Effect of first-line molecular targeted agents on the efficacy of second-line bevacizumab-containing regimen for metastatic colorectal cancer.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 748-748
Author(s):  
Hiroko Hasegawa ◽  
Hiroya Taniguchi ◽  
Seiichiro Mitani ◽  
Azusa Komori ◽  
Toshiki Masuishi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Multivariate Analyses ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Targeted Agents ◽  
First Line ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Prior Use ◽  
Baseline Characteristics ◽  
Molecular Targeted Agents

748 Background: Bevacizumab (BV)-containing regimen is a standard second-line chemotherapy(CTX) for patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) regardless of the prior use of BV in the first-line CTX. However, little is known about the efficacy of the second-line BV-containing regimen after first-line CTX with anti-EGFR agents. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated the efficacy of a BV-containing regimen as the second-line CTX for mCRC. The eligibility criteria for the pts included in the study were as follows: ECOG PS 0–2, KRAS wild-type tumors, and refractory to first-line CTX with fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin or irinotecan from March 2007 to March 2015. The Kaplan–Meier method with a log-rank test and Cox regression analysis were performed to evaluate the progression-free survival (PFS) of the pts. Results: A total of 123 pts were eligible. The pts’ characteristics were as follows: males/females 73/50, median age 59 years, PS 0-1/2 118/5, LDH levels < 400IU/l / ≥ 400IU/l 91/32, second-line CTX regimen FOLFIRI+BV/FOLFOX+BV 111/12. The patients were categorized into the following 3 cohorts according to the prior use of molecular targeted agents: anti EGFR agents (cohort E, 35 pts), BV (cohort B, 58 pts), no molecular targeted agents (cohort C, 30 pts). There was hardly any difference in the baseline characteristics of the 3 cohorts; however, LDH levels in cohort E were higher than those in the other cohorts. Treatment efficacies were as follows (cohort E/B/C): response rate, 30%/10%/20%, with a significant difference between cohort E and B (OR = 1.50, p = 0.035) and median PFS, 8.6/5.9/6.9 months, with a significant difference between cohort E and B (p = 0.025). Multivariate analyses for PFS were adjusted for baseline characteristics such as histology, PS, chemotherapy regimen, presence of peritoneal metastasis, LDH levels, and duration of PFS in the first-line CTX. The PFS of cohort E was better than that of cohort B (HR = 2.180, p = 0.0025) and was not much different from that of cohort C (HR = 1.682, p = 0.64)in multivariate analyses. Conclusions: The second-line BV-containing regimen is effective regardless of the prior use of anti-EGFR agents.

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 outcome of bevacizumab followed by cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 529-529
Author(s):  
Kozo Kataoka ◽  
Akiyoshi Kanazawa ◽  
Akio Nakajima ◽  
Hisahiro Hosogi ◽  
Seiitirou Kanaya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Targeted Agents ◽  
First Line ◽  
Group A ◽  
Molecular Targeted Agents ◽  
Group B

529 Background: The molecular targeted agents, such as bevacizumab and cetuximab have been shown to improve overall survival of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. However, we still do not know what sequence is best to use the molecular targeted agents for mCRC especially in K-ras wild case. In this analysis, we evaluate the benefits of using bevacizumab followed by cetuximab for mCRC patients retrospectively. Methods: From July 2006 to September 2010, 60 chemotherapy-naive patients who were diagnosed as mCRC, received oxaliplatin based regimen for first line, did not respond to bevacizumab containing regimen used for first line or second line, and received cetuximab or continued bevacizumab, were eligible for this analysis. 28 patients received cetuximab as third line or fourth line chemotherapy due to K-ras wild type (Group A). And 32 patients continued bevacizumab-containing regimen in spite of disease progression (Group B). Results: The median number of cycles of bevacizumab containing regimen were 9 (range, 2-30) in group A and 8 (range, 2-27) in group B, and cetuximab 12(range, 3-32) in group A. The difference of the rate of serious adverse effects was not significant between two groups. Median overall survival was significantly higher in Group A than Group B (31.2 months (95%CI: 23.2-39.3 months) and 27.0 month (95%CI: 17.2-37.6), respectively) (P<0.001). Partial response rate of cetuximab was 18%(5/28) in group A. Median progression free survival of cetuximab in group A was 4.3 months (95%CI: 2.62- 6.06). Conclusions: Using cetuximab after progression with bevacizumab might be effective sequence to improve the overall survival of K-ras wild mCRC patients. But we need further prospective study to look for the best sequence in chemotherapy for mCRC 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.

