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.

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.

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.

Survival of Patients With Advanced Colorectal Cancer Improves With the Availability of Fluorouracil-Leucovorin, Irinotecan, and Oxaliplatin in the Course of Treatment

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 1209-1214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel Grothey ◽  
Daniel Sargent ◽  
Richard M. Goldberg ◽  
Hans-Joachim Schmoll
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Advanced Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cytotoxic Agents ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii Trials

Purpose Fluorouracil (FU)-leucovorin (LV), irinotecan, and oxaliplatin administered alone or in combination have proven effective in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Combination protocols using FU-LV with either irinotecan or oxaliplatin are currently regarded as standard first-line therapies in this disease. However, the importance of the availability of all three active cytotoxic agents, FU-LV, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin, on overall survival (OS) has not yet been evaluated. Materials and Methods We analyzed data from seven recently published phase III trials in advanced CRC to correlate the percentage of patients receiving second-line therapy and the percentage of patients receiving all three agents with the reported median OS, using a weighted analysis. Results The reported median OS is significantly correlated with the percentage of patients who received all three drugs in the course of their disease (P = .0008) but not with the percentage of patients who received any second-line therapy (P = .19). In addition, the use of combination protocols as first-line therapy was associated with a significant improvement in median survival of 3.5 months (95% CI, 1.27 to 5.73 months; P = .0083). Conclusion Our results support the strategy of making these three active drugs available to all patients with advanced CRC who are candidates for such therapy to maximize OS. In addition, our findings suggest that, with the availability of effective salvage options, OS should no longer be regarded as the most appropriate end point by which to assess the efficacy of a palliative first-line treatment in CRC.

Progression-free survival in patients with cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements: An exploration of response to systemic therapy.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 588-588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen Bibeau ◽  
Luis Féliz ◽  
Scott Barrett ◽  
Ling Na ◽  
Christine Francis Lihou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Prior Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

588 Background: Most cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) patients (pts) are diagnosed with advanced disease and are ineligible for surgery. FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements are present in 10–16% of pts with intrahepatic CCA (iCCA) and are reported to be oncogenic drivers. However, little data are available on the role of FGFR2 genetic alterations in the response to systemic cancer therapy. FIGHT-202 is a phase 2 study of pemigatinib (a selective, potent, oral FGFR1–3 inhibitor) in pts with previously treated advanced/metastatic CCA (NCT02924376); primary results were reported at ESMO 2019. FIGHT-202 enrolled pts who progressed on ≥1 prior therapy, allowing the examination of the role of FGFR2 alterations on the response to prior therapy. The objective of this post hoc analysis was to evaluate progression free survival (PFS) on standard systemic therapy received prior to study enrollment among pts with CCA harboring FGFR2 fusions or rearrangements ( FGFR2+). Methods: Case report forms were reviewed to determine disease history and exposure to prior lines of systemic cancer therapies (LOSCT) in the advanced setting before receiving pemigatinib. Only pts with sufficient data on prior LOSCT were included in this analysis. Median PFS was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: 102 pts were included in this analysis (median age 54.5, 61.8% female). Median PFS on first-line therapy was 5.5 (95% CI: 4.0, 8.0) months. Among the 38 pts (37.3%) with ≥2 prior LOSCT, median PFS on second-line therapy was 4.4 (95% CI: 3.0, 5.3) months. Conclusions: This analysis provides data about PFS on standard systemic therapies for pts with FGFR2+ CCA. Median PFS on first-line therapy was lower than historical published data, and median PFS on second-line therapy was slightly longer than previously reported, in unselected CCA populations. Limitations of this analysis include retrospective examination of investigator reported data, and that clinical trial participants may not truly reflect a general CCA patient population. The short PFS on standard therapies in pts with FGFR2+ CCA highlights the need for development of other options including targeted therapies to improve outcomes.

scholarly journals Optimal Sequence and Second-Line Systemic Treatment of Patients with RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (21) ◽  
pp. 5166
Author(s):  
Chih-Chien Wu ◽  
Chao-Wen Hsu ◽  
Meng-Che Hsieh ◽  
Jui-Ho Wang ◽  
Min-Chi Chang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Optimal Sequence ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

