Sequencing of different targeted therapies in management of KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 679-679
Author(s):  
Jin Li ◽  
Gong Chen ◽  
Weijia Fang ◽  
Yongsong Tang
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Targeted Therapies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Indirect Comparison ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Significant Difference

679 Background: First-line (1L) antiendothelial growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) is considered suitable in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. As no treatment guidelines recommend target therapy sequence in mCRC, this meta-analysis determined the optimal sequence of targeted therapies in patients with KRAS wild type (WT) mCRC. Methods: PICO framework was used to retrieve relevant studies from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. mCRC patients treated with 1L anti-EGFR and second-line (2L) anti -VEGF were compared with 1L anti-VEGF and 2L anti-EGFR treatment (gp. A). Patients treated with 1L anti-VEGF and 2L anti-EGFR treatment were compared with anti-VEGF in 1L and 2L (gp. B). We also compared 2L and 3L anti-EGFR therapies (gp. C). Primary and secondary outcomes of overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were presented as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Objective response rate (ORR) was evaluated in terms of relative risk (RR) and 95% CI. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: We identified nine studies for this analysis including 1478 KRAS WT mCRC patients. In gp. p A (three studies; two retrospective and one post-hoc analysis; 450 patients), 1L anti-EGFR and 2L anti-VEGF treatment had a significantly higher OS (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.53-1.32; p = 0.0022) and PFS (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76- 0.96; p = 0.0081) than 1L anti-VEGF and 2L anti-EGFR. Comparison in gp. B (n = 3 RCTs involving 431 mCRC KRAS WT patients) showed no significant difference in OS (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70- 1.29; p = 0.6897; I2 = 42.69%) and PFS (HR 1.43, 95% CI 0.83- 2.47; p = 0.1962; I2 = 81.55%) between the two lines of treatment. ORR was higher with anti-VEGF in both 1L and 2L in gp. B (RR 3.58, 95% CI 0.72- 17.85; p = 0.1191). In gp. C, indirect comparison showed similar OS with 3L and 2L anti-EGFR therapies ((3L and 2L: n = 2 studies each; HR 0.86. 95% CI 0.71-1.04; HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51-1.20; 2L vs. 3L; p = 0.06). Conclusions: Patients with KRAS WT mCRC achieved maximum benefit with 1L anti-EGFR and 2L anti-VEGF than with 1L anti-VEGF and 2L anti-EGFR or 1L and 2L anti-VEGF. Hence, it is suggested to initiate the therapy with 1L anti-EGFR to derive the maximum clinical benefit.

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 Efficacy and safety of regorafenib as beyond second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: an adjusted indirect meta-analysis and systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 175883592094093
Author(s):  
Yinying Wu ◽  
Yangwei Fan ◽  
Danfeng Dong ◽  
Xuyuan Dong ◽  
Yuan Hu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line Therapy ◽  
Third Line

Background: The evidence base for optimum third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is not conclusive. Recent studies have demonstrated the efficacy of regorafenib as third-line therapy in mCRC. This indirect meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of regorafenib with other available third-line therapies for mCRC. Methods: A literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of fruquintinib, regorafenib, TAS-102, and nintedanib as third-line therapies in patients with mCRC. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were the primary outcomes, while objective response rate (ORR) and safety were the secondary outcomes. Hazard ratio (HR) and relative risk (RR) with their respective 95% confidence interval (CI) were used for analysis of survival, clinical response, and safety data. An adjusted indirect meta-analysis with placebo as the common comparator was performed. Results: We identified eight RCTs comparing regorafenib (two studies), fruquintinib (two studies), TAS-102 (three studies), and nintedanib (one study) against placebo. The OS with regorafenib was significantly better when compared with nintedanib (HR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45, 0.95, p = 0.02) but was similar to that of fruquintinib (HR = 1.01; 95% CI: 0.67, 1.52, p = 0.94) and TAS-102 (HR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.68, 1.38, p = 0.88). The PFS and ORR for regorafenib were slightly better than those of TAS-102 (PFS: HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.54, 1.37, p = 0.5; ORR: RR = 1.13, 95% CI: 0.11, 11.05, p = 0.92) and nintedanib (PFS: HR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.42, 1.10, p = 0.12; ORR: not reported) but were lower than those for fruquintinib (PFS: HR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.93, 2.52, p = 0.08; ORR: RR = 0.68269, 95% CI: 0.045, 10.32, p = 0.79). Safety analysis showed that the RR of adverse events (AEs) was lesser in patients treated with regorafenib in comparison with that in patients treated with fruquintinib, but was similar to that in patients treated with nintedanib and TAS-102. Conclusion: Regorafenib has efficacy similar to that of TAS-102 and better safety when compared with fruquintinib. Considering the mechanism of action of regorafenib, which targets multiple factors in the angiogenic pathway, it could be an ideal option for treatment in the beyond second-line setting.

