Metastatic colorectal cancer and management in public versus private hospitals: Similarities and differences.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 497-497
Author(s):  
Kathryn M Field ◽  
Jeremy David Shapiro ◽  
Joseph J McKendrick ◽  
Hui-Li Wong ◽  
Jayesh Desai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
First Line ◽  
Private Hospitals ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Public Versus Private

497 Background: Potential differences between public and private cancer care in Australia include the degree of subspecialisation, multidisciplinary clinic review, access to clinical trials and continuity of care, all of which could impact treatment and outcomes. Here we compared demographics, tumour details, treatment and survival outcomes for patients (pts) with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated in the public versus private setting. Methods: This research was conducted using the TRACC (Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer) mCRC clinical research database. Data collection began in June 2009 and is ongoing at 15 Australian centres. Here, data from four public and eight private hospitals are presented. Results: Of 671 pts, 253 (38%) were treated at public hospitals and 418 (62%) at private centres. For public versus private pts there was no significant difference in median age or percentage with good performance status. More private pts received first-line chemotherapy (89% vs 80%, p=0.002), but there were no significant difference in the use of bevacizumab (50% versus 43%, p=0.10). Similar proportions received combination therapy (72% private vs 68% public) but the use of single agent oral capecitabine was higher for private patients (9% vs 4%, p=0.03). More public pts were enrolled in a first-line clinical trial (17.3% vs 1.2%, p<0.0001). Preliminary analysis suggests improved overall survival for private pts (26 months versus 17 months, p<0.001). Conclusions: While public and private pts in this cohort were similar in age and performance status, significantly more private pts were given chemotherapy, but similar proportions were given bevacizumab and far less were enrolled on first-line clinical trials. This may relate to availability of first-line trials during this period. The superior survival outcomes achieved in private practice must be further explored, and might reflect a more intense approach to treatment, yet-to-be identified differences in patient characteristics, or differences in quality of care.

scholarly journals Pooled Safety and Efficacy Analysis Examining the Effect of Performance Status on Outcomes in Nine First-Line Treatment Trials Using Individual Data From Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (12) ◽  
pp. 1948-1955 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Sargent ◽  
Claus Henning Köhne ◽  
Hanna Kelly Sanoff ◽  
Brian M. Bot ◽  
Matthew T. Seymour ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Individual Data ◽  
First Line ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Grade 3

Purpose Performance status (PS) is a prognostic factor in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Clinical trials typically enroll less than 10% of patients with a PS of 2 (PS2); thus, the benefit of systemic chemotherapy in PS2 patients is uncertain. Patients and Methods Individual data from 6,286 patients (509 PS2 patients) from nine clinical trials were used to compare treatment efficacy by PS. Progression-free survival (PFS), grade ≥ 3 adverse events, 60-day all-cause mortality, overall survival (OS), and response rate (RR) were explored in the full set of nine trials and in the five trials comparing first-line monotherapy with combination therapy. Results Compared with patients with PS of 0 or 1, PS2 patients had significantly higher rates of grade ≥ 3 nausea (8.5% v 16.4%, respectively; P < .0001) and vomiting (7.6% v 11.9%, respectively; P = .006) and 60-day all-cause mortality (2.8% v 12.0%, respectively; P < .0001). PS2 was prognostic for PFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.52; P < .0001; median PFS, 7.6 months for PS 0 or 1 v 4.9 months for PS2), OS (HR = 2.18; P < .0001; median OS, 17.3 months for PS 0 or 1 v 8.5 months for PS2), and RR (odds ratio = 0.61; P < .0001; 43.8% for PS 0 or 1 v 32.0% for PS2). The relative benefit and toxicity of experimental versus control treatment and monotherapy versus combination therapy were not different in PS 0 or 1 patients versus PS2 patients. Conclusion In clinical trials, PS2 patients derive similar benefit from superior treatment as patients with PS of 0 to 1 but with an increased risk of toxicities and 12% 60-day mortality. Although current treatment provides benefit, new approaches are required to approach 1-year median survival for PS2 patients.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Second-Line Anti-VEGF after First-Line Anti-EGFR Based Therapy in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The Multicenter “SLAVE” Study