Although several sequential therapy options are available for treating patients with RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the optimal sequence of these therapies is not well established. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies were performed, resulting from a search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases. Overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly in patients with RAS-WT failure who were administered a second-line regimen of changed chemotherapy (CT) plus anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) versus only changed CT, changed CT plus bevacizumab versus changed CT plus anti-EGFR, or changed CT versus maintaining CT plus anti-EGFR after first-line therapy with CT, plus bevacizumab. However, OS was significantly different with a second-line regimen that included changed CT plus bevacizumab, versus only changing CT. Analysis of first-line therapy with CT plus anti-EGFR for treatment of RAS-WT mCRC indicated that second-line therapy of changed CT plus an anti-EGFR agent resulted in better outcomes than changing CT without targeted agents. The pooled data study demonstrated that the optimal choice of second-line treatment for improved OS was an altered CT regimen with retention of bevacizumab after first-line bevacizumab failure. The best sequence for first-to-second-line therapy of patients with RAS-WT mCRC was cetuximab-based therapy, followed by a bevacizumab-based regimen.

Phase II trial of irinotecan, S-1, and bevacizumab (IRIS/Bev) combination chemotherapy as second line for advanced colorectal cancer (NCCSG04).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 496-496
Author(s):  
Yasumasa Takii ◽  
Kouichi Hurukawa ◽  
Satoshi Maruyama ◽  
Toshiyuki Yamazaki ◽  
Jun Nishimura ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Line Therapy

496 Background: The FIRIS study (Muro K et al. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:853-860) previously demonstrated the non-inferiority of Irinotecan plus S-1 (IRIS) to FOLFIRI for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), with progression-free survival as the primary endpoint. IRIS plus bevacizumab (IRIS/Bev) was reported an active and generally well-tolerated first-line treatment for mCRC (Yuki et al. ASCO 2012 #3593). We planned a Phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IRIS/Bev as second-line therapy for patients with mCRC. Methods: The study design was multicenter, single-arm, open-label phase II study. Eligible patients had to have mCRC with confirmed diagnosis of adenocarcinoma, history of oxaliplatin containing regimen as first-line therapy, an age from 20 to 80 years, ECOG performance status (PS) of 0-1. S-1 65 mg/m2 daily p.o. was given on days 1-14 and Irinotecan 75mg/m2 and Bevacizumab 10mg/kg i.v. were given on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints included overall response rate (OR), overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure (TTF) and safety. Results: From 08/12 until 11/06, 35 patients were enrolled. One patient did not start therapy. Thirty-four patients were investigated. Median age was 63 years (range, 38 to 82). Twenty-five patients were male. The mean of relative dose intensity of TS-1/Irinotecan/Bev were respectively 92.1%/87.0%/86.2%. The OR was 21.1% (7/33) and disease control rate was 84.8% (28/33). Median PFS was 9.3 months, median TTF was 8.2 month and median survival time 23.1 month. On safety analysis, the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse reactions were as follows: neutropenia, 14.7%; fatigue, 14.7%; white blood cell decreased, 11.8%; anorexia, 8.8%; anemia, 8.8%; diarrhea, 2.9%; proteinuria, 5.9%; thromboembolic event, 2.9%. Conclusions: IRIS/Bev is an active and well-tollarated second-line treatment for patients with mCRC. Clinical trial information: UMIN000001631.

Continued cetuximab in second-line treatment for patients with unresectable metastatic wild-type KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF colorectal cancer after disease progression during first-line cetuximab-based therapy.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 127-127
Author(s):  
Ying Liu ◽  
Feng Wang ◽  
Ning Ma ◽  
Shuning Xu ◽  
Lei Qiao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Second Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

