scholarly journals Treatment sequences of patients with advanced colorectal cancer and use of second-line FOLFIRI with antiangiogenic drugs in Japan: A retrospective observational study using an administrative database

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. e0246160
Author(s):  
Eiji Shinozaki ◽  
Akitaka Makiyama ◽  
Yoshinori Kagawa ◽  
Hironaga Satake ◽  
Yoshinori Tanizawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Drug Treatment ◽  
Antitumor Drug ◽  
Administrative Database ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Antiangiogenic Drugs ◽  
Antiangiogenic Drug

The objectives were to describe treatment sequences for advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), use of second-line FOLFIRI (leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan) plus antiangiogenic drug (bevacizumab, ramucirumab, aflibercept beta) therapy, and the factors associated with the duration of antitumor drug treatment from second-line antiangiogenic therapy in Japan. This retrospective observational study was conducted using a Japanese hospital-based administrative database. Patients were enrolled if they started adjuvant therapy (and presumably experienced early recurrence) or first-line treatment for advanced CRC between May 2016 and July 2019, and were analysed until September 2019. Factors associated with overall treatment duration from second-line treatment with FOLFIRI plus antiangiogenic drugs were explored with multivariate Cox regression analysis. The most common first-line treatments were FOLFOX (leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (capecitabine, oxaliplatin) with bevacizumab (presumed RAS-mutant CRC) and FOLFOX with panitumumab (presumed RAS-wild type CRC). The most common second-line treatments were FOLFIRI-based. Many patients did not transition to subsequent lines of therapy. For second-line treatment, antiangiogenic drugs were prescribed more often for patients with presumed RAS-mutant CRC, right-sided CRC, and independent activities of daily living (ADL). The median duration of second-line FOLFIRI plus antiangiogenic drug treatment was 4.5 months; 66.2% of patients transitioned to third-line therapy. Low body mass index and not fully independent ADL were significantly associated with shorter overall duration of antitumor drug treatment from second-line therapy. Left-sided CRC, presumed RAS-wild type CRC, previous use of oral fluoropyrimidines and use of proteinuria qualitative tests, antihypertensives, or anticholinergics during second-line therapy were significantly associated with longer treatment. Treatment of advanced CRC in Japan is consistent with both international and Japanese guidelines, but transition rates to subsequent therapies need improvement. In addition to antitumor drug treatment, better ADL, higher body mass index, management of hypertension, and proteinuria tests were associated with continuation of sequential therapy that included antiangiogenic drugs.

Continued cetuximab in second-line treatment for patients with unresectable metastatic wild-type KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF colorectal cancer after disease progression during first-line cetuximab-based therapy.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 127-127
Author(s):  
Ying Liu ◽  
Feng Wang ◽  
Ning Ma ◽  
Shuning Xu ◽  
Lei Qiao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Second Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Ecog Ps ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

127 Background: Cetuximab plus chemotherapy is a first-line treatment option for metastatic RAS wild type colorectal cancer patients. Currently, no data are available on continuing cetuximab or changing bevacizumab as second-line therapy beyond first-line cetuximab-based chemotherapy. Methods: Patients (aged ≥18 years) with metastatic, histologically and genetically confirmed wild-type KRAS, NRAS and BRAF colorectal cancer progressing after first-line cetuximab plus chemotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to second-line chemotherapy with cetuximab (arm A) or with bevacizumab (arm B) 2·5 mg/kg per week equivalently. The choice between oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based second-line chemotherapy depended on the first-line regimen (switch of chemotherapy). The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). The second endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: 77 Patients (from July 1, 2016 to Sept 20, 2019, 77) were randomized (41 in arm A and 36 in arm B). ORR was 29.3% and 19.4% in Arm A and Arm B ( p= 0.31). PFS was 7.2 months (95% CI 5.2–9.2) for Arm A and 5.9 months (95% CI 5.1–6.7) for Arm B ( p= 0.677). OS was 18.5 months (95% CI 15.1–21.8) for Arm A and 17.5 months (95% CI 15.4–19·7) for Arm B ( p= 0.444). Patients with ECOG PS 0 had significantly longer PFS and OS than ECOG PS 1 in second-line therapy whether cetuximab or bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy. ECOG 0 group vs ECOG 1 group, PFS was 8.7 months vs 4.6 months (p = 0.00) and OS was 21.2 months vs 12.3 months (p = 0.00). Moreover, ETS may predict efficacy of second-line continued cetuximab. The most frequently grade 3–4 adverse events in both arms were neutropenia (19.4% VS 16.7%), diarrhea (7.5% vs 11.1%), and nausea(10% vs 13.9%). Conclusions: Continuing cetuximab or changing bevacizumab plus standard second-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic wild-type KRAS, NRAS and BRAF colorectal cancer after first-line cetuximab plus chemotherapy have similar clinical benefits. ECOG score is an independent predictor of prognosis and second-line treatment efficacy for colorectal cancer.