Use of the intensity of membranous EGFR staining by immunohistochemistry to predict the efficacy of chemotherapy containing cetuximab in KRAS wild-type patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A retrospective analysis.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 516-516
Author(s):  
Naoki Takahashi ◽  
Yasuhide Yamada ◽  
Hirokazu Taniguchi ◽  
Kohei Akiyoshi ◽  
Yoshitaka Honma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Kras Mutation ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Endoscopic Biopsy ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Mutation Status ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Kras Mutation Status

516 Background: KRAS mutation status is a strong predictive factor for anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In the BOND trial, objective response rates to cetuximab in irinotecan-refractory mCRC were not significantly different based on the intensity of EGFR staining by immunohistrochemistry (IHC). However, this result was not evaluated by KRAS mutation status, so we retrospectively evaluated the relationship between the efficacy of chemotherapy containing cetuximab and the intensity of membranous EGFR staining in KRAS wild type (KRAS-WT) patients. Methods: Between August 2008 and July 2011, specimens of 391 CRC patients were collected by endoscopic biopsy or surgical resection. EGFR staining by IHC and genetic screening for KRAS status were performed and intensity of EGFR staining was scored by the Guidelines for Interpreting EGFR pharmDx, DAKO. We analyzed 94 KRAS-WT patients who received combination chemotherapy with an irinotecan-regimen plus cetuximab or cetuximab monotherapy and met the following criteria: histologically proven mCRC adenocarcinoma , at least 1 previous regimen of standard fluoropyrimidine - containing chemotherapy , ECOG PS score 0-2, and adequate hepatic and renal function. Patients were classified into 2 groups by intensity of EGFR staining: (A) absence of staining and weakly to moderately positive (IHC 1+ and IHC 2+), (B) strongly positive (IHC 3+). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and compared in Groups A and B by the log-rank test. Results: There was no significant difference in patient characteristics between the 2 groups except for primary site. The median PFS of Groups A (n=76) and B (n=18) were 5.4 months and 9.1 months (p= 0.029), the median OS was 8.1 months and 13.2 months (p=0.054) and response rate was 20.1% and 33.3%, respectively. Conclusions: In KRAS-WT patients with fluoropyrimidine-containing chemotherapy-refractory mCRC, strong intensity of EGFR staining by IHC might be predictive for efficacy of chemotherapy containing cetuximab.

scholarly journals How to Deal with Second Line Dilemma in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. 1189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Galvano ◽  
Incorvaia ◽  
Badalamenti ◽  
Rizzo ◽  
Guarini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Growth Factor ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Line Setting ◽  
The Impact

Monoclonal antibodies targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) have demonstrated efficacy with chemotherapy (CT) as second line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The right sequence of the treatments in all RAS (KRAS/NRAS) wild type (wt) patients has not precisely defined. We evaluated the impact of aforementioned targeted therapies in second line setting, analyzing efficacy and safety data from phase III clinical trials. We performed both direct and indirect comparisons between anti-EGFR and anti-VEGF. Outcomes included disease control rate (DCR), objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and G3-G5 toxicities. Our 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; no statistically significant differences in all RAS wt patients was observed (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70–1.09). Anti-EGFR combinations significantly increased ORR in all patients (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31–0.96), showing a trend also in all RAS wt patients (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48–0.83). No significant difference in PFS and DCR all RAS was registered. Our results provided for the first time a strong rationale to manage both targeted agents in second line setting.