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 1259
Author(s):  
Alessandro Parisi ◽  
Alessio Cortellini ◽  
Katia Cannita ◽  
Olga Venditti ◽  
Floriana Camarda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Treated Group ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: The optimal anti-angiogenic strategy as second-line treatment in RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with anti-EGFR (Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor) based first-line treatment is still debated. Methods: This multicenter, real-world, retrospective study is aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of second-line Bevacizumab- and Aflibercept-based treatments after an anti-EGFR based first-line regimen. Clinical outcomes measured were: objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs) profiles. Results: From February 2011 to October 2019, 277 consecutive mCRC patients received Bevacizumab-based (228, 82.3%) or Aflibercept-based (49, 17.7%) regimen. No significant difference was found regarding ORR. The median follow-up was 27.7 months (95%CI: 24.7–34.4). Aflibercept-treated group had a significantly shorter PFS compared to Bevacizumab-treated group (5.6 vs. 7.1 months, respectively) (HR = 1.34 (95%CI: 0.95–1.89); p = 0.0932). The median OS of the Bevacizumab-treated group and Aflibercept-treated group was 16.2 (95%CI: 15.3–18.1) and 12.7 (95%CI: 8.8–17.5) months, respectively (HR= 1.31 (95%CI: 0.89–1.93) p = 0.16). After adjusting for the key covariates (age, gender, performance status, number of metastatic sites and primary tumor side) Bevacizumab-based regimens revealed to be significantly related with a prolonged PFS (HR = 1.44 (95%CI: 1.02–2.03); p = 0.0399) compared to Aflibercept-based regimens, but not with a prolonged OS (HR = 1.47 (95%CI: 0.99–2.17); p = 0.0503). The incidence of G3/G4 VEGF inhibitors class-specific AEs was 7.5% and 26.5% in the Bevacizumab-treated group and the Aflibercept-treated group, respectively (p = 0.0001). Conclusion: Our analysis seems to reveal that Bevacizumab-based regimens have a slightly better PFS and class-specific AEs profile compared to Aflibercept-based regimen as second-line treatment of RAS wild-type mCRC patients previously treated with anti-EGFR based treatments. These results have to be taken with caution and no conclusive considerations are allowed.

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 Comparison of irinotecan and oxaliplatin as the first-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sadayuki Kawai ◽  
Nozomi Takeshima ◽  
Yu Hayasaka ◽  
Akifumi Notsu ◽  
Mutsumi Yamazaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
First Line ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
High Incidence

Abstract Background Irinotecan (IRI) and oxaliplatin (Ox) are standard therapeutic agents of the first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that treatment with Ox-based compared with IRI-based regimens was associated with better overall survival (OS). However, these reports did not include trials of molecular targeting agents and did not take methods for the administration of concomitant drugs, such as bolus or continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil, into account. A systematic literature review was performed to compare the efficacy and toxicity profiles between IRI- and Ox-based regimens as the first-line treatments for mCRC. Methods This meta-analysis used data from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and SCOPUS. The primary endpoint was OS, and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). Results Nineteen trials involving 4571 patients were included in the analysis. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of OS, PFS, and ORR. There was no significant heterogeneity. Regarding ≥ grade 3 AEs, IRI-based regimens were associated with a high incidence of leukopenia, febrile neutropenia, and diarrhea. Moreover, there was a high incidence of thrombocytopenia and peripheral sensory neuropathy in patients who received Ox-based regimens. In a subgroup analysis, IRI combined with bevacizumab was correlated with a better PFS (HR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.82–0.98, P = 0.02), but not with OS (pooled HR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.80–1.03, P = 0.15). Conclusion Although the safety profiles of IRI- and Ox-based regimens varied, their efficacy did not significantly differ. The combination of anti-VEGF antibody and IRI was associated with better PFS compared with anti-VEGF antibody and Ox. Both regimens could be used as the first-line treatments for mCRC with consideration of the patients’ condition or toxicity profiles.

scholarly journals Mutational Analysis of Patients With Colorectal Cancer in CALGB/SWOG 80405 Identifies New Roles of Microsatellite Instability and Tumor Mutational Burden for Patient Outcome

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (14) ◽  
pp. 1217-1227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federico Innocenti ◽  
Fang-Shu Ou ◽  
Xueping Qu ◽  
Tyler J. Zemla ◽  
Donna Niedzwiecki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Microsatellite Instability ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Mutational Analysis ◽  
Gene Mutations ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Mutational Burden ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Tumor Mutational Burden

