First line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: Are clinical trial results reproducible in real-life practice?

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 836-836
Author(s):  
Ron Lewin ◽  
Omer Gal ◽  
Aaron Sulkes ◽  
Noa Gordon ◽  
Irit Ben-Aharon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Group Analysis ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Primary Tumor Site ◽  
Ras Status

836 Background: Treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has greatly advanced over the past decade, based on data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This raises the question whether results of RCTs, performed on selected patients (pts), do reflect outcomes in real-life practice. The aim of this study was to summarize our experience in the treatment of mCRC and compare it to data reported in RCTs. Methods: A retrospective single-institution study on consecutive mCRC pts treated with first-line bevacizumab-containing regimens in our institute between 2006 and 2014. Results: The study included 300 pts, of whom 54% were males. Median age was 67 years (range 28-90), 26% aged ≥ 75 years. ECOG performance status was ≤1 in 93%. The primary tumor site was right colon in 37%, left colon in 40%, rectal in 23% and 1% of pts had synchronous tumors. RAS status was available in 60%, of whom 55% had wild-type alleles. 46% of pts had a single metastatic site, including 27% with liver-limited disease, and 54% had multiple metastatic sites. Irinotecan-based chemotherapy was used in 66%, oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in 29% and flouropyrimidine monotherapy in 5%. Curative metastasectomy during 1st line treatment was performed in 29%. Grade ≥3 hematological and non-hematological toxicities were reported in 24% and 38% of pts, respectively. Second and third line treatments were administered to 75% and 66% of pts, respectively; 73% of pts received both irinotecan and oxaliplatin through their treatment course and 76% of those with wild-type RAS were treated with anti-EGFR therapy. Overall response rate and disease control rate were 69% and 89%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 17 and 28 months, respectively. In a sub-group analysis on "RCT-like population", excluding pts ≥ 75 years, ECOG PS ≥ 3 and/or mutated/unknown RAS status, median PFS and OS were 15 and 29 months, respectively. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that, if adhered to international clinical guidelines, outcomes reported in RCTs are indeed reproducible in routine clinical practice in unselected real-life pts. Additional data, with more pts and longer follow-up, will be presented.

PARADIGM study: A multicenter, randomized, phase III study of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) plus panitumumab or bevacizumab as first-line treatment in patients with RAS (KRAS/NRAS) wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS776-TPS776 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takayuki Yoshino ◽  
Hiroyuki Uetake ◽  
Katsuya Tsuchihara ◽  
Kohei Shitara ◽  
Kentaro Yamazaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Type I ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Exon 2 ◽  
First Line Treatment

TPS776 Background: Optimal combination of monoclonal antibody (anti-VEGF vs. anti-EGFR antibody) with standard chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients (pts) with RAS (KRAS/NRAS) wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains controversial. FIRE-3 study demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) with anti-EGFR over bevacizumab in pts with KRAS exon 2 wild type mCRC, while CALGB 80405 study did not. PARADIGM study is designed to compare panitumumab vs. bevacizumab combined with mFOLFOX6 in pts with RAS wild-type chemotherapy-naive mCRC. Methods: Eligible pts are aged 20-79 years with ECOG performance status (PS) 0-1 and histologically/cytologically confirmed RAS wild-type mCRC. 800 pts will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to mFOLFOX6 plus panitumumab or bevacizumab, and stratified according to institution, age (20-64 vs. 65-79 years), and liver metastases (present vs. absent). Each treatment regimen includes oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, l-leucovorin 200 mg/m2, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) iv 400 mg/m2 at day 1, 5-FU civ 2400 mg/m2 at day 1-3, and either panitumumab 6 mg/kg or bevacizumab 5 mg/kg at day 1 every two weeks. The primary endpoint is the OS; the study was designed to detect the OS hazard ratio of 0.76, with a one-sided type I error of 0.025 and 80% power. Secondary efficacy endpoints include progression-free survival, response rate, duration of response, and curative resection rate. One interim analysis is planned for the OS when approximately 70% of the targeted 570 events has been observed. Exploratory endpoint is to investigate possible biomarkers including oncogenic mutations using tumor tissue and circulating tumor DNA (Study ID: NCT02394834). As of August 2015, 21 pts have been randomized and recruitment is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT02394795.

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 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.

Safety analysis of the randomized phase II study of FOLFOXIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as the first-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS wild-type tumors: The DEEPER trial (JACCRO CC-13).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 86-86
Author(s):  
Takanori Watanabe ◽  
Akihito Tsuji ◽  
Manabu Shiozawa ◽  
Hirofumi Ota ◽  
Hironaga Satake ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Safety Analysis ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
First Line Treatment ◽  
Triplet Regimen

86 Background: Triplet regimens, FOLFOXIRI, combined with bevacizumab (bev) or panitumumab have been shown to be superior in terms of early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR) compared to doublet regimen plus bev or triplet regimen in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), in the TRIBE trial ( N Engl J Med 2014) or VOLFI trial ( J Clin Oncol 2019), respectively. There have been few studies which directly compared cetuximab (cet) with bev when combined with triplet regimen. Therefore, we investigated the efficacy and safety of bev vs. cet in combination with FOLFOXIRI in previously untreated mCRC patients with RAS wild-type tumors. Methods: This trial was a randomized phase II trial to evaluate modified (m)-FOLFOXIRI (irinotecan 150 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, 5-FU 2400 mg/m2) plus cet vs. bev as first-line treatment in terms of the DpR during the entire course as the primary endpoint in 360 patients with RAS wild-type mCRC (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02515734). The experimental arm with cet was considered to be active if the difference of median DpR was over 12.5% compared with the bev arm, under the conditions of significance level of 0.05 and power of 0.85. Secondary endpoints included the ETS at week 8, progression-free survival, overall survival, secondary resection rate, and toxicity. Results: A total of 359 patients were enrolled between July 2015 and June 2019. For the safety analysis set (median age 65y, 64% male, PS0/1:91%/9%, left/right primary:83%/17%), 173 and 175 patients were randomly assigned to the cet and bev arms, respectively, some patients were excluded for the safety analysis due to the violation of inclusion criteria (6 for cet arm and 5 for bev). On the cutoff date of September 2020, median number of cycles administered was 10 (range, 1-51) for the cet arm and 12 (range, 1-51) for the bev arm. The incidence of severe adverse events (AEs) was 25.4% (44/173) for the cet arm and 25.7% (45/175) for the bev arm, respectively. The following AEs of grade 3-4 were observed more frequently in the cet arm compared to the bev arm: oral mucositis (9.2% vs. 2.3%), diarrhea (12.1% vs. 8.0%), dermatitis acneiform (12.1% vs. 0%), and hypomagnesemia (4.0% vs. 0%). The treatment-related death occurred in 2 patients of the cet arm, while no patients in the bev arm. The rate of treatment discontinuation due to AEs of any cause was comparable between the cet and bev arms (7% vs. 9%). Conclusions: This safety analysis indicated that both regimens of m-FOLFOXIRI plus cet or bev were tolerable in RAS wt mCRC patients although some frequent severe AEs were observed. Clinical trial information: UMIN000018217.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document