scholarly journals Comparison of Irinotecan and Oxaliplatin as the First-Line Therapies for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sadayuki Kawai ◽  
Nozomi Takeshima ◽  
Yu Hayasaka ◽  
Akifumi Notsu ◽  
Mutsumi Yamazaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
First Line ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
High Incidence

Abstract BackgroundIrinotecan (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.MethodsThis 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).ResultsNineteen trials involving 4,571 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.ConclusionAlthough the safety profiles of IRI- and Ox-based regimens varied, their efficacy did not significantly differ. Therefore, both regimens could be used as the first-line treatments for mCRC with consideration of the patients’ condition or toxicity profiles.

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 Triplet Chemotherapy (FOLFOXIRI) Plus Bevacizumab Versus Doublet Chemotherapy (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI) Plus Bevacizumab in Conversion Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: a Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 1870-1881 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lin Shui ◽  
Yu-Shen Wu ◽  
Huapeng Lin ◽  
Pixian Shui ◽  
Qin Sun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Conversion Therapy ◽  
Resection Rate ◽  
Triplet Chemotherapy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Doublet Chemotherapy

Background/Aims: Conversion therapy can convert unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) into resectable. However, the optimal conversion regimen was not yet defined. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the triplet chemotherapy (FOLFOXIRI) plus bevacizumab (Bev) with doublet chemotherapy (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI) plus Bev in conversion therapy. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from databases, including Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane clinical trials, clinicaltrial.gov and some conferences, were searched from the inception to November 2017. The R0 resection, objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and the incidence of adverse events were pooled with the use of hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR). Results: Four RCTs with 1013 patients were included. FOLFOXIRI plus Bev regimen significantly improved the overall R0 resection rate (RR 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.85, I2=37%), liver R0 resection rate (RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.34-3.89, I2=0%), ORR (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.09-1.32, I2=0%), PFS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62-0.84, I2=36%) and OS (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66-0.97, I2=0%). There was no significant difference in any Grade≥3 adverse event (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.99-1.17, I2=0%) between two regimens. FOLFOXIRI-Bev was associated with a higher risk of neutropenia (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.13-2.79, I2=68%) and diarrhea (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.17-2.32, I2=0%). Conclusions: Triplet chemotherapy plus Bev significantly improved the R0 resection rates, ORR, PFS and OS in comparison with doublet chemotherapy plus Bev in conversion therapy for mCRC patients, with a higher risk of neutropenia and diarrhea.

scholarly journals Efficacy Comparison of Intravitreal Anti-VEGF Therapy for Three Subtypes of Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jianqing Li ◽  
Jiayi Xu ◽  
Yiyi Chen ◽  
Jiaju Zhang ◽  
Yihong Cao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Macular Degeneration ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Age Related Macular Degeneration ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Anti Vegf ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Mean

Purpose. Intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) therapy has been widely used for the treatment of neovascularization (NV) secondary to age-related macular degeneration (AMD). This study aimed to compare the efficacy among different subtypes of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD). Methods. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies. We performed meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.3 and Stata/SE 12.0. Results. A total of 24 studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. At 3 months, the mean logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) improvements were −0.09, −0.18, and −0.23 for type 1, 2, and 3, respectively, while the mean macular thickness (MT) changes were −104.83, −130.76, and −196.29 μm. At 12 months, the mean changes in Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters were 6.38, 8.12, and 9.37, while the MT decrease was 126.51, 126.52, and 139.85 μm, respectively. However, statistically significant difference was only found between type 1 and 3 in vision improvement, both in the short term (p=0.0002) and long term (p=0.01). Conclusions. The reactivity to VEGF inhibitors varied among different subtypes of nAMD. The efficacy of intravitreal anti-VEGF therapy in type 3 nAMD was statistically better than type 1 when considering vision improvement at 3 and 12 months. Thus, the lesion subtype is a predictor for the treatment outcome which can help guide prognosis.