PURPOSE CALGB/SWOG 80405 was a randomized phase III trial that found no statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS) in patients with first-line metastatic colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy plus either bevacizumab or cetuximab. Primary tumor DNA from 843 patients has been used to discover genetic markers of OS. PATIENTS AND METHODS Gene mutations were determined by polymerase chain reaction. Microsatellite status was determined by genotyping of microsatellites. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) was determined by next-generation sequencing. Cox proportional hazard models were used, with adjusting factors. Interaction of molecular alterations with either the bevacizumab or the cetuximab arms was tested. RESULTS Patients with high TMB in their tumors had longer OS than did patients with low TMB (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.95]; P = .02). In patients with microsatellite instability–high (MSI-H) tumors, longer OS was observed in the bevacizumab arm than in the cetuximab arm (HR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.30]; interaction P < .001 for interaction between microsatellite status and the two arms). Patients with BRAF mutant tumors had shorter OS than did patients with wild-type (WT) tumors (HR, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.49 to 2.71]; P < .001). Patients with extended RAS mutant tumors had shorter OS than did patients with WT tumors (HR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.26 to 1.84]; P < .001). Patients with triple-negative tumors (WT for NRAS/ KRAS/ BRAF) had a median OS of 35.9 months (95% CI, 33.0 to 38.8 months) versus 22.2 months (95% CI, 19.6 to 24.4 months ) in patients with at least one mutated gene in their tumors ( P < .001). CONCLUSION In patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated in first line, low TMB, and BRAF and RAS mutations are negative prognostic factors. Patients with MSI-H tumors benefited more from bevacizumab than from cetuximab, and studies to confirm this effect of MSI-H are warranted.

The relevance of primary tumour location in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis of first-line clinical trials

2017 ◽  
Vol 70 ◽  
pp. 87-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Walter Holch ◽  
Ingrid Ricard ◽  
Sebastian Stintzing ◽  
Dominik Paul Modest ◽  
Volker Heinemann
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Primary Tumour ◽  
First Line ◽  
Tumour Location

The efficacy of first-line IRIS with or without bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Analysis of two phase II studies.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14604-e14604
Author(s):  
Satoshi Yuki ◽  
Hiraku Fukushima ◽  
Toraji Amano ◽  
Michio Nakamura ◽  
Mineo Kudo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
First Line ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Phase Ii Studies ◽  
Study Results

e14604 Background: The safety and efficacy of first-line IRIS (S-1 in combination with irinotecan; Komatsu Y, et al. Oncology, 2011) and IRIS/Bev (IRIS in combination with bevacizumab (Bev); Komatsu Y, et al. Acta Oncol, 2012/Yuki S, et al. 2013 ASCO-GI) have been evaluated in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This time, no randomized studies comparing these regimens have been performed. This retrospective analysis compared efficacy and safety data for the two regimens from separate phase II studies performed at Hokkaido Gastrointestinal Cancer Study Group (HGCSG). Methods: Patients with histologically confirmed unresectable metastatic or recurrent CRC and received no prior chemotherapy were enrolled. In the first trial, patients received irinotecan 100 mg/m2 on day 1,15 and oral S-1 40 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14 every 4 weeks (IRIS study: HGCSG0302). In the second trial, patients received the same regimen plus Bev 5 mg/kg on day 1,15 (IRIS/Bev study). Results: A total of 40 and 52 patients were enrolled the IRIS and IRIS/Bev studies, respectively. Patient characteristics were generally similar in both groups, whereas there were more cases of good performance status and less number of metastatic organ in IRIS/Bev group. The median overall survival was 39.6 months in IRIS/Bev, as compared with 23.4 months in IRIS, corresponding to a hazard ratio for death of 0.418 (p<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 17.0 months in IRIS/Bev, as compared with 8.6 months in IRIS (hazard ratio for disease progression, 0.418; p<0.001); the corresponding response rate were 63.5 percent and 52.5 percent (p=0.393).In a multivariate analysis of PFS and OS, IRIS/Bev (n=52) was significantly associated with longer PFS and OS compared with IRIS alone (n=40). Conclusions: In this retrospective comparison of two studies, the addition of Bev to IRIS appeared to improve outcome compared with IRIS alone in the first-line treatment of patients with mCRC.

