Bevacizumab associated calcifications might be a prognostic marker in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16108-e16108
Author(s):  
Yuwen Zhou ◽  
Qiu Meng
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Marker ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
First Line ◽  
Cox Regression Analysis ◽  
First Line Therapy

e16108 Background: Cetuximab associated calcifications is a positive predictive factor in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In patients with glioblastoma, bevacizumab-induced calcifications are also related to a better prognosis. However, tumor calcifications are rarely recognized in mCRC patients treated with bevacizumab. This study was to investigate the correlation between clinical outcome and calcification in mCRC who received bevacizumab and chemotherapy as the first-line treatment. Methods: A single retrospective cohort study was conducted with all diagnosed mCRC cases who received bevacizumab and chemotherapy as the first-line therapy in our hospital from January 2016 to January 2019. Clinical variables were retrieved from medical records and tumor calcification were evaluated independently by radiologists on the basis of computed tomography scans. A univariate and multivariate COX regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association between calcification and outcome. Results: 159 patients with an average age of 59.0 years were included. Median follow-up was 29.6 months. Among all enrolled patients, 31 had tumor calcification [31/159 (19.5%)]. The median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly better in patients with calcification than those without calcification (28.0 vs. 24.9 months, p= 0.024; 12.0 vs. 10.0 months, p= 0.026). A higher objective response rate (61.3% vs. 50.0%) was also observed in calcification group. On multivariate analysis, tumor calcification was independently associated with OS (hazard ratio 1.799, 95% CI 1.002–3.230) and PFS (hazard ratio 1.609, 95% CI 1.013–2.557). Conclusions: Tumor calcification was independently associated with improved prognosis in colorectal cancer. It might be a potential prognostic marker.

Response-Independent Survival Benefit in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Comparative Analysis of N9741 and AVF2107

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Axel Grothey ◽  
Eric E. Hedrick ◽  
Robert D. Mass ◽  
Somnath Sarkar ◽  
Sam Suzuki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Survival Benefit ◽  
Tumor Response ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii Study

PurposeIn the phase III study AVF2107g, bevacizumab (BV) demonstrated a survival benefit when added to irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (IFL) in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In a parallel phase III study, Intergroup N9741, oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFOX) also demonstrated a survival benefit compared with IFL. As these two superior therapies have differing mechanisms of action, we explored whether the improved survival associated with the superior therapy was dependent on tumor response.Patients and MethodsFor these retrospective, exploratory analyses, patients were defined as responders or nonresponders by whether complete or partial response was achieved with first-line therapy.ResultsCompared with IFL alone, BV plus IFL and FOLFOX each demonstrated statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) regardless of objective tumor response. BV-treated nonresponders had a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.63 (P = .0001) for PFS and 0.76 (P = .0188) for OS compared with IFL-treated nonresponders. FOLFOX-treated nonresponders had an HR of 0.75 (P = .0029) for PFS and 0.74 (P = .0030) for OS compared with IFL-treated nonresponders.ConclusionIn both AVF2107g and N9741, objective response did not predict the magnitude of PFS or OS benefit from the superior therapy; nonresponders, despite a poorer prognosis than responders, achieved extended PFS and OS from BV plus IFL or FOLFOX compared with IFL. On the basis of these data, tumor response in metastatic colorectal cancer is not a necessary factor for a therapy to provide benefit to an individual patient.

Addition of Bevacizumab to Bolus Fluorouracil and Leucovorin in First-Line Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Results of a Randomized Phase II Trial

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (16) ◽  
pp. 3697-3705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fairooz F. Kabbinavar ◽  
Joseph Schulz ◽  
Michael McCleod ◽  
Taral Patel ◽  
John T. Hamm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii

Purpose Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor, increases survival when combined with irinotecan-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). This randomized, phase II trial compared bevacizumab plus fluorouracil and leucovorin (FU/LV) versus placebo plus FU/LV as first-line therapy in patients considered nonoptimal candidates for first-line irinotecan. Patients and Methods Patients had metastatic CRC and one of the following characteristics: age ≥ 65 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1 or 2, serum albumin ≤ 3.5 g/dL, or prior abdominal/pelvic radiotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned to FU/LV/placebo (n = 105) or FU/LV/bevacizumab (n = 104). The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points were progression-free survival, response rate, response duration, and quality of life. Safety was also assessed. Results Median survival was 16.6 months for the FU/LV/bevacizumab group and 12.9 months for the FU/LV/placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; P = .16). Median progression-free survival was 9.2 months (FU/LV/bevacizumab) and 5.5 months (FU/LV/placebo); hazard ratio was 0.50; P = .0002. Response rates were 26.0% (FU/LV/bevacizumab) and 15.2% (FU/LV/placebo) (P = .055); duration of response was 9.2 months (FU/LV/bevacizumab) and 6.8 months (FU/LV/placebo); hazard ratio was 0.42; P = .088. Grade 3 hypertension was more common with bevacizumab treatment (16% v 3%) but was controlled with oral medication and did not cause study drug discontinuation. Conclusion Addition of bevacizumab to FU/LV as first-line therapy in CRC patients who were not considered optimal candidates for first-line irinotecan treatment provided clinically significant patient benefit, including statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival.

Exploratory biomarker findings from cohort 2 of MODUL: An adaptable, phase 2, signal-seeking trial of fluoropyrimidine + bevacizumab ± atezolizumab maintenance therapy for BRAFwt metastatic colorectal cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3570-3570
Author(s):  
Josep Tabernero ◽  
Axel Grothey ◽  
Dirk Arnold ◽  
Michel Ducreux ◽  
Peter J. O'Dwyer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Maintenance Treatment ◽  
Predictive Biomarkers ◽  
Experimental Treatment ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
First Line ◽  
Tissue Samples ◽  
First Line Therapy

3570 Background: MODUL is an adaptable, phase 2, signal-seeking trial testing novel agents as first-line therapy for predefined subgroups of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Previously reported findings demonstrated that adding atezolizumab to fluoropyrimidine (FP)/bevacizumab as first-line maintenance treatment after induction with FOLFOX + bevacizumab did not improve efficacy outcomes in BRAFwt mCRC. Given these efficacy results, exploratory assessments on tumour samples were conducted to provide insights into factors that might affect efficacy of maintenance treatment and provide guidance on appropriate therapeutic strategies for BRAFwt mCRC. Methods: In patients with BRAFwt tumours (Cohort 2), experimental treatment was FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab. Primary efficacy endpoint: progression-free survival (PFS). Overall survival (OS) was a secondary endpoint. Archival tissue samples from 104 patients were analysed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) at HistoGeneX (PD-L1; CD8/GrB/FoxP3). SP142 antibody was used for PD-L1 IHC analysis, which evaluated PD-L1low (IC 0–1) vs PD-L1high (IC > 1) in correlation with PFS and OS in the control and experimental arms. CD8/GrB/FoxP3 triplex staining was also performed to evaluate potential correlations with efficacy. Results: 445 patients with BRAFwt mCRC were randomised (2:1 ratio) to maintenance treatment in Cohort 2. Archival samples from 104 patients were analysed: FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab (n = 82); FP/bevacizumab (n = 22). The biomarker evaluable population (BEP) for PD-L1 was n = 81 for FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab [PD-L1low n = 35 (43%); PD-L1high n = 46 (57%)] and n = 22 for FP/bevacizumab [PD-L1low n = 16 (72%); PD-L1high n = 6 (28%)]. The BEP for CD8/GrB was n = 50 for FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab and n = 16 for FP/bevacizumab. No difference in PFS or OS was observed in the FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab vs FP/bevacizumab arms for PD-L1high [PFS: HR = 1.5 (95% CI 0.45−4.8), p = 0.51; OS: HR = 1.3 (95% CI 0.38−4.1), p = 0.71] or PD-L1low [PFS: HR = 0.92 (95% CI 0.47−1.8), p = 0.81; OS: HR = 0.78 (95% CI 0.4−1.5), p = 0.48]. Similar results were observed with CD8/GrBhigh [PFS: HR = 0.73 (95% CI 0.27−2.0), p = 0.55; OS: HR = 0.66 (95% CI 0.24−1.8), p = 0.44], CD8/GrBlow [PFS: HR = 1.0 (95% CI 0.42–2.5), p = 0.96; OS: HR = 0.73 (95% CI 0.3–1.8), p = 0.5], FoxP3high [PFS: HR = 0.97 (95% CI 0.37−2.5), p = 0.95; OS: HR = 0.95 (95% CI 0.36−2.5), p = 0.91] and FoxP3low [PFS: HR = 0.73 (95% CI 0.29−1.9), p = 0.53; OS: HR = 0.5 (95% CI 0.19−1.3), p = 0.18]. Conclusions: These findings suggest that PD-L1, CD8/GrB and FoxP3 might not be predictive biomarkers in BRAFwt mCRC. Further analyses are needed to further evaluate potential predictive and prognostic factors of response in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT02291289.

