Withholding anti-EGFR, the impact on outcome in RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal tumors (WAIT or ACT trial).

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 626-626
Author(s):  
Lola-Jade Palmieri ◽  
Laurent Mineur ◽  
David Tougeron ◽  
Benoit Rousseau ◽  
Victoire Granger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Growth Factor ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Ras Status ◽  
Metastatic Sites ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Doublet Chemotherapy

626 Background: First line of RAS wild-type (WT) unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) can be doublet chemotherapy with an anti-VEGF (Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor), or an anti-EGFR (Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor). Waiting for RAS status, many oncologists initiate chemotherapy and add the anti-EGFR secondly. The objective was to compare the delayed introduction of the anti-EGFR to the immediate introduction of the anti-VEGF in first-line treatment of RAS WT mCRC. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort analysis from 2013 to 2016, multicentric with 28 health care centers. We included patients with RAS WT unresectable mCRC treated between 2013 and 2016 by a doublet chemotherapy with the anti-VEGF introduced immediately or with the anti-EGFR introduced at C2 or C3. Progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and response rate (RR) for the two cohorts were compared. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were estimated with cox regression models weighted on propensity score to deal with potential confounders. Results: A total of 262 patients were included, 129 in the immediate anti-VEGF group and 133 in the delayed anti-EGFR group. Median follow-up was 37.9 months. Ninety-two patients had the anti-EGFR introduced at C2, 40 at C3. The median delay of RAS analysis was 19 days (q1-q3: 13-26). Patients treated with anti-VEGFs were more likely men (68% versus 56%), with more metastatic sites ( > 2 sites: 15% versus 9%). A propensity score including the number of metastatic sites and a possible previous treatment was built. Delayed anti-EGFRs were associated with longer PFS compared to immediate anti-VEGFs: 13.8 versus 11.0 months, p = 0.0244. After weighting, delayed anti-EGFRs were still associated with better PFS: HR 0.74, 95%CI [0.61 – 0.90], p = 0.0024. OS was not different between the two arms (30.5 for anti-VEGF versus 29.9 months, p = 0.3934), even after weighting (HR 0.86, 95%CI [0.69 – 1.08], p = 0.2024). There was a better RR with delayed anti-EGFRs: 66.7% versus 45.6%, p = 0.0007. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that, while waiting for RAS status, the delayed introduction of the anti-EGFR is a valid option, compared to the immediate introduction of the anti-VEGF.

Anti-VEGF and anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (Mabs) in the first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15012-e15012
Author(s):  
Z. Zhou ◽  
W. V. Walsh ◽  
V. G. Bathini ◽  
B. Piperdi
Keyword(s):  
Disease Progression ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Risk Of Progression ◽  
Ras Status

e15012 Background: Anti-VEGF (VEGFi) and anti-EGFR (EGFRi) Mabs have increased options for patients with metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRC). The optimal class of antibody to combine with chemotherapy (Ctx) in the first-line treatment for mCRC remains less well defined. Results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are variable. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed on the basis of previously released RCTs results. We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane registry, proceedings from ASCO, ECCO, ESMO until 12/ 2008 for RCTs of Mabs in first-line mCRC. Summary statistics were pooled hazard ratio (HR) of progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and odds ratio (OR) of Response rate (RR) and 60 day mortality (60d-M). Effect of k-ras wild type and mutation were stratified in trials involving EGFRi. Results: 7 trials with complete data were identified, including 3 Ctx ± VEGFi (AVF2107g, NO16966, JCO2005.05.122), n=2422; 2 Ctx±EGFRi (CRYSTAL, OPUS), n=1554; 2 Ctx/VEGFi ± EGFRi (PACCE, CAIRO-2), n=1789. Addition of VEGFi to Ctx offered 20–30% risk reduction in disease progression and overall mortality, a 30% higher RR and nonsignificant 60d-M. Benefit of EGFRi in addition to Ctx was seen only in k-ras wild type patients with 36% reduction in disease progression and doubling in RR. However, addition of EGFRi to Ctx+VEGFi caused increased risk of progression and death with no significant increase in RR and 60d-M. Conclusions: Benefit of VEGFi in addition to Ctx in first-line mCRC is well pronounced and persistent. In k-ras wild type patients, addition of EGFRi to Ctx results in significant increase in RR and PFS. Addition of EGFRi to Ctx+VEGFi appeared harmful regardless of k- ras status. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