scholarly journals An exploratory comparative analysis of tyrosine kinase inhibitors or docetaxel in second-line treatment of EGFR wild-type non-small-cell lung cancer: a retrospective real-world practice review at a single tertiary care centre

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 157 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Ma ◽  
V. Cohen ◽  
G. Kasymjanova ◽  
D. Small ◽  
K. Novac ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Small Cell ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Practice Review ◽  
Third Line

BackgroundTreatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc), especially in patients with wild-type EGFR, remains limited. Recently, erlotinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (tki) targeting EGFR mutation, was approved as second-line treatment in EGFR wild-type nsclc. Despite evidence of better overall survival (os) with chemotherapy than with tki in second-line treatment, data on the use of tki in the real-life clinical setting remain limited. The present practice review of tki use for second- and third-line treatment in EGFR wild-type nsclc also compares clinical outcomes for tki and single-agent docetaxel as second-line treatment.MethodsOur retrospective cohort study included patients with EGFR wild-type nsclc treated at the Jewish General Hospital (Montreal, QC) between 2003 and 2013. Patients received a tki (erlotinib or gefitinib) in the second and third line or docetaxel in the second line. For each group, we determined os, disease control rate, progression-free survival (pfs), and event-free survival (efs).Results The tki group included 145 patients, with 92 receiving second-line treatment. In the control group, 53 patients received docetaxel as second-line therapy. In the tki group, os was 6.0 months; pfs, 2.7 months; and efs, 3.0 months. Comparing second-line treatments, os was 5.3 and 5.0 months respectively (p = 0.88), pfs was 2.5 and 1.8 months respectively (p = 0.041), and efs was 3.0 and 1.7 months respectively (p = 0.009).ConclusionsIn our study cohort, second-line therapy for EGFR wild-type nsclc with tki (compared with docetaxel) was associated with statistically better pfs and efs and noninferior os. Those findings raise the question of whether efs should also be considered when choosing second-line treatment in this patient population.

Efficacy and Toxicity of Addition of Bevacizumab to Chemotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 718-724 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wen-Cong Ruan ◽  
Yue-Ping Che ◽  
Li Ding ◽  
Hai-Feng Li
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Clinical Prognosis ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Pre-treated patients with first-line treatment can be offered a second treatment with the aim of improving their poor clinical prognosis. The therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who did not respond to first-line therapy has limited treatment options. Recently, many studies have paid much attention to the efficacy of bevacizumab as an adjuvant treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy compared with bevacizumab-naive based chemotherapy as second-line treatment in people with metastatic CRC. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for eligible studies updated to March 2018. Randomized-controlled trials comparing addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy without bevacizumab in MCRC patients were included, of which, the main interesting results were the efficacy and safety profiles of the addition of bevacizumab in patients with MCRC as second-line therapy. Result: Five trials were eligible in the meta-analysis. Patients who received the combined bevacizumab and chemotherapy treatment in MCRC as second-line therapy showed a longer overall survival (OS) (OR=0.80,95%CI=0.72-0.89, P<0.0001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (OR=0.69,95%CI=0.61-0.77, P<0.00001). In addition, there was no significant difference in objective response rate (ORR) (RR=1.36,95%CI=0.82-2.24, P=0.23) or severe adverse event (SAE) (RR=1.02,95%CI=0.88-1.19, P=0.78) between bevacizumab-based chemotherapy and bevacizumabnaive based chemotherapy. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the addition of bevacizumab to the chemotherapy therapy could be an efficient and safe treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer as second-line therapy and without increasing the risk of an adverse event.

