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 ◽  
...  

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.

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 1501-1518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Udo Vanhoefer ◽  
Andreas Harstrick ◽  
Wolf Achterrath ◽  
Shousong Cao ◽  
Siegfried Seeber ◽  
...  

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (14) ◽  
pp. 7717
Author(s):  
Guido Giordano ◽  
Pietro Parcesepe ◽  
Giuseppina Bruno ◽  
Annamaria Piscazzi ◽  
Vincenzo Lizzi ◽  
...  

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 1288-1293 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.J.M. Kwakman ◽  
L.H.J. Simkens ◽  
J.M. van Rooijen ◽  
A.J. van de Wouw ◽  
A.J. ten Tije ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document