FRESCO-2: A global phase III study of the efficacy and safety of fruquintinib in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS154-TPS154
Author(s):  
Arvind Dasari ◽  
James C. Yao ◽  
Alberto F. Sobrero ◽  
Takayuki Yoshino ◽  
William R. Schelman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Growth Factor ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Prior Therapy ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
The Us

TPS154 Background: Pts with mCRC have limited treatment options following progression on standard therapies. Current standard of care (SOC) after pts progress on trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS-102) or regorafenib is re-challenge with previous systemic treatments, enrollment in a clinical trial, or best supportive care (BSC). Fruquintinib (Elunate) is a novel, highly selective, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor (VEGFR)-1, -2, and -3 tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) ( Cancer Biol Ther 2014;15:1635-1645). Fruquintinib is approved in China to treat pts with mCRC who received or are intolerant to fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, anti-VEGF therapy, and, if RAS wild type, anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy. Approval was based on results of the phase 3 FRESCO study (2013-013-00CH1; NCT02314819; JAMA 2018;319:2486-2496), in which fruquintinib 5 mg daily (QD), 3 weeks on, 1 week off (3 on/1 off), significantly improved overall survival (OS) in pts with mCRC in the 3rd-line+ setting when compared to placebo (median OS 9.3 months [mo] versus 6.6 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 0.65; p < .001). Progression-free survival (PFS) was also superior (median PFS 3.7 mo versus 1.8 mo; HR 0.26; p < .001). The toxicities of fruquintinib were consistent with those of other VEGF TKIs and were manageable. At the time FRESCO was conducted in China, SOC for pts with mCRC differed from that in the US, EU, and Japan. We describe here a global phase 3 study (FRESCO-2; 2019-013-GLOB1; NCT04322539) being conducted to investigate fruquintinib’s efficacy and safety in pts with refractory mCRC and a treatment profile representative of the global SOC. Methods: FRESCO-2 is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to compare fruquintinib + BSC to placebo + BSC. Key inclusion criteria are progression on or intolerance to treatment with TAS-102 and/or regorafenib; previous treatment with standard approved therapies including chemotherapy, anti-VEGF therapy, and, if RAS wild type, anti-EGFR therapy. Prior therapy with immune checkpoint or BRAF inhibitors is required for pts with corresponding tumor alterations. Pts (~522) will be randomized 2:1 to receive either fruquintinib 5 mg orally (PO) QD + BSC or placebo 5 mg PO QD + BSC, with a 3 on/1 off schedule. Randomization will be stratified by prior therapy, RAS status, and duration of metastatic disease. The primary endpoint is OS; secondary endpoints include PFS, disease control rate, objective response rate, duration of response, and safety. Final OS analyses will be performed when 364 OS events are observed; futility analysis will be conducted with 1/3 (121) OS events. If enrichment of post-regorafenib pts occurs, enrollment to that strata will be capped at approximately 262. FRESCO-2 will be activated in the US, EU, and Japan; global enrollment is anticipated over 13 mo. Clinical trial information: NCT04322539.

Clinical characteristics of KRAS mutations in NSCLC and their impact on outcomes to first-line chemotherapy.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7588-7588
Author(s):  
Mohit Butaney ◽  
Jennifer Porter ◽  
Neal Ian Lindeman ◽  
Pasi A. Janne ◽  
Michael S. Rabin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Smoking Status ◽  
Egfr Mutations ◽  
Limited Information ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Kras Mutations ◽  
Response To Chemotherapy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