scholarly journals Modified FOLFIRINOX as a second-line therapy following gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel therapy in metastatic pancreatic cancer

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masashi Sawada ◽  
Akiyoshi Kasuga ◽  
Takafumi Mie ◽  
Takaaki Furukawa ◽  
Takanobu Taniguchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Prognostic Model ◽  
Prognostic Score ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Background There is no established second-line treatment after failure of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) therapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) as a second-line therapy for MPC and investigate prognostic factors for survival. Methods From 2015–2019, we retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients receiving mFFX for MPC after failure of GnP therapy. Patients were treated every 2 weeks with mFFX (intravenous oxaliplatin 85 mg/m 2 , intravenous irinotecan 150 mg/m 2 , and continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil 2,400 mg/m 2 for 46 hours without bolus infusion) until disease progression, patient refusal, or unacceptable toxicity. Results In total, 104 patients received mFFX. The median overall survival (OS) was 7.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.2-9.8) and the progression-free survival (PFS) 3.9 months (95% CI 2.8-5.0). The objective response rate was 10.6% and the disease control rate 56.7%. The median relative dose intensities of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and infusional 5-FU were 80.0% (range 21.5-100%), 77.2% (range 38.1-100%), and 85.9% (range 36.9-100%), respectively. Grade 3-4 toxicities were reported in 57 patients (54.8%), including neutropenia, leukopenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia, and peripheral sensory neuropathy. Glasgow prognostic score and carcinoembryonic antigen level were independently associated with survival. Our prognostic model using these parameters could classify the patients into good (n = 38), intermediate (n = 47), and poor (n = 19) prognostic groups. The median OS and PFS time was 14.7 (95% CI 7.6-16.3) and 7.6 months (95% CI 4.1-10.5) for the good prognostic factors, 6.5 (95% CI 5.5-10.0) and 3.6 months (95% CI 2.7-4.8) for the intermediate prognostic factors and 5.0 (95% CI 2.9-6.6) and 1.7 months (95% CI 0.9-4.3) for the poor prognostic factors, respectively. Conclusions The mFFX showed to be a tolerable second-line treatment for MPC after GnP failure. Our prognostic model might be useful for deciding whether mFFX is indicated in this setting.

Characteristics, treatment patterns, and economic burden of patients with metastatic cervical cancer receiving systemic anticancer therapy.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 51-51
Author(s):  
Xiaoyun Pan ◽  
Lincy S. Lal ◽  
John White ◽  
Seyed Hamidreza Mahmoudpour ◽  
Christian Valencia
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Economic Burden ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Line Therapy

