Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 361-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mingyi Zhou ◽  
Ping Yu ◽  
Jinglei Qu ◽  
Ying Chen ◽  
Yang Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Ras Mutations ◽  
The Difference ◽  
First Line Treatment

Background/Aims: Whether patients with RAS mutation metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) obtain benefits from bevacizumab added to first-line chemotherapy remains unclear. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology databases were searched to identify abstracts for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of bevacizumab for the first-line treatment of patients with RAS mutations mCRC from inception to the end of April 2016. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated. Results: Ten eligible papers reporting six RCTs were included. In the network meta-analysis of patients with RAS mutations, bevacizumab + chemotherapy prolonged PFS compared with chemotherapy alone (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.51-1.10), but the difference was not statistically significant. Bevacizumab + chemotherapy did not prolong OS compared with chemotherapy alone (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.73-1.66). Conclusion: There was insufficient evidence to definitively state that patients with RAS mutations mCRC could benefit from bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy as first-line treatment.

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.

Randomized, Controlled Trial of Irinotecan Plus Infusional, Bolus, or Oral Fluoropyrimidines in First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Results From the BICC-C Study

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (30) ◽  
pp. 4779-4786 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles S. Fuchs ◽  
John Marshall ◽  
Edith Mitchell ◽  
Rafal Wierzbicki ◽  
Vinod Ganju ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Primary Study ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
First Line Treatment

PurposeThis phase III study compared the safety and efficacy of the following three different irinotecan-containing regimens in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: irinotecan plus infusional fluorouracil (FU)/leucovorin (LV) (FOLFIRI), irinotecan plus bolus FU/LV (mIFL), and irinotecan plus oral capecitabine (CapeIRI).Patients and MethodsA total of 430 previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer patients were randomly assigned to receive FOLFIRI (n = 144), mIFL (n = 141), or CapeIRI (n = 145). Patients were concurrently randomly assigned to a double-blind treatment with celecoxib or placebo. After a protocol amendment, an additional 117 patients were randomly assigned to either FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (FOLFIRI+Bev; n = 57) or mILF plus bevacizumab (mIFL+Bev; n = 60), whereas the CapeIRI arm was discontinued. The primary study end point was progression-free survival (PFS), with secondary end points of overall survival (OS), response rate, and toxicity.ResultsMedian PFS was 7.6 months for FOLFIRI, 5.9 months for mIFL (P = .004 for the comparison with FOLFIRI), and 5.8 months for CapeIRI (P = .015). Median OS was 23.1 months for FOLFIRI, 17.6 months for mIFL (P = .09), and 18.9 months for CapeIRI (P = .27). CapeIRI was associated with higher rates of severe vomiting, diarrhea, and dehydration. After the amendment to add bevacizumab, the median survival time has not yet been reached for FOLFIRI+Bev and was 19.2 months for mIFL+Bev (P = .007). FOLFIRI+Bev was associated with a higher rate of ≥ grade 3 hypertension than mIFL+Bev.ConclusionFOLFIRI and FOLFIRI+Bev offered superior activity to their comparators and were comparably safe. An infusional schedule of FU should be the preferred irinotecan-based regimen in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer.

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.

Modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab beyond first progression in advanced colorectal cancer: CCOG-0801 study.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 641-641
Author(s):  
Kiyoshi Ishigure ◽  
Goro Nakayama ◽  
Keisuke Uehara ◽  
Hiroyuki Yokoyama ◽  
Akiharu Ishiyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Bleeding Event ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
To Receive

641 Background: Bevacizumab provides survival benefit as the first-line and second-line therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). A large observational study suggested use of bevacizumab beyond first progression (BBP) improved survival. This prompted us to conduct a multicenter phase II study of mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizimab in mCRC to further explore the strategy of BBP in Japanese patients. Methods: Previously untreated patients with assessable disease were treated with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab until tumor progression, followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. The primary endpoint of the study was the second progression-free survival (2nd PFS), defined as duration from enrollment until progression after the second-line therapy. If the patient failed to receive the second-line treatment due to medical reasons or refusal, the PFS during the first-line therapy was used for analysis. Secondary endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), disease control rate (DCR) and safety. Results: In the first-line therapy, 47 patients treated with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab achieved RR of 61.7%, DCR of 89.4% and median PFS of 11.7 months. Thirty patients went on to receive the second-line therapy with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab and achieved RR of 27.6%, DCR of 62.1%, and median PFS of 6.0 months. Median 2nd PFS was 16.2 months. Median survival time did not reach the median follow-up time of 27.4 months. Severe adverse events associated with bevacizumab during the first-line therapy were a venous thromboembolic event in one case (2%), a grade 2 bleeding event in one case (2%) and GI perforation in one case (2%). However, no critical events associated with bevacizumab were reported during the second-line therapy. Conclusions: The planned continuation of bevacizumab during the second line treatment is feasible in Japanese mCRC patients. A prospective randomized control study to confirm the efficacy has to be conducted in the future.