7588 Background: KRAS is one of the most commonly mutated oncogenes in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). While the impact of EGFR mutations and EML4-alk translocations has been well-described, there is limited information about the impact of these somatic mutations on response to chemotherapy. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the demographics and clinical outcomes of patients with KRAS mutations and compared these to patients who were KRAS wild-type (WT). Eligible pts received 1st-line IV chemo for stage IV NSCLC at DFCI and had known information about both KRAS and EGFR status. Since the biology and impact of EGFR mutations on response to chemo is well-described, we excluded such pts from the analysis. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) with first-line chemo; secondary endpoints included radiographic response rate (RR) and overall survival (OS). Results: Between 2/05 and 8/11, there were 63 eligible KRAS pts and 97 eligible WT pts. The groups were similar in age (median 65yrs in both groups), % female (K 62, WT 54) race (K 89% white/6% black, 5% other; WT 86% white,/6% black/8% other), histology (K 90%adeno/8% NSCLC NOS; WT 86% adeno/9%NSCLC NOS), and % of pts receiving 1/2/3 agents in 1st line (K 11/56/33; WT 18/53/30). KRAS pts were less likely to be never or light smokers (4% vs 33% for WT). Nonsmokers were more likely to harbor KRAS transition rather than transversion mutations (3 transition, 1 transversion), while the converse held for smokers (51 transversions, 8 transitions). Median PFS was similar for KRAS vs WT (K .65 vs WT 4.8 months, p=0.81). RR (29% for both groups), disease control rates (K 73% vs WT 78%), and median OS (K 13.5 vs WT 12.1 months, p=.525) were also similar. Outcomes of KRAS pts to 2nd line chemotherapy (PFS 2.2, OS 8.6) are similar to those seen for WT patients in this setting. There was no significant difference in outcomes based on gender, smoking status, drug received (pemetrexed-based vs taxane based), or specific KRAS genotype. Conclusions: Pts with KRAS mutations experience similar outcomes to standard chemotherapy as those who are wild-type for EGFR and KRAS. Going forward, these data can serve as a reference for control arms of KRAS-specific randomized trials.

Impact of cetuximab sequence on progress-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): A real-world study.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16042-e16042
Author(s):  
Qirong Geng ◽  
Wenxiu Cheng ◽  
Zhiyu Chen ◽  
Wen Zhang ◽  
Xiaodong Zhu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Real World ◽  
Primary Tumour ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Investigation Methods ◽  
Secondary Objective ◽  
Line Of Therapy ◽  
Metastatic Sites ◽  
The Impact

e16042 Background: Cetuximab provides a clear clinical benefit in the treatment in patients with RAS wild-type mCRC irrespective of treatment line, but the best sequence is still under investigation. Methods: Patients with RAS wild-type mCRC (2011-2019) who received cetuximab therapy were retrospectively analyzed. They were stratified based on the cetuximab treatment sequence, into the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or later-lines groups. The primary objective was to investigate the impact on Cetuximab sequence (2nd vs. 3rd and later-line) in PFS and OS. As for patients received the 3rd or later-line cetuximab with irinotecan therapy after refractory to the prior 1st and 2nd-line combined chemotherapy with fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan, they will get another PFS of 2nd-line chemotherapy (PFSchemo) besides the PFS of 3rd or later-line cetuximab compared with the cetuximab 2nd-line used patients. We combined the PFSchemo to the PFS of 3rd or later-line cetuximab, then compared with PFS of 2nd -line cetuximab to evaluate the primary objective in PFS. As for the OS of primary objective, we calculated it from start of the 2nd-line of treatment. The secondary objective was to compare the efficacy of cetuximab sequence (1st vs. 2nd and later-lines) in OS calculated from start of the 1st-line of treatment. Results: In total, 193 patients were included: 106 in the 1st, 41 in the 2nd, and 46 in the 3rd-line groups. No difference was observed in baseline characteristics as sex,age,site of primary tumour,number of metastatic sites in the three groups. The median PFS of the 2nd-line and 3rd or later-line groups were 7.1 (95% CI 6.39-7.80) and 13.87 months(95% CI 11.44-16.29) respectively. PFS of the 3rd or later-line group was significantly longer than that of the 2nd-line group (hazard ratio[HR], 0.552; 95% CI, 0.349 to 0.871; P = 0.01). Median OS was 17.8 months (95% CI 13.5-22.1) in the 2nd-line and 27.4 months (95% CI 20.69-34.16) in the 3rd or later-line group (HR, 0.597; 95% CI 0.341 to 1.043; P = 0.07) from start of 2nd-line therapy. The median OS was 28.17 months (95% CI 22.11-34.22) in the 1st-line group and 33.10 months (95% CI 26.88-39.31) in the 2nd and later-lines group (HR, 0.724; 95% CI 0.507 to 1.304; P = 0.075) calculated from the 1st-line of therapy. Conclusions: In a real-world cohort we found that later-line especially 3rd or later-line therapy of cetuximab, may be more benefit for patients with RAS wild type mCRC, as 3rd or later-line use of cetuximab give one more line therapy chance.

scholarly journals Combination Treatment of Diabetic Macular Edema with Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and Steroids: Analysis of DRCR.net Protocol U

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 2
Author(s):  
Cindy Ung ◽  
Kareem Moussa ◽  
Yoshihiro Yonekawa
Keyword(s):  
Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor ◽  
Growth Factor ◽  
Macular Edema ◽  
Diabetic Macular Edema ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Vascular Endothelial ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Endothelial Growth Factor