51 Background: In 2021, 14,480 patients are estimated to be diagnosed with cervical cancer in the US; 16% of patients are expected to have metastatic disease for whom the 5-year survival rate is 17.6% per SEER estimates. Patients with metastatic cervical cancer (mCC) are treated mainly with systemic therapy. This study aims to describe the clinical characteristics, demographics, treatment patterns, and economic burden of patients with mCC receiving systemic therapy. Methods: Eligible women had been diagnosed with cervical cancer, as evidenced by >2 outpatient or >1 inpatient claim in the Optum Research Database from January 2014 through January 2020. Patients were included if they had metastasis within 6 months before or after cervical cancer diagnosis, with evidence of systemic treatment on or after the latter of a claim date for cervical cancer disease or metastatic disease. The index date was the first-line treatment initiation date. Patients were required to have ≥6 months of pre-index continuous enrollment. The top 3 treatment regimens and median treatment duration by line of therapy were described. All-cause per-patient-per-month (PPPM) costs (2019 US dollars), including plan and patient paid amounts, were reported for full follow-up period from first-line and second-line therapy initiation. Results: The study sample consisted of 778 patients (mean age, 59 years; commercial, 58%; Medicare Advantage, 42%). The mean (median) follow-up period was 14 (9) months. Top baseline comorbidities were diseases of the urinary system (71%) and diseases of the female genital organs (70%), and the median Charlson comorbidity index was 7. In the first line, 80% of patients received platinum-based therapy and 23% received bevacizumab (bev). Of 778 patients, only 294 (38%) received second-line therapy, with 34% receiving bev. Top first-line treatment regimens were carboplatin + paclitaxel (27%), cisplatin (21%), and bev + carboplatin + paclitaxel (10%); the median (95% CI) duration of treatment was 3.4 (3.1-3.7) months. Top second-line treatment regimens were bev + carboplatin + paclitaxel (13%), carboplatin + paclitaxel (11%), and pembrolizumab (6%); the median duration of treatment was 3.8 (3.1-4.2) months. Mean all-cause total PPPM costs were $19,519 from first-line and $22,660 second-line therapy initiation (table). Conclusions: This study indicates that real-world mCC patients have short treatment durations and significant economic burden with first-line and second-line therapy. Novel therapies associated with greater clinical benefits in patients with mCC may provide economic benefit.[Table: see text]

Intravenous vinorelbine as first-line and second-line therapy in advanced breast cancer.

1995 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 2722-2730 ◽  
Author(s):  
B L Weber ◽  
C Vogel ◽  
S Jones ◽  
H Harvey ◽  
L Hutchins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Advanced Breast Cancer ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Advanced Breast ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

PURPOSE We evaluated single-agent intravenous (IV) vinorelbine as first- and second-line treatment for advanced breast cancer (ABC) in patients who were not resistant to anthracyclines. Objective tumor response (TR) and toxicity were assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 107 women were enrolled onto this multicenter, nonrandomized, open-label phase II study. Patients were stratified into first- and second-line treatment groups, based on prior treatment history. Vinorelbine was initially given at 30 mg/m2/wk, with dose modification for toxicity as indicated. Therapy was continued until disease progression or severe toxicity mandated withdrawal or until the patient asked to be removed from the study. RESULTS The objective response rate for all patients was 34% (95% confidence interval [CI], 25% to 44%): 35% (95% CI, 23% to 48%) for first-line patients and 32% (95% CI, 20% to 47%) for second-line patients. Nine first-line and three second-line patients obtained a complete response (CR). The median duration of objective response was 34 weeks in both groups. The overall survival durations of first- and second-line patients were 67 weeks and 62 weeks, respectively. Granulocytopenia was the predominant dose-limiting toxicity. Two patients died on study as a result of granulocytopenic sepsis. CONCLUSION Single-agent vinorelbine is an effective and well-tolerated agent for first- and second-line therapy of ABC. The results of this study confirm the findings of similar international trials and suggest vinorelbine should be considered a valid treatment option for patients with ABC and a potential component in future combination regimens for this disease.

A phase Ib/II study of second-line therapy with panitumumab, irinotecan, and everolimus (PIE) in metastatic colorectal cancer with KRAS wild type (WT).

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS162-TPS162 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. R. Townsend ◽  
L. Pirc ◽  
J. Hardingham ◽  
C. S. Karapetis ◽  
N. C. Tebbutt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Ib ◽  
Line Therapy

Modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab beyond first progression in advanced colorectal cancer: CCOG-0801 study.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 641-641
Author(s):  
Kiyoshi Ishigure ◽  
Goro Nakayama ◽  
Keisuke Uehara ◽  
Hiroyuki Yokoyama ◽  
Akiharu Ishiyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Bleeding Event ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
To Receive