Evaluation of treatment benefit to an unselected population of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, referred to oncological treatment.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14677-e14677
Author(s):  
Svend Erik Nielsen
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Primary Tumor ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Treatment Benefit ◽  
Primary Tumor Site ◽  
Oncological Treatment ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

e14677 Background: Patients, with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), participating in clinical trials are a selected group with a better performance status compared to all patients, who are referred to oncological treatment. The aim of the study was to evaluate the benefit of standard treatment modalities, offered to an unselected group of patients, referred to our Dept. of Oncology. Methods: Consecutive patients treated with more than one cycle of chemotherapy, registrated in our database from May 2003 to July 2012, were included. Clinical information was obtained from patient files. The outcome was overall survival for various groups. Following parameters were collected: Gender, age, primary tumor site, resection status of primary tumor, number of metastic sites, liver-only mets, number of chemotherapy regimens, +/- Bevazicumab and rate of palliative radiation. Results: 266 consequtive patients, treated with more than one cycle of chemotherapy, were included. Median age 67 (31-86) years, 150 male (59%). Distribution of the primary tumor was 35/37/28% for rectum/left colon/right colon. 192/59/15 (72/22/6%) had the primary tumor resected/not resected/stent. 54/37/9% had one metastic site/ two sites/three or more sites. 24% had liver only. As first line chemotherapy 29% received Capecitabine (CAP), 55% CAP + Oxaliplatin, and 8% CAP + Irinotecan. 44% received Bevacizumab. 69%/27% received either second and third line chemotherapy. 19% received palliative radiotherapy. Median OS for the whole population was 17 months CI ( 15-19). Patients with one, two or three, or more mets sites had a OS of 21(CI: 16-26)/17 (14-20)/9 (4-149) months, respectively. For patients receiving one, two, or three lines of chemotherapy OS was respectively 8/16/28 months. Addition of Bevacizumab to chemotherapy regimens had an OS of 27 months CI (24-30), compared to 20 months (16-24) for chemotherapy alone. Conclusions: Unselected mCRC patients, treated with standard chemotherapy regimens, seem to obtain the same OS benefit as seen in clinical trials. Survival benefit was dependent on the number of metastatic sites, the number of cht. regimens received and addition of Bevacizumab to the treatment.

Observational cohort study of first-line bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (HGCSG0802): Comparison of infusional FU/oxaliplatin(OX)+BV and oral FU/OX+BV.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 527-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuteru Hatanaka ◽  
Satoshi Yuki ◽  
Hiroshi Nakatsumi ◽  
Hiraku Fukushima ◽  
Hirohito Naruse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Observational Cohort Study ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
First Line ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Observational Cohort

527 Background: A few reports have shown no difference between the efficacy of infusional FU and that of oral FU (Capecitabine/S-1) for colorectal cancer, and some studies have reported the non-inferiority between infusional FU/Oxaliplatin (OX) and oral FU/OX for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We performed a sub-group comparison between infusional FU/OX (mFOLFOX6 + BV: iFU) and oral FU/OX (CapeOX/SOX + BV: oFU) from the HGCSG0802 observational cohort study with investigated Japanese patients (pts) treated with first line BV for mCRC. Methods: The objective of HGCSG0802 was to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), time to treatment-failure (TTF), response rate (RR), safety and so on. The key eligibility criteria of HGCSG0802 were with evaluable lesions, older than 20 years, ECOG PS 0-2, and this analysis used the cohort treated with OX-based regimens.In this analysis, pts characteristics, RR and safety were compared using Fisher’s exact test. PFS and TTF were compared using log-rank test. Results: Of 108 pts (the full analysis set), 95 pts were evaluable for treated with OX-based regimens. Forty-eight pts (50.5%) were treated with iFU and 47 pts (49.5%) were treated with oFU (CapeOX + BV 42 pts/SOX + BV 5 pts). The pts characteristics between those were generally balanced except for PS 0-1 (72.9% in iFU/93.6% in oFU; p=0.012) and synchronous liver metastases (mets) (93.8% in iFU/78.8% in oFU; p=0.040). Adverse events ≥grade 3 were balanced except for leucopenia (25.0% in iFU versus 2.1% in oFU; p=0.002) and neutropenia (43.5% in iFU and 10.9% in oFU; p=0.001). Hand-foot skin reaction was not different between two cohorts. RR was 62.5% in iFU versus 71.1% in oFU (p=0.835). The median PFS was 8.3 months in iFU versus 8.2 months in oFU (p=0.835). Conclusions: The HGCSG0802 could be a database to investigate first line BV for mCRC in clinical practice. As a result of this analysis, in Japanese daily practice, efficacy was no significant difference between infusional FU/OX and oral FU/OX, and the profiles of adverse events varied from each regimens.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document