scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Biologic Agents in the First Line Setting for Advanced Colorectal Cancer

PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e0140187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Kumachev ◽  
Marie Yan ◽  
Scott Berry ◽  
Yoo-Joung Ko ◽  
Maria C. R. Martinez ◽  
...  
2015 ◽  
Vol 54 (10) ◽  
pp. 1737-1746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allan Andresson Lima Pereira ◽  
Juliana Florinda de Mendonça Rego ◽  
Rodrigo Ramela Munhoz ◽  
Paulo Marcelo Hoff ◽  
Andre Deeke Sasse ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3559-3559 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Colucci ◽  
F. Giuliani ◽  
R. Mattioli ◽  
C. Garufi ◽  
R. Mallamaci ◽  
...  

3559 Background: Cetuximab is an IgG monoclonal antibody targeting the EGFR showing to be effective both as single agent or in combination with Irinotecan (CPT-11) or Irinotecan/FU/FA in patients (pts) with EGFR-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) in the first and second/subsequent-line setting. The current trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of Cetuximab plus Folfox-4 as first -line treatment. The main objective was the percentage of confirmed objective response rate. Methods: Chemonaivepts with non-resectable metastatic CRC and expressing EGFR were treated with Cetuximab (400 mg/m2 week 1 and 250 mg/m2 weekly thereafter) plus Folfox-4 (every 2 weeks: Oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, day 1; FA 100 mg/m2 2h, simultaneously with OH-P, and FU 400 mg/m2 iv bolus followed by 600 mg/m2 iv for 22h on days 1 and 2). The first evaluation of disease status (Recist criteria) was performed after the first 4 cycles and confirmed after one month. The treatment was continued until a maximum of 12 cycles of chemotherapy; the maintenaice with Cetuximab was permitted. Preliminary results: On the 65 screened pts, 47 (72%) had EGFR-expressing metastatic disease and were enrolled. Their main characteristics were: median Ecog PS 0; median age 66 yrs (range 43–74); main sites of disease: liver 31, lung 12, lymph-nodes 3, others 8. To date twenty-two pts are evaluable for activity and 27 for toxicity; 2 pts are not evaluable and 25 are too early. We observed 16 PR (72.7%), 5 NC (22.7%) and 1 PD (4.6%) for an ORR of 72.7% and a TGCR of 95.4%; the confirmed PR were 15 (68%). To date 2 pts undergone surgery of their metastases both for lung. The main adverse events grade 3/4 (NCI criteria) were: acne-like rush 18.5%, diarrea 7%, nausea/vomiting 4% and anemia 4%. Conclusions: Our preliminary results confirm that the combination of Cetuximab plus Folfox-4 has an high activity and a good safety profile in advanced CRC pts. The study is ongoing. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 623-623
Author(s):  
S. Lee ◽  
J. Park ◽  
S. Park ◽  
W. Kang ◽  
H. Lim ◽  
...  

623 Background: Fluoropyrimidine-based combination chemotherapy, in combination with either oxaliplatin or irinotecan, have demonstrated efficacy and tolerability against advanced colorectal cancer (ACC). Methods: Between Jan 2006 and Dec 2007, 478 ACC patients were treated with combination chemotherapy in first-line setting: 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX, n=172), 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid plus irinotecan (FOLFIRI, n=95), capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX, n=155), and capecitabine plus irinotecan (XELIRI, n=56). FOLFOX and FOLFIRI were repeated every 2 weeks, whereas XELOX and XELIRI were repeated every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred or until a patient chose to discontinue treatment. Results: The median age was 58 years (range, 19-84 years) and the median chemotherapy duration for FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, XELOX and XELIRI were 4.9, 4.5, 5.7 and 5.4 months, respectively. Combination chemotherapy regimens were generally well tolerated. The estimated median PFS for all patients was 6.8 months (95% confidence interval, 6.3-7.3 months). No statistically significant difference in PFS was found each regimen used as first-line chemotherapy. Sixty-percent (n=290) of patients received second or further lines of therapy after failure. Conclusions: Fluoropyrimidine-based combination chemotherapy regimens appear to be equally active and tolerable as first-line therapy for ACC. No significant financial relationships to disclose.


2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 534-534 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Chan ◽  
Eva Segelov ◽  
Jeremy David Shapiro ◽  
Timothy Jay Price ◽  
Christos Stelios Karapetis ◽  
...  

534 Background: Biologic therapies used in treatment of mCRC are expensive and there is debate about their value. We examined the impact of biologic therapy on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and grade 3/4 toxicity for patients beyond first-line treatment. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane libraries were searched for randomized studies in relapsed mCRC comparing treatment containing targeted therapy to the same treatment without targeted therapy. Biologic agents were classed as: EGFR-inhibitors (EGFR-I), VEGF antibody/trap and VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Only KRAS wild-type patients were included for EGFR-I analysis. Results were aggregated according to standard meta-analytic techniques. Results: 10 studies evaluating 5,847 patients were identified. Considering subgroups and lines, OS and PFS benefit was demonstrated in all groups across all lines except for OS in 2nd line EGFR-I use (which may be due to subsequent crossover). A benefit to ORR was seen with EGFR-I 2nd line (Pooled ORR benefit +24%, Odds Ratio (OR) 4.44, 95% CI 3.20-6.18), EGFR-I 3rd line and beyond (Pooled ORR benefit +16%), VEGF antibody/trap (Pooled ORR benefit +7.2%, OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.57-2.54) and VEGFR TKI (Pooled ORR benefit +1.9%, OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.27-3.30). The risk of grade 3/4 toxicity was greater with the addition of all targeted agents. Conclusions: The use of VEGF and EGFR targeted biologic agents beyond first-line setting in mCRC results in a benefit to OS, PFS and ORR for all agents except for OS benefit with second-line EGFR-I. This benefit comes at the cost of increased toxicity. [Table: see text]


2015 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 156-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Filippo Pietrantonio ◽  
Chiara Cremolini ◽  
Fausto Petrelli ◽  
Maria Di Bartolomeo ◽  
Fotios Loupakis ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document