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.

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treatment to progression or Not?

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 13511-13511
Author(s):  
B. Melosky ◽  
C. Lohrisch ◽  
C. Kollmansberger ◽  
S. Gill ◽  
H. Kennecke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Number Of Cycles ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

13511 Background: Treatment until progression or planned interruption of first line chemotherapy is common in the therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer and are upon the discretion of the oncologist. A retrospective analysis was performed to determine the impact of these differing therapeutic strategies on overall survival. Methods: Eligible patients were treated between 2002 to 2004 in British Columbia. All patients received chemotherapy with both FOLFOX and FOLFIRI, either first or second line. Records were retrospectively reviewed for treatment interruption, efficacy and toxicity. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Results: 101 patients were identified. Twenty-three patients who progressed before receiving 8 cycles of chemotherapy and 9 patients who stopped their chemotherapy due to toxicity were excluded. The remaining patients were analyzed for survival. Twenty-three patients were treated to progression of whom 6 received first line FOLFIRI and 17 received first line FOLFOX. The mean number of cycles of first line therapy was was 11.5. Forty six patients received a planned break. Of these, 21pateints received first line FOLFIRI and 25 patients received first line FOLFOX. Mean number of cycles of first line therapy was 9.7. Median survival of patients treated to progression was 16 months compared to 22 months for patients with planned break of therapy (p=0.003). The Hazard ratio was 2.3 (p=0.01) in favor of patients who had a planned break. Uni-variate and multivariate analysis showed no significance of sex, age, site (colon versus rectal), sequence and ECOG status as predictive factors. Conclusion: In this study, patients who were treated until progression with first line chemotherapy with either FOLFOX or FOLFIRI had an inferior survival. Possible explanations for the detrimental hazard ratio for patients treated to progression are decreasing reserve for second line therapy when first line therapy is prolonged and increasing resistance to 5-FU based therapy with prolonged exposure. As this is a retrospective, observational study, other variables not captured by the modeled covariates that may have influenced results. This data suggests that treating to best response and then allowing a break does not detrimentally affect survival. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

A phase I study of sorafenib with FOLFIRI as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Safety and efficacy results.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3633-3633
Author(s):  
Jean Alfred Maroun ◽  
Derek J. Jonker ◽  
M. Christine Cripps ◽  
Timothy R. Asmis ◽  
Rakesh Goel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Response Duration ◽  
Maximum Tolerated Dose ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Curative Surgery ◽  
First Line Therapy

