ABC-06 | A randomised phase III, multi-centre, open-label study of active symptom control (ASC) alone or ASC with oxaliplatin / 5-FU chemotherapy (ASC+mFOLFOX) for patients (pts) with locally advanced / metastatic biliary tract cancers (ABC) previously-treated with cisplatin/gemcitabine (CisGem) chemotherapy.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4003-4003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Lamarca ◽  
Daniel H. Palmer ◽  
Harpreet Singh Wasan ◽  
Paul J. Ross ◽  
Yuk Ting Ma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cox Regression ◽  
Symptom Control ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Disease Extent ◽  
Platinum Sensitivity ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

4003 Background: Level A evidence supports use of CisGem as first-line chemotherapy for ABC; no robust evidence is available for second-line chemotherapy. Methods: Pts diagnosed with ABC with disease progression after prior CisGem were randomised (1:1) to either ASC+mFOLFOX or ASC. Randomisation was stratified by serum albumin levels ( < 35 vs ≥35 g/L), platinum sensitivity (determined from first-line CisGem) and disease extent (locally advanced vs metastatic). Pts with ECOG PS0-1, adequate haematological, renal and liver function, and adequate biliary drainage were eligible. Primary end-point was overall survival (OS) (multivariable Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors); sample size: 162 pts delivering 148 events were required (80% power; 5% two-sided alpha) for a hypothesised hazard ratio (HR) of 0.63. Assumed median survival for ASC was 4 months. Results: 162 pts (81 in each arm) were randomised (27 March ‘14 - 04 Jan ‘18); median age 65 yrs (range 26-84); sex: 80 (49%) male, 82 (51%) female; primary site: intrahepatic 72 (44%), extrahepatic 45 (28%), gallbladder 34 (21%) and ampullary 11 (7%). Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms except platinum sensitivity (ASC+mFOLFOX 27 pts (33%); ASC 34 pts (42%)). After 150 OS events, the adjusted HR was 0.69 (95% CI 0.50-0.97; p = 0.031; ASC+mFOLFOX vs ASC). Median OS (months (m)), 6m and 12m OS-rate (%) were 6.2m, 50.6% and 25.9% for the ASC+mFOLFOX and 5.3m, 35.5%, 11.4% for the ASC arm, respectively. Grade 3/4 toxicities were reported in 48 (59%) and 32 (39%) pts in the ASC+mFOLFOX and ASC arm, respectively; these were balanced between arms except for fatigue and neutropenia (more frequent in ASC+mFOLFOX arm); data cleaning is ongoing. No chemotherapy-related deaths were reported. Conclusion: Survival with ASC was greater than assumed; ASC+mFOLFOX improved OS after progression to CisGem with a clinically meaningful increase in 6m and 12m OS rate. ASC+mFOLFOX should become standard of care in second-line for ABC. Clinical trial information: NCT01926236.

Cougar-02: A randomized phase III study of docetaxel versus active symptom control in patients with relapsed esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4023-4023 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Cook ◽  
Andrea Marshall ◽  
Jane M. Blazeby ◽  
John A. Bridgewater ◽  
Jonathan Wadsley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Symptom Control ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

4023 Background: Survival in patients who relapse after first-line chemotherapy (CT) for advanced esophago-gastric adenocarcinoma (EGC) is poor though recently randomised trials (RCT) have suggested a small benefit for second line chemotherapy with taxanes or irinotecan. There is very little data on health related quality of life (HRQL) or overall survival (OS), particularly in patients who progress shortly after first-line therapy. Methods: COUGAR-02 was a multicentre open-label, phase III RCT for patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGC of performance status (PS) 0-2 who had progressed within 6 months of previous platinum/fluoropyrimidine CT. Patients were randomised (1:1) to receive either docetaxel 75mg/m2every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles or active symptom control (ASC). The primary endpoint was OS. The secondary endpoint of HRQL, assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-ST022, was analysed using standardised area under a curve and compared using Wilcoxon rank sum test. Sensitivity analysis adjusting for dropouts due to death were performed using quality adjusted survival. Results: 168 patients (84 patients in each arm) were recruited between April 2008 and April 2012. Median age was 65 years (range 28-84); 81% were males. PS at randomisation was 0 for 27%, 1 for 57% and 2 for 15%. 86% had metastatic disease. 43% progressed during previous CT, 28% progressed within 3 months of end of previous CT and 29% progressed between 3 and 6 months. Median number of cycles of docetaxel was 3. 23% completed 6 cycles. Docetaxel was well tolerated and resulted in a significantly improved OS over ASC alone (HR=0.67 (95% CI 0.49-0.92); p=0.01). Objective response rate was 7%. For QLQ-C30, patients on docetaxel arm reported significantly less pain (p=0.0008) and trend for less nausea and vomiting (p=0.02) and constipation (p=0.02) than those on ASC arm. Similar global HRQL seen (p=0.53).For QLQ-ST022, trend seen for less dysphagia (p=0.02) and pain symptoms (p=0.01) for patients on docetaxel arm than ASC Conclusions: Docetaxel provided a significant OS benefit over ASC with improvements in symptom scores and no loss in overall HRQL. Docetaxel can be considered a standard of care in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT00978549.