scholarly journals How to deal with second line dilemma in metastatic colorectal cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15006-e15006
Author(s):  
Antonio Galvano ◽  
Aurelia Guarini ◽  
Stefania Cusenza ◽  
Nadia Barraco ◽  
Marta Castiglia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Growth Factor ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Targeted Agents ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Indirect Comparisons

e15006 Background: Monoclonal antibodies targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) have demonstrated efficacy in combination with chemotherapy as second line for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, there is still a paucity of evidence or guidelines suggesting the right sequential treatment in all RAS (KRAS/NRAS) wild type(wt)mCRC. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the impact of these targeted therapies by reviewing literature data. Methods: We used Cochrane, EMBASE and Medline databases to select phase III clinical trials containing efficacy and safety data about chemotherapy (CT) or CT + targeted agents combination (Anti-VEGF and Anti-EGFR) in second line mCRC setting. We performed direct comparisons to obtain pooled data for anti-VEGF + CT versus CT and anti-EGFR +CT versus CT comparisons. Then we performed indirect comparisons between anti-EGFR and Anti-VEGF. Outcomes were disease control rate (DCR), response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and most common G3-G5 toxicities. Results: Eight eligible RCTs (6793 pts) were included: 5 studies compared anti-VEGF + CT and 3 anti-EGFR + CT combinations to CT. After direct comparisons, pooled indirect results showed significantly improved OS (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72–0.94) and DCR (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04–1.54) favouring anti-VEGF combinations in overall population; however, no statistically significant differences in all RAS wt patients was observed (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70–1.09). Additionally, anti-EGFR combinations significantly increased ORR in all patients (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31–0.96), showing a trend in all RAS wt patients (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48–0.83) too. Furthermore, no significant difference in PFS and DCR all RAS was registered. Anti-VEGF combination significantly increased Only a significant asthenia difference (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.03–1.75) was registered. Conclusions: At our knowledge, our indirect comparisons between anti-VEGF and anti-EGFR combinations showed for the first time better OS and DCR for anti-VEGF combinations, whereas better RR is observed for anti-EGFR combinatory regimens, defining a role of both targeted agents in second line mCRC setting.

Impact of omitting fluorouracil from FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 76-76
Author(s):  
Yuki Matsubara ◽  
Toshiki Masuishi ◽  
Takatsugu Ogata ◽  
Taiko Nakazawa ◽  
Kyoko Kato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Liver Metastasis ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Prior Use ◽  
Metastatic Sites ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

76 Background: FOLFIRI + bevacizumab (FOLFIRI + BEV) is a standard second-line chemotherapy (Cx) for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients (pts) who are refractory or intolerant to fluoropyrimidines (FPs) and oxaliplatin (OX). However, the efficacy of continuing FPs as second-line Cx for pts who are refractory to FPs in first-line Cx remains unclear. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated mCRC pts who received irinotecan (IRI) + BEV or FOLFIRI + BEV as second-line Cx at a single institution from Jan 2010 to Apr 2020. The main eligibility criteria were ECOG performance status (PS) of 0-2, known KRAS status, a standard initial dose of fluorouracil (5-FU) (bolus 400 mg/m2, infusional 2400 mg/m2) in FOLFIRI + BEV and IRI (150 mg/m2), refractory to FPs, no prior use of IRI, and prior use of OX. We compared the efficacy and safety of IRI + BEV with those of FOLFIRI + BEV. The adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated using a multivariate Cox model that contained variables with p < 0.05 in the univariate analysis to reduce the imbalance between both the treatments. Results: Among the 261 pts, 107 were eligible (IRI + BEV/FOLFIRI + BEV, 31/76 pts). Pt characteristics were as follows (IRI + BEV/FOLFIRI + BEV): median age, 67/62; ECOG PS, 1–2, 55/46%; KRAS mutant, 45/50%; BRAF V600E mutant, 6/11%; right-sided tumor, 19/43%; lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) ≥ 400 U/L, 13/12%; PFS of first-line Cx < 6 month (m), 39/30%; prior use of BEV, 84/63%. Relative dose intensity (RDI) (IRI + BEV/FOLFIRI + BEV) of IRI and BEV was similar in the groups; median RDI (range) of IRI, 80 (44–100) /83 (49–100) %; p = 0.560; median RDI of BEV, 86 (35–100) /83 (20–100) %; p = 0.681. Efficacies (IRI + BEV/FOLFIRI + BEV) after a median follow-up of 13.1/14.3 m were as follows: median PFS, 6.4/5.8 m (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.57–1.38; p = 0.64; aHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.50-1.34; p = 0.44); median OS, 16.6/16.5 m (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.51-1.32; p = 0.44; aHR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.59-1.69; p = 0.97); objective response rate, 25.9/11.3%. Adjustment factors for PFS were prior colorectomy, number of metastatic sites, ECOG PS, liver metastasis, and the level of LDH, while those for OS were prior colorectomy, number of metastatic sites, liver metastasis, peritoneal metastasis, and the level of LDH. All subgroup analyses for PFS and OS according to the pt characteristics also showed no significant differences in the groups. All grade nausea (32/58%) and stomatitis (13/36%) and grade 3–4 neutropenia (23/58%) and febrile neutropenia (0/3%) were less common in the IRI + BEV than in the FOLFIRI + BEV group. Conclusions: Our study suggests that omitting 5-FU from FOLFIRI + BEV as second-line Cx for mCRC pts who are refractory to FPs may lower the occurrence of adverse events without impairing the treatment efficacy.

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.

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 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document