3633 Background: Phase I dose escalation to a maximum planned dose (MPD) o determine dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended-phase-II-dose (RP2D) and preliminary efficacy of sorafenib and FOLFIRI (irinotecan reduced-dose) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. Methods: Starting doses: irinotecan 80 mg/m2 iv d1, sorafenib 400 mg po twice daily (bid, continuous), starting day 2. Escalations based on toxicity observed at the previous dose level (DL) up to: irinotecan 100 mg/m2 and sorafenib 800 mg bid. DLT was evaluated within the 1st study cycle (1 cycle = 2 FOLFIRI treatments). Results: 5 cohorts were concluded. All 16 ECOG PS 0-1 patients (9/7 men/women; 2/14 rectal/colon) with median age of 64, discontinued study: 10 (62%) disease progression, 4 (25%) toxicity, 1 curative surgery, 1 comorbidities. The dose levels of irinotecan (mg/m2, day1) and sorafenib (mg/day, bid, day 2-28) studied were DL1-80/400, DL2-80/600, DL3-90/600, DL4-100/600 and DL5-100/800, repeated every 4 weeks, 3 patients/DL. No DLT was observed. The MTD was not reached at the MPD (DL5). The most common ≥Gr2 treatment related adverse events (AEs) were: neutropenia 81%, HFS 69%, leucopenia 50%, fatigue 38%, anemia 31%, constipation 31%, nausea/vomiting 31%, mucositis 31%, diarrhea 25%, hypophosphatemia 25%. The most severe treatment related AEs were: Gr4: neutropenia 2 (12.5%); pulmonary embolism 1 (6%); Gr3: HFS 9 (56%), neutropenia 3 (19%), leucopenia 3 (19%), hypophosphatemia 3 (19%). Objective response rate was 56% (9 of 16 patients, 95%CI; 33-77%). Response duration was 13 months (95%CI; 5-17). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 11 months (95%CI; 6-17) and 25 months (95%CI; 15-34), respectively. Conclusions: Combination therapy with S and modified FOLFIRI in these patients is well tolerated and demonstrates clinical efficacy at the MPD. The MTD was not reached at the MPD. Future research of this combination is warranted. Supported by Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals. Clinical trial information: NCT00780169.

Randomized Phase III Study of Capecitabine Plus Oxaliplatin Compared With Fluorouracil/Folinic Acid Plus Oxaliplatin As First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (12) ◽  
pp. 2006-2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jim Cassidy ◽  
Stephen Clarke ◽  
Eduardo Díaz-Rubio ◽  
Werner Scheithauer ◽  
Arie Figer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Folinic Acid ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Hand Foot Syndrome ◽  
Grade 3

PurposeTo evaluate whether capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) is noninferior to fluorouracil. folinic acid, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC).Patients and MethodsThe initial design of this trial was a randomized, two-arm, noninferiority, phase III comparison of XELOX versus FOLFOX-4. After patient accrual had begun, the trial design was amended in 2003 after bevacizumab phase III data became available. The resulting 2 × 2 factorial design randomly assigned patients to XELOX versus FOLFOX-4, and then to also receive either bevacizumab or placebo. We report here the results of the analysis of the XELOX versus FOLFOX-4 arms. The analysis of bevacizumab versus placebo with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is reported separately. The prespecified primary end point for the noninferiority analysis was progression-free survival.ResultsThe intent-to-treat population comprised 634 patients from the original two-arm portion of the study, plus an additional 1,400 patients after the start of the amended 2 × 2 design, for a total of 2,034 patients. The median PFS was 8.0 months in the pooled XELOX-containing arms versus 8.5 months in the FOLFOX-4–containing arms (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 97.5% CI, 0.93 to 1.16). The median overall survival was 19.8 months with XELOX versus 19.6 months with FOLFOX-4 (HR, 0.99; 97.5% CI, 0.88 to 1.12). FOLFOX-4 was associated with more grade 3/4 neutropenia/granulocytopenia and febrile neutropenia than XELOX, and XELOX with more grade 3 diarrhea and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome than FOLFOX-4.ConclusionXELOX is noninferior to FOLFOX-4 as a first-line treatment for MCRC, and may be considered as a routine treatment option for appropriate patients.

scholarly journals EFFECTIVENESS OF MAINTENANCE THERAPY AFTER THE END OF THE FIRST LINE OF TREATMENT FOR PATIENTS WITH METASTATIC COLORECTAL CANCER – THE RESULTS OF A POPULATION-BASED STUDY

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 57-67
Author(s):  
M. Yu. Fedyanin ◽  
Sh. A. Aliyeva ◽  
L. Y. Vladimirova ◽  
A. N. Ivanov ◽  
A. A. Katkov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Maintenance Therapy ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Observation Group ◽  
First Line ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Maintenance Group