Progression-free survival as a predictor of overall survival in patients with advanced breast cancer: A real-world study from the China National Cancer Center.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e12590-e12590
Author(s):  
Hongnan Mo ◽  
Binghe Xu ◽  
Fei Ma ◽  
Qing Li ◽  
Pin Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Advanced Breast Cancer ◽  
Real World ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Advanced Breast ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Treatment

e12590 Background: Use of progression-free survival (PFS) as a clinical trial endpoint in first-line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer is attractive, but would be enhanced by establishing a correlation between PFS and overall survival (OS). Methods: From January 2003 to December 2012, 1851 patients with advanced breast cancer at start of first-line therapy were enrolled in this real-world study. An independent cohort of patients hospitalized in 2013 was used for external validation. All data were collected from the Database of China National Cancer Cancer. Results: The correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r) between PFS and OS was 0.807 in patients only receiving endocrine therapy as first-line treatment, 0.643 in those treated with chemotherapy, and 0.642 in the whole cohort. Receiver operating characteristic curve indicated that PFS = 12 months was the optimal cutoff value for predicting patient’s survival. The median OS was 30.0 months (95% CI 27.8-32.2) in the PFS < 12 months group, and 69.0 months (95% CI 60.8-77.2) in the other group (P < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that compared with patients who did not progress at 12 months, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death was 2.681 (95% CI, 2.301-3.124; P < 0.0001) for patients with PFS < 12 months. Subgroup analysis based on patient’s age, molecular subtype, visceral metastasis and types of first-line treatment further confirmed that PFS < 12 months was associated with significant poor prognosis in all these subgroups. In patients with luminal type of breast cancer, the HR for death was 2.567 (95%CI 2.147-3.069; P < 0.0001) for patients with PFS < 12 months. Notably, for these patients with luminal type breast cancer who had progressed within 12 months after first-line treatment, addition of chemotherapy in the second-line therapy would surprisingly have adverse effects on patients’ survival when compared with endocrine therapy alone (HR = 1.627, 95%CI 1.016-2.604, P = 0.043). The findings were externally validated in the independent cohort. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first real-world study revealed that PFS at 12 months in first-line therapy predict OS of patients with advanced breast cancer.

Randomized Phase III Study of Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Fluorouracil/Folinic Acid Plus Oxaliplatin As First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 2006-2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jim Cassidy ◽  
Stephen Clarke ◽  
Eduardo Díaz-Rubio ◽  
Werner Scheithauer ◽  
Arie Figer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Folinic Acid ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
Grade 3

PurposeTo evaluate whether capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) is noninferior to fluorouracil. folinic acid, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC).Patients and MethodsThe initial design of this trial was a randomized, two-arm, noninferiority, phase III comparison of XELOX versus FOLFOX-4. After patient accrual had begun, the trial design was amended in 2003 after bevacizumab phase III data became available. The resulting 2 × 2 factorial design randomly assigned patients to XELOX versus FOLFOX-4, and then to also receive either bevacizumab or placebo. We report here the results of the analysis of the XELOX versus FOLFOX-4 arms. The analysis of bevacizumab versus placebo with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is reported separately. The prespecified primary end point for the noninferiority analysis was progression-free survival.ResultsThe intent-to-treat population comprised 634 patients from the original two-arm portion of the study, plus an additional 1,400 patients after the start of the amended 2 × 2 design, for a total of 2,034 patients. The median PFS was 8.0 months in the pooled XELOX-containing arms versus 8.5 months in the FOLFOX-4–containing arms (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 97.5% CI, 0.93 to 1.16). The median overall survival was 19.8 months with XELOX versus 19.6 months with FOLFOX-4 (HR, 0.99; 97.5% CI, 0.88 to 1.12). FOLFOX-4 was associated with more grade 3/4 neutropenia/granulocytopenia and febrile neutropenia than XELOX, and XELOX with more grade 3 diarrhea and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome than FOLFOX-4.ConclusionXELOX is noninferior to FOLFOX-4 as a first-line treatment for MCRC, and may be considered as a routine treatment option for appropriate patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document