Phase II study of combination chemotherapy with biweekly cetuximab and irinotecan for wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and fluoropyrimidines.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 561-561
Author(s):  
S. Yuki ◽  
K. Shitara ◽  
M. Yoshida ◽  
D. Takahari ◽  
S. Utsunomiya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Combination Chemotherapy ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Standard Dose ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Standard Regimen ◽  
Free Survival

561 Background: Weekly cetuximab and irinotecan is a standard regimen in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the efficacy of combination chemotherapy with biweekly cetuximab and irinotecan in patients with pretreated MCRC harboring wild-type KRAS. Methods: Patients with wild- type KRAS MCRC that had progressed after chemotherapy with irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and fluoropyrimidine were included in this study. Cetuximab was administered at 500 mg/m2 biweekly with irinotecan. The primary endpoint was response rate. The secondary endpoints included adverse events, progression-free survival, and overall survival. The pharmacokinetics of cetuximab was also evaluated in five patients. Results: From May, 2009 to February, 2010, a total of 31 patients were enrolled from five institutions. One patient was not eligible. Among the 30 assessable patients, ECOG PS was 0 in 12, 1 in 16, and 2 in two patients. The objective response rate was 30.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.7-49.4), and the disease control rate (complete response, partial response, or stable disease) was 76.7% (95%CI, 61.4-92.3). The median progression-free survival was 5.3 months (95%CI, 3.4-7.3). Grade 3 skin toxicity was observed in 3 patients (10%), and treatment related death due to pneumonia occurred in one patient. Conclusions: The efficacy data are similar to those of standard dose of cetuximab plus irinotecan. Combination chemotherapy with biweekly cetuximab and irinotecan is effective for pretreated metastatic wild-type KRAS MCRC. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Randomized comparison of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment of KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: German AIO study KRK-0306 (FIRE-3).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA3506-LBA3506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Volker Heinemann ◽  
Ludwig Fischer von Weikersthal ◽  
Thomas Decker ◽  
Alexander Kiani ◽  
Ursula Vehling-Kaiser ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Study Endpoint ◽  
Primary Study ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
First Line Treatment

LBA3506 Background: In patients (pts) with KRAS, wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) a head to head comparison of anti-EGFR- and anti-VEGF-directed first-line therapy has not been reported with regard to the FOLFIRI backbone. The AIO KRK-0306 study was therefore designed as a randomized multicenter trial to compare the efficacy of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab to FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in mCRC pts not pretreated for metastatic disease. Methods: Pts were randomized to FOLFIRI (Tournigand regimen) every two wks plus cetuximab (400 mg/m² day 1, followed by 250 mg/m² wkly = arm A) or bevacizumab (5 mg/kg every two wks = arm B). The intent-to-treat (ITT) population comprised all pts who had at least completed one application of therapy. While recruitment initially was independent of KRAS status, an amendment confined inclusion to KRAS wildtype (WT) tumors. Recruitment was completed in October 2012. The primary study endpoint was objective response rate (ORR, investigators read). Results: Among 735 pts of the ITT-population, KRAS-WT was identified in 592. Of these, 297 pts were randomized to arm A and 295 to arm B. Median age was 64 years, 66% of pts were male, and ECOG PS 0-1 was observed in 98% of pts. Median duration of treatment was 4.7 mo vs 5.3 mo, respectively. While in the ITT analysis, ORR was comparable in arms A vs B (62% vs 57%, odds ratio 1.249), a significant superiority was found for assessable pts in arm A. Median PFS of the ITT population was nearly identical (10.3 vs 10.4 mo, HR 1.04, p=0.69), however, overall survival (OS) showed a significantly better outcome in arm A vs arm B (28.8 vs 25.0 mo, HR 0.77, p=0.0164, 95% CI: 0.620-0.953). Sixty-day mortality was low in both arms (1.01% vs 2.71%). Conclusions: ORR was comparable between arms in the ITT analysis, but favored arm A in assessable pts. Significantly superior OS was observed in KRAS-WT patients receiving cetuximab plus FOLFIRI as first-line treatment. Clinical trial information: NCT00433927.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document