127 Background: Cetuximab plus chemotherapy is a first-line treatment option for metastatic RAS wild type colorectal cancer patients. Currently, no data are available on continuing cetuximab or changing bevacizumab as second-line therapy beyond first-line cetuximab-based chemotherapy. Methods: Patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic, histologically and genetically confirmed wild-type KRAS, NRAS and BRAF colorectal cancer progressing after first-line cetuximab plus chemotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to second-line chemotherapy with cetuximab (arm A) or with bevacizumab (arm B) 2·5 mg/kg per week equivalently. The choice between oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based second-line chemotherapy depended on the first-line regimen (switch of chemotherapy). The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). The second endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: 77 Patients (from July 1, 2016 to Sept 20, 2019, 77) were randomized (41 in arm A and 36 in arm B). ORR was 29.3% and 19.4% in Arm A and Arm B ( p= 0.31). PFS was 7.2 months (95% CI 5.2–9.2) for Arm A and 5.9 months (95% CI 5.1–6.7) for Arm B ( p= 0.677). OS was 18.5 months (95% CI 15.1–21.8) for Arm A and 17.5 months (95% CI 15.4–19·7) for Arm B ( p= 0.444). Patients with ECOG PS 0 had significantly longer PFS and OS than ECOG PS 1 in second-line therapy whether cetuximab or bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy. ECOG 0 group vs ECOG 1 group, PFS was 8.7 months vs 4.6 months (p = 0.00) and OS was 21.2 months vs 12.3 months (p = 0.00). Moreover, ETS may predict efficacy of second-line continued cetuximab. The most frequently grade 3–4 adverse events in both arms were neutropenia (19.4% VS 16.7%), diarrhea (7.5% vs 11.1%), and nausea(10% vs 13.9%). Conclusions: Continuing cetuximab or changing bevacizumab plus standard second-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic wild-type KRAS, NRAS and BRAF colorectal cancer after first-line cetuximab plus chemotherapy have similar clinical benefits. ECOG score is an independent predictor of prognosis and second-line treatment efficacy for colorectal cancer.

scholarly journals The role of rituximab in adults with warm antibody autoimmune hemolytic anemia

Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 125 (21) ◽  
pp. 3223-3229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daan Dierickx ◽  
Alain Kentos ◽  
André Delannoy
Keyword(s):  
Hemolytic Anemia ◽  
Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemia ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Warm antibody hemolytic anemia is the most common form of autoimmune hemolytic anemia. When therapy is needed, corticosteroids remain the cornerstone of initial treatment but are able to cure only a minority of patients (<20%). Splenectomy is usually proposed when a second-line therapy is needed. This classical approach is now challenged by the use of rituximab both as second-line and as first-line therapy. Second-line treatment with rituximab leads to response rates similar to splenectomy (∼70%), but rituximab-induced responses seem less sustained. However, additional courses of rituximab are most often followed by responses, at the price of reasonable toxicity. In some major European centers, rituximab is now the preferred second-line therapy of warm antibody hemolytic anemia in adults, although no prospective study convincingly supports this attitude. A recent randomized study strongly suggests that in first-line treatment, rituximab combined with steroids is superior to monotherapy with steroids. If this finding is confirmed, rituximab will emerge as a major component of the management of warm antibody hemolytic anemia not only after relapse but as soon as treatment is needed.

Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (36) ◽  
pp. 4317-4345 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D. Gordan ◽  
Erin B. Kennedy ◽  
Ghassan K. Abou-Alfa ◽  
Muhammad Shaalan Beg ◽  
Steven T. Brower ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase Iii ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Treatment

PURPOSE To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline to assist in clinical decision making for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of published phase III randomized controlled trials (2007-2020) on systemic therapy for advanced HCC and provide recommended care options for this patient population. RESULTS Nine phase III randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) may be offered as first-line treatment of most patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0-1, and following management of esophageal varices, when present, according to institutional guidelines. Where there are contraindications to atezolizumab and/or bevacizumab, tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib or lenvatinib may be offered as first-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, and ECOG PS 0-1. Following first-line treatment with atezo + bev, and until better data are available, second-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor may be recommended for appropriate candidates. Following first-line therapy with sorafenib or lenvatinib, second-line therapy options for appropriate candidates include cabozantinib, regorafenib for patients who previously tolerated sorafenib, or ramucirumab (for patients with α-fetoprotein ≥ 400 ng/mL), or atezo + bev where patients did not have access to this option as first-line therapy. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab are also reasonable options for appropriate patients following sorafenib or lenvatinib. Consideration of nivolumab + ipilimumab as an option for second-line therapy and third-line therapy is discussed. Further guidance on choosing between therapy options is included within the guideline. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document