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 ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Line Chemotherapy ◽  
First Line Treatment

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.

COUGAR-02: A randomized phase III study of docetaxel versus active symptom control in advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA4-LBA4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugo Ford ◽  
Andrea Marshall ◽  
Jonathan Wadsley ◽  
Fareeda Y. Coxon ◽  
Wasat Mansoor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Symptom Control ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Esophagogastric Adenocarcinoma

LBA4 Background: Survival in patients who relapse after first-line chemotherapy for advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma (OGC) is poor though recently randomized trials have suggested a small survival benefit for second-line chemotherapy with taxanes or irinotecan. There is very little data on quality of life or survival, particularly in patients who progress shortly after first-line therapy. Methods: COUGAR-02 was a multicenter open-label, randomized controlled phase III trial for patients with locally advanced or metastatic OGC of performance status (PS) 0-2 who had progressed within 6 months of previous platinum/fluoropyrimidine (PF) chemotherapy (CT). Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive either docetaxel 75mg/m2every 3 weeks for up to 6 cycles or active symptom control (ASC), which could include any treatment thought by the treating clinician to be appropriate for the management of symptoms including radiotherapy, steroids and supportive medications. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints were response rate, toxicity, health related quality of life (HRQL) and healthcare resource use. Results: Between April 2008 and April 2012, 168 patients were recruited (84 patients in each arm). Median age was 65 years (range 28-84), 81% were male. PS at randomisation was 0 for 27%, 1 for 57% and 2 for 15%. Site of disease was stomach in 46%, esophagogastric junction in 34% and esophagus in 20%. 86% had metastatic disease. 43% progressed during previous CT, 28% progressed within 3 months of end of previous CT and 29% progressed between 3 and 6 months. 19 (23%) patients completed 6 CT cycles (median 3 cycles per patient). The main reasons for not completing treatment were progression and toxicity. Docetaxel significantly improved overall survival over ASC alone (median 5.2 months (95% CI 4.1-5.9 months) for docetaxel; 3.6 months (95% CI 3.3-4.4 months) for ASC, HR=0.67 (95% CI 0.49-0.92); p=0.01). 7% had a partial response and 46% had stable disease after CT. 21% on docetaxel had grade 4 toxicity. Conclusions: The addition of docetaxel to ASC significantly improved overall survival. Docetaxel can be considered a standard of care in this setting. Clinical trial information: 13366390.

scholarly journals Radioembolization With Chemotherapy for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Randomized, Open-Label, International, Multicenter, Phase III Trial

2021 ◽  
pp. JCO.21.01839
Author(s):  
Mary F. Mulcahy ◽  
Armeen Mahvash ◽  
Marc Pracht ◽  
Amir H. Montazeri ◽  
Steve Bandula ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Liver Metastases ◽  
Colorectal Liver Metastases ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
The Impact ◽  
International Multicenter ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

PURPOSE To study the impact of transarterial Yttrium-90 radioembolization (TARE) in combination with second-line systemic chemotherapy for colorectal liver metastases (CLM). METHODS In this international, multicenter, open-label phase III trial, patients with CLM who progressed on oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based first-line therapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive second-line chemotherapy with or without TARE. The two primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and hepatic PFS (hPFS), assessed by blinded independent central review. Random assignment was performed using a web- or voice-based system stratified by unilobar or bilobar disease, oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based first-line chemotherapy, and KRAS mutation status. RESULTS Four hundred twenty-eight patients from 95 centers in North America, Europe, and Asia were randomly assigned to chemotherapy with or without TARE; this represents the intention-to-treat population and included 215 patients in the TARE plus chemotherapy group and 213 patients in the chemotherapy alone group. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.88; 1-sided P = .0013), with a median PFS of 8.0 (95% CI, 7.2 to 9.2) and 7.2 (95% CI, 5.7 to 7.6) months, respectively. The HR for hPFS was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.77; 1-sided P < .0001), with a median hPFS of 9.1 (95% CI, 7.8 to 9.7) and 7.2 (95% CI, 5.7 to 7.6) months, respectively. Objective response rates were 34.0% (95% CI, 28.0 to 40.5) and 21.1% (95% CI, 16.2 to 27.1; 1-sided P = .0019) for the TARE and chemotherapy groups, respectively. Median overall survival was 14.0 (95% CI, 11.8 to 15.5) and 14.4 months (95% CI, 12.8 to 16.4; 1-sided P = .7229) with a HR of 1.07 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.32) for TARE and chemotherapy groups, respectively. Grade 3 adverse events were reported more frequently with TARE (68.4% v 49.3%). Both groups received full chemotherapy dose intensity. CONCLUSION The addition of TARE to systemic therapy for second-line CLM led to longer PFS and hPFS. Further subset analyses are needed to better define the ideal patient population that would benefit from TARE.