641 Background: Bevacizumab provides survival benefit as the first-line and second-line therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). A large observational study suggested use of bevacizumab beyond first progression (BBP) improved survival. This prompted us to conduct a multicenter phase II study of mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizimab in mCRC to further explore the strategy of BBP in Japanese patients. Methods: Previously untreated patients with assessable disease were treated with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab until tumor progression, followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. The primary endpoint of the study was the second progression-free survival (2nd PFS), defined as duration from enrollment until progression after the second-line therapy. If the patient failed to receive the second-line treatment due to medical reasons or refusal, the PFS during the first-line therapy was used for analysis. Secondary endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), disease control rate (DCR) and safety. Results: In the first-line therapy, 47 patients treated with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab achieved RR of 61.7%, DCR of 89.4% and median PFS of 11.7 months. Thirty patients went on to receive the second-line therapy with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab and achieved RR of 27.6%, DCR of 62.1%, and median PFS of 6.0 months. Median 2nd PFS was 16.2 months. Median survival time did not reach the median follow-up time of 27.4 months. Severe adverse events associated with bevacizumab during the first-line therapy were a venous thromboembolic event in one case (2%), a grade 2 bleeding event in one case (2%) and GI perforation in one case (2%). However, no critical events associated with bevacizumab were reported during the second-line therapy. Conclusions: The planned continuation of bevacizumab during the second line treatment is feasible in Japanese mCRC patients. A prospective randomized control study to confirm the efficacy has to be conducted in the future.

Primary tumor location and efficacy of second-line therapy after initial treatment with FOLFIRI in combination with cetuximab or bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer- FIRE-3 (AIOKRK0306).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3525-3525 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominik Paul Modest ◽  
Sebastian Stintzing ◽  
Ludwig Fischer von Weikersthal ◽  
Thomas Decker ◽  
Alexander Kiani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Primary Tumor ◽  
Treatment Duration ◽  
Tumor Location ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Primary Tumor Location ◽  
Line Therapy

3525 Background: FIRE3 compared 1st-line therapy with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab (arm A) or bevacizumab (arm B) in 592 patients (pts) with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Second-line therapies appeared more successful in arm A compared to arm B. The impact of primary tumor location on this observation is unclear. Methods: Pts. were stratified for primary tumor site (left- vs. right-sided). Duration of 2nd-line therapy was calculated as time from first to last application. Progression-free survival (PFS2nd) and overall survival (OS2nd) of second-line therapy) were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log rank test as well as Cox regression. All analyses were performed in the RAS wild-type population of the trial and reported according to drug sequences. Results: 272 of 400 pts. (68%) received 2nd-line therapy, of those 206 (109 in arm A, 97 in arm B) pts. presented left-sided, whereas 66 (26 in arm A, 40 in arm B) pts. presented right-sided primaries. PFS2nd was markedly longer in pts. with left-sided as compared to right-sided primary tumors (6.0 (95% CI: 5.5-6.7) vs. 3.4 (95% CI: 3.0-5.8) months, hazard ratio (HR): 0.64 (95% CI: 0.47-0.87), P = 0.005). Differences in PFS2nd between study-arms were evident in pts. with left-sided primaries (arm A: 7.3 (95% CI: 6.4-7.7) vs. arm B: 5.3 (95% CI: 4.3-5.9) months, HR: 0.61 (95% CI: 0.44-0.84), P = 0.002), but not in pts. with right-sided primaries (arm A: 4.0 (95% CI: 3.0-6.3) vs. arm B: 3.3 (95% CI: 2.6-5.8) months, HR: 1.09 (95% CI: 0.62-1.90). Consistent observations were also made for treatment duration and OS2nd. Conclusions: This retrospective analysis indicates that treatment duration and efficacy of second-line therapy are associated with primary tumor location. Efficacy of second-line therapy was significantly greater in pts. with left-sided tumors as compared to right sided tumors. This difference was driven by superior activity of second-line regimens of arm A compared to arm B in left-sided tumors. Our observations confirm the strong prognostic value of primary tumor location in mCRC across treatment lines. Clinical trial information: NCT00433927.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document