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 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.

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.

scholarly journals Optimal Sequence and Second-Line Systemic Treatment of Patients with RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (21) ◽  
pp. 5166
Author(s):  
Chih-Chien Wu ◽  
Chao-Wen Hsu ◽  
Meng-Che Hsieh ◽  
Jui-Ho Wang ◽  
Min-Chi Chang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Optimal Sequence ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

Although several sequential therapy options are available for treating patients with RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the optimal sequence of these therapies is not well established. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies were performed, resulting from a search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases. Overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly in patients with RAS-WT failure who were administered a second-line regimen of changed chemotherapy (CT) plus anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) versus only changed CT, changed CT plus bevacizumab versus changed CT plus anti-EGFR, or changed CT versus maintaining CT plus anti-EGFR after first-line therapy with CT, plus bevacizumab. However, OS was significantly different with a second-line regimen that included changed CT plus bevacizumab, versus only changing CT. Analysis of first-line therapy with CT plus anti-EGFR for treatment of RAS-WT mCRC indicated that second-line therapy of changed CT plus an anti-EGFR agent resulted in better outcomes than changing CT without targeted agents. The pooled data study demonstrated that the optimal choice of second-line treatment for improved OS was an altered CT regimen with retention of bevacizumab after first-line bevacizumab failure. The best sequence for first-to-second-line therapy of patients with RAS-WT mCRC was cetuximab-based therapy, followed by a bevacizumab-based regimen.

A multinational, randomized, phase III trial of XELIRI with or without bevacizumab versus FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab as second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: Safety analysis of Asian XELIRI project (AXEPT).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 681-681
Author(s):  
Masato Nakamura ◽  
Tae Won Kim ◽  
Rui-hua Xu ◽  
Young Suk Park ◽  
Yong Sang Hong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Safety Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

681 Background: Several studies have shown that capecitabine plus irinotecan (XELIRI) has promising efficacy and safety in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. AXEPT is a non-inferiority, phase III comparison of XELIRI with or without bevacizumab vs 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus irinotecan (FOLFIRI) with or without bevacizumab as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods: We undertook an open-label, non-inferiority, randomized phase III trial in South Korea, China and Japan. Patients were randomized 1:1 to XELIRI (irinotecan 200 mg/m2 on day 1 plus capecitabine 800 mg/m2 twice daily for 2 weeks in a 3-week cycle) with or without bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Results: From December 2013 to August 2015, 650 patients were enrolled and 625 (311 in FOLFIRI and 314 in XELIRI) were included to safety analysis at the cutoff dates on August 31, 2016. Patient baseline characteristics including KRAS status and UGT1A1 gene polymorphism were similar between the two treatment arms. Prior chemotherapy with oxaliplatin was given to 97.4% in both arms. The overall incidence of grade 3-4 toxicity was 73% in FOLFIRI arm and 53.2% in XELIRI arm. Whereas FOLFIRI was associated with more grade 3-4 neutropenia (43.7% vs 16.2%), leucopenia (13.5% vs 7.3%) and all grades anemia (80.4% vs 69.4%) than XELIRI, XELIRI was associated with more all grades hand-foot syndrome (34.1% vs 14.8%) and grade 3-4 diarrhea (7.0% vs 3.2%). There was no significant difference in febrile neutropenia (4.2% in FOLFIRI and 2.9% in XELIRI). The addition of bevacizumab did not alter safety profiles between XELIRI and FOLFIRI. There was a treatment-related death in FOLFIRI arm (0.3%). Conclusions: Both FOLFIRI and XELIRI were safe and well tolerated, though there were differences in the rates and toxicity profiles at which adverse events occur. Clinical trial information: NCT01996306. UMIN000012263.

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.

Impact of Subsequent Therapies on Outcome of the FIRE-3/AIO KRK0306 Trial: First-Line Therapy With FOLFIRI Plus Cetuximab or Bevacizumab in Patients With KRAS Wild-Type Tumors in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (32) ◽  
pp. 3718-3726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominik P. Modest ◽  
Sebastian Stintzing ◽  
Ludwig Fischer von Weikersthal ◽  
Thomas Decker ◽  
Alexander Kiani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Subsequent Treatment ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
The Impact

Purpose We investigated choice and efficacy of subsequent treatment, with special focus on second-line therapy, in the FIRE-3 trial (FOLFIRI plus cetuximab [arm A] or bevacizumab [arm B]) for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients and Methods Start of subsequent-line (second or third) therapy was defined as use of an antitumor drug that was not part of the previous regimen. We evaluated choice, duration, and efficacy of subsequent therapy and determined the impact of subsequent-line treatment on outcome of patients in FIRE-3. Results Of 592 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 414 (69.9%) received second-line and 256 (43.2%) received third-line therapy. In subsequent treatment lines, 47.1% of patients originally assigned to arm A received bevacizumab, and 52.2% originally assigned to arm B received either cetuximab or panitumumab. Oxaliplatin was subsequently used in 55.9% (arm A) and 53.2% (arm B) of patients. Second-line therapy was administered for a median duration of 5.0 versus 3.2 months (P < .001) in study arm A versus B. Progression-free (6.5 v 4.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.85; P < .001) and overall survival (16.3 v 13.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.88; P = .0021) from start of second-line therapy were longer in patients in arm A compared with arm B. Conclusion Our data suggest that the sequence of drug application might be more important than exposure to single agents. In patients with RAS wild-type tumors, first-line application of anti–epidermal growth factor receptor–directed therapy may represent a favorable condition for promoting effective subsequent therapy including antiangiogenic agents.

First-line bolus IFL and second-line FOLFOX: A retrospective review of two hundred thirty patients

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 13555-13555
Author(s):  
D. Heng ◽  
H. Kennecke ◽  
S. Gill ◽  
C. Kollmannsberger ◽  
C. Lohrisch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Median Survival ◽  
Retrospective Review ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Cancer Data ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Grade 3

13555 Introduction: The IFL regimen (irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil bolus and leucovorin) is active in metastatic colorectal cancer. Early treatment-related deaths in N9741 led to the utilization of a dose-reduced schema. An infusional regimen (FOLFIRI) replaced IFL because of superior tolerability. FOLFOX can be used as second-line therapy in patients treated previously with IFL. Methods: A retrospective review was performed at the British Columbia Cancer Agency to evaluate both the safety and outcome of all patients given IFL as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Data on second-line FOLFOX was also collected. Between March 31/2002 and April 1/2004, 230 patients were treated. Results: The mean number of IFL cycles delivered was 4.6 (18 doses) for a mean duration of 7.1 months. Toxicity was manageable with only 1 treatment-related death. 17% of patients had grade 3/4 toxicities that included neutropenia and diarrhea. Only 6% of patients required hospitalization during IFL treatment. The median survival of the entire group was 16.6 months (95% CI 14.3–18.6). One hundred twelve patients received second-line therapy. Forty-nine of these patients (44%) received infusional oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX 6) as second-line therapy. 27% had grade 3/4 toxicities and 10% required hospitalization. The median survival of these patients was 25.2 months (95% CI 20.1–30.3). Conclusion: This population-based study demonstrated that bolus IFL played a significant role in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer and had a manageable toxicity profile. Lastly, the sequence of IFL followed by FOLFOX resulted in a very meaningful patient survival of over 25 months. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document