Oxaliplatin Plus Irinotecan Compared With Irinotecan Alone as Second-Line Treatment After Single-Agent Fluoropyrimidine Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (28) ◽  
pp. 4544-4550 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel G. Haller ◽  
Mace L. Rothenberg ◽  
Alfred O. Wong ◽  
Piotr M. Koralewski ◽  
Wilson H. Miller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Median Overall Survival ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Sensory Disturbances ◽  
Previously Treated ◽  
Grade 3

Purpose To determine whether irinotecan plus oxaliplatin (IROX) is superior to irinotecan alone in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) previously treated with single-agent fluoropyrimidines. Patients and Methods A phase III, randomized, open-label, multicenter study of patients with metastatic or recurrent CRC that had progressed or recurred during or after adjuvant or first-line fluoropyrimidines (fluorouracil/leucovorin or capecitabine, the latter only for metastatic CRC). Patients received IROX (irinotecan 200 mg/m2 plus oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2) or irinotecan alone (350 mg/m2) every 3 weeks. Results At the data cutoff (when 447 of 628 randomly assigned patients had died), median overall survival was 13.4 months (95% CI, 12.4 to 14.7 months) and 11.1 month (95% CI, 10.0 to 12.7 months) in the IROX and irinotecan groups, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.94; P = .0072). Overall response rate (22% v 7%, respectively; P < .0001), median time to progression (5.3 v 2.8 months, respectively; P < .0001), and improvement in tumor-related symptoms (32% v 19%, respectively; P = .0072) were also improved with IROX as compared with irinotecan. With the exception of granulocytopenia (25% v 13%), diarrhea (28% v 23%), and sensory disturbances (5% v 0%), grade 3 to 4 toxicities were comparable between the IROX and irinotecan groups, respectively. Conclusion IROX is an effective treatment for metastatic CRC that has progressed after first-line fluoropyrimidine therapy. IROX improves efficacy compared with irinotecan alone, providing an additional option in the postadjuvant or second-line treatment setting for patients who experience treatment failure with single-agent fluoropyrimidine therapy.

Anlotinib Plus Toripalimab and Nab-Paclitaxel in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Study Protocol for An Open-Label, Non-Randomized, Phase II Study (ATNPA)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jingwen Chen ◽  
Yiqian Liu ◽  
Yizhi Zhu ◽  
Shiyun Cui ◽  
Chongqi Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Combination Strategy

Abstract Background There have not been standard second-line or maintenance regimens with definite survival benefits so far for patients with pancreatic carcinoma who have lost the opportunity of curable resections or failed first-line chemotherapy. Anlotinib, a potent small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor, exhibits anti-angiogenic and anti-tumour effects by specifically binding to multiple targets such as VEGFR, FGFR, PDGFR, c-Kit and Ret. Toripalimab, a novel anti-PD-1 mAb, has been proved to significantly prolong progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in various solid tumours with manageable toxicities when combining with cytotoxic chemotherapy. We design this study to assess the combination of anlotinib, toripalimab and nab-paclitaxel as a second-line or maintenance therapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) or metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC). Patients and Methods: This is an open-label, non-randomized, single-arm phase Ⅱ study, aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety profile of the above-mentioned combination strategy in first-line therapy-failed LAPC or MPC. Totally 53 patients are to be enrolled and receive anlotinib (12 mg, po. qd.) plus toripalimab (240 mg, ivgtt. q3w.) and nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2, ivgtt, d1, d8) every 3 weeks as a cycle until disease progression or intolerable adverse events. The primary endpoint is PFS. Secondary end points include OS, disease control rate (DCR), object response rate (ORR), quality of life (QoL) and safety. Enrollment started in April 2021, and follow-up will be finished in April 2023. Discussion and Significance: Combination of anlotinib, toripalimab and nab-paclitaxel may promote vessel normalization and drug delivery, and activate the immune response, thus exerting synergistic anti-tumour effects and counteracting the immunosuppressive microenvironment of pancreatic cancer. As the first intending to assess this combination in pancreatic cancer, this study will provide comprehensive evidence for second-line or maintenance therapy of LAPC and MPC. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: ATNPA, NCT04718701. Registered January 22, 2021. (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04718701?term=NCT04718701&draw=2&rank=1)

Irinotecan in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: Clinical Overview

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 1501-1518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Udo Vanhoefer ◽  
Andreas Harstrick ◽  
Wolf Achterrath ◽  
Shousong Cao ◽  
Siegfried Seeber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Topoisomerase I ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

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.