Diabetic macular edema (DME) is the main cause of visual impairment in diabetic patients. Intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy is considered the first-line treatment option in the management of DME with corticosteroids used as second-line therapy. The DRCR.net Protocol U study was a Phase II trial that sought to compare the combination of a steroid and anti-VEGF therapy to anti-VEGF monotherapy regarding visual acuity and anatomic outcomes. This review highlights the strengths, weaknesses, and clinical implications of this study.

scholarly journals Piperacillin-tazobactam should be preferred to third-generation cephalosporins to treat wild-type inducible AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae in critically ill patients with hospital or ventilator-acquired pneumonia. A propensity score-matched analysis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cédric Carrié ◽  
Guillaume Bardonneau ◽  
Laurent Petit ◽  
Alexandre Ouattara ◽  
Didier Gruson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Antibiotic Therapy ◽  
Pulmonary Infection ◽  
Therapeutic Failure ◽  
Third Generation ◽  
Pulmonary Infections ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Emergence Of Resistance ◽  
Third Generation Cephalosporins

Abstract BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to compare the rate of therapeutic failure and emergence of resistance in critically ill patients treated by third-generation cephalosporins (3GCs) or piperacillin-tazobactam (PTZ) for wild-type AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae pulmonary infections. METHODS In a multicenter retrospective cohort study over a 4-year period, all patients treated for a pulmonary infection related to wild-type AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae who received documented antibiotic therapy with 3GCs or PTZ after less than 48 hours of empirical antibiotic therapy were eligible. The main outcome was the rate of therapeutic failure, defined by an impaired clinical response under treatment and/or a relapse of pulmonary infection related to the same pathogen. The secondary outcome was a secondary acquisition of derepressed cephalosporinase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. RESULTS Over the study period, 244 patients were included; 56 (23%) experienced therapeutic failure and 19 (8%) experienced secondary acquisition of resistance. In the non-adjusted cohort, the rate of therapeutic failure and emergence of resistance were significantly higher in the 3GCs group (32 vs. 18%, p = 0.011 and 13 vs. 5%, p = 0.035, respectively). In the propensity score-matched population, the 3GCs group was associated with higher rates of therapeutic failure (HR = 1.61 [1.27 – 2.07]). The secondary de-escalation to 3GCs after 48h of PTZ as a first-line antibiotic therapy was not associated with increased rate of emergence of resistance. CONCLUSION Our study confirms that third-generation cephalosporins should be avoided as first-line antibiotic therapy in wild-type AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae pulmonary infections.

scholarly journals Folfirinox versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: a comparative propensity score study

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175628481987866 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Williet ◽  
Angélique Saint ◽  
Anne-Laure Pointet ◽  
David Tougeron ◽  
Simon Pernot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Liver Metastases ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Reverse Sequence ◽  
Metastatic Sites

Background: Folfirinox (FFX) and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GN) are both standard first-line treatments in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). However, data comparing these two chemotherapeutic regimens and their sequential use remain scarce. Methods: Data from two independent cohorts enrolling patients treated with FFX ( n = 107) or GN ( n = 109) were retrospectively pooled. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the secondary endpoint. A propensity score based on age, gender, performance status (PS), and presence of liver metastases was used to make groups comparable. Results: In the whole study population, OS was significantly higher in FFX (14 months; 95% CI: 10–21) than in GN groups (9 months; 95% CI: 8–12) before ( p = 0.008) and after ( p = 0.021) adjusting for age, number of metastatic sites, liver metastases, peritoneal carcinomatosis and CA19.9 level at baseline. PFS tends to be higher in FFX (6 months) than GN groups (5 months; p = 0.053). After matching ( n = 49/group), patients were comparable for all baseline characteristics including PS. In the matched population, there was a trend toward greater OS in patients treated with FFX (HR = 0.67; p = 0.097). However, survival in each group was not solely a result of the first-line regimen. The proportion of patients who were fit for GN after FFX failure (FFX–GN sequence) was higher (46.9%) than the reverse sequence (20.4%; p = 0.01), which suggests a higher feasibility for the FFX–GN sequence. Corresponding median OS were 19 months versus 9.5 months, respectively ( p = 0.094). Conclusion: This study shows greater OS with FFX than with GN in patients with mPC. GN after FFX failure appears more feasible than the reverse sequence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document