Aim.To evaluate the effectiveness of different regimens of maintenance chemotherapy after the first line of treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.Materials and methods.We performed retrospective analyses of the data from 432 patients from 17 clinics in 14 regions of the Russian Federation who started systemic therapy for metastatic cancer in 2013. The main inclusion criterion was objective response or stabilization after the first 16 weeks of first-line therapy. Four groups of patients were compared, depending on the nature of maintenance therapy: those receiving fluoropyrimidines, a combination of fluoropyrimidines with bevacizumab, monotherapy of bevacizumab and monotherapy of anti-EGFR antibodies. The main criteria for assesment of the effectiveness of treatment were progression-free survival and overall survival. The statistical analysis was performed with the SPSS 20.0 sof tware package.Results.Maintenance therapy after completion of the first 16 weeks of the 1st line of chemotherapy was administered in 126 patients, most of them were treated with fluoropyrimidines (53.1 %). The median overall survival in the maintenance group was 27 versus 21 months in the observation group, p=0.01, HR=0.78 (95 % CI 0.6–1.02) Median progression-free survival in the maintenance group was 11 vs 7 months in the observation group (p<0.001, HR=0.6, 95 % CI 0.5–0.8). The worst results of progression-free survival were observed in the group with monotherapy of bevacizumab – median was 10 months versus 12 months in the fluoropyrimidine monotherapy group, 10 months for the combination of fluoropyrimidine with bevacizumab and 14 months for monotherapy of the anti-EGFR (p=0,9, HR=1.0, 95 % CI 0.9–1.2).Conclusions.There were no statistical differences in survival with different regimens of maintenance therapy. Monotherapy of bevacizumab in maintenance treatment was associated with the worst sur vival rates.

Phase II trial of FOLFOX6, bevacizumab and cetuximab in patients with Colorectal Cancer

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4075-4075 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. J. Ocean ◽  
K. O’Brien ◽  
J. Lee ◽  
N. Matthews ◽  
S. Holloway ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Ecog Ps

4075 Background: Bevacizumab (B) + FOLFOX is widely accepted as a standard first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Recent treatment strategies have included the use of targeted therapies combined with chemotherapy to improve efficacy and to reduce chemotherapy-related toxicities. This Phase II study assesses first-line mFOLFOX6 + B + cetuximab (C), a monoclonal antibody approved for use in irinotecan-refractory mCRC. Methods: All pts had ECOG PS = 1, normal bone marrow, hepatic and renal function. Pts received mFOLFOX6 + B (5mg/kg) biweekly and C weekly (initially at 400 mg/m2, then subsequent doses at 250 mg/m2). Tumor assessment by imaging was done every 8 weeks. Primary endpoints are response rate, progression free-survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. The regimen would be considered promising if there were = 32 responses, or if = 60% of pts were progression-free for at least 8 months. Results: 67 pts (37 males, 30 females) were enrolled from 12/04–11/06. Median age was 57. Toxicities included Grade 4: neutropenia (6%), thrombosis/embolism (5%). Grade 3: neutropenia (13%), rash (13%), fatigue (11%), diarrhea (11%), abdominal pain (6%), neuropathy (5%), infection with ≤ Grade 2 ANC (4.5%). There were 2 deaths, 1 due to neutropenia and diarrhea and 1 to pulmonary fibrosis. As of 12/06, 9 pts were too early to evaluate. Of the remaining 58 pts, there were 32 responses (55%; 95% CI: 42%, 68%), including 3 CRs and 29 PRs; Median PFS was 9.6 months (95% CI: 8.8, 13.9 months), 71% were progression-free for at least 8 months, and median OS was not reached after a median follow-up of 11.4 months (range 1.5–25.2 months). Conclusions: Treatment with mFOLFOX6+ B + C met the pre-specified criteria for objective response and PFS to be considered promising. This regimen is associated with an acceptable toxicity profile and merits further evaluation. Supported by N01-CA-62204. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document