Irinotecan versus best supportive care (BSC) as second-line therapy in gastric cancer: A randomized phase III study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (AIO)

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4540-4540 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. C. Thuss-Patience ◽  
A. Kretzschmar ◽  
T. Deist ◽  
A. Hinke ◽  
D. Bichev ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Logrank Test ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

4540 Background: Up to now the value of 2nd-line therapy for metastatic gastric cancer is unclear. So far there are no randomized phase III data comparing 2nd-line chemotherapy to BSC. Irinotecan has proven activity in 1st-line therapy. In this randomized phase III study we compared irinotecan to BSC to evaluate the value of 2nd- line chemotherapy for gastric cancer. Methods: Prospective multicenter randomized phase III study, open label. Eligibility: Metastatic or locally advanced gastro-esophageal junction or gastric adenocarcinoma. Objective tumor progession (PD) within 6 months after 1st- line chemotherapy. ECOG PS 0–2. Statistics: Primary endpoint: Overall survival (OS). Hypothesis: H1: OS(Irinotecan)>OS(BSC). Calculated number of pts needed (power 80%, alpha error 5%): 60 pts per arm. Stratification for a) PD less versus (vs) more than 3 months after 1st line chemotherapy, b) ECOG PS 0/1 vs 2. Treatment: Arm A: Irinotecan 250mg/m2 q3w (1st cycle) to be increased to 350 mg/m2, depending on toxicity. Arm B: BSC Results: Between Oct 2002 and Dec 2006 40 pts were randomized. The study was closed prematurely due to poor accrual. Arm A:21 pts, arm B 19 pts. Median age A: 58 yrs (43–73), B: 55 yrs (35–72); PD less vs more than 3 months after 1st-line chemotherapy: A: 18 / 3, B: 17 / 2pts. ECOG PS 0/1 vs 2: A: 17/ 4, B: 14/ 5pts. Pre-treatment with cisplatin: A: 21, B:19 pts. Arm A: 68 cycles administered in 21 pts. Toxicity: (main CTC grade 3/ 4): Nausea 1 pt, vomiting 1 pt, diarrhoea: 5 pts, neutropenic fever: 2 pts, data incomplete 6 pts. In 37% of 19 evaluable pts irinotecan dose was escalated to 350mg/m2. Response (19 pts evaluable): No objective responses, SD 58%, PD 42%. Improvement of tumor related symptoms: 44% of pts in arm A, 5% in arm B. Survival: (evaluable pts arm A 21, arm B 18): median survival arm A: 123 days (95%CI 95–216), arm B 72.5 days (95%CI 41–106); OS: HR=2.85 (95%CI 1.41–5.79), Logrank test (two-sided): p=0.0027. Conclusions: To our knowledge this is the first randomized phase III study investigating 2nd- line chemotherapy in gastric cancer. Irinotecan as 2nd-line chemotherapy significantly prolongs overall survival compared to BSC. 2nd-line chemotherapy can now be considered as a proven option in gastric cancer. [Table: see text]

Retrospective cohort study on the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer patients: The HGCSG0801 study—Analysis of bevacizumab beyond progression (BBP).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 684-684
Author(s):  
Hiraku Fukushima ◽  
Satoshi Yuki ◽  
Yoshimitsu Kobayashi ◽  
Kazuteru Hatanaka ◽  
Takaya Kusumi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Study ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

684 Background: Bevacizumab (BV) is widely used in first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in Japan, but the use of beyond bevacizumab first progression (BBP) has been controversial yet. Methods: Of patients treated with first-line BV in our retrospective cohort study (HGCSG0801), patients treated with BBP (n=22) and those without BBP ( n=19) in second-line setting were analyzed. The National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 3.0 was used to assess adverse events. The Response Evaluation in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria version 1.0 was used to assess tumor response. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to determine PFS and OS. Log-rank test was used to compare each group in terms of PFS and OS. All statistical tests were performed using SPSS. Results: PS (0/1/2) before second line chemotherapy was 18/3/1 in BBP and 10/8/1 in NBBP, respectively. In the safety analysis, five patients in BBP showed a worsening/newer hypertension, which wasn’t a clinical problem. In the efficacy analysis, the response rate was 22.8% in BBP and 0% in NBBP. The median PFS was better in BBP (6.7 months in BBP and 2.7 months in NBBP), but there was no significant difference in median OS from first BV administration between two groups (27.3 months in BBP and 22.2 months in NBBP). Conclusions: We analyzed BBP in daily practice in Japan. Adverse events were well tolerated, but survival advantage of BBP was not suggested. About the efficacy of BBP, we are waiting the results of ongoing Phase III trials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document