scholarly journals Efficacy of second-line chemotherapy after a first-line triplet in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Bazarbashi ◽  
A. M. Hakoun ◽  
A. M. Gad ◽  
M. A. Elshenawy ◽  
A. Aljubran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Chemotherapeutic Agents ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Second Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

Background Exposing patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mcrc) to all three active chemotherapeutic agents (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluorouracil) has improved survival. The benefit of second-line chemotherapy after a first-line triplet is not clearly defined. We evaluated the efficacy of second-line chemotherapy in patients who had received first-line triplet therapy.Methods The medical records of patients treated on a prospective trial of first-line triplet therapy were reviewed for second-line treatment. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to establish factors of prognostic significance.Results Of the 53 patients who received first-line triplet therapy, 28 (53%) received second-line chemotherapy [13 men; 8 with a colon primary; mutant KRAS in 10, wild-type in 15, and unknown status in 3; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ps) of 1 in 16 patients, ps 2 in 3, ps 3 in 2, and unknown in 7; involved organs: liver in 17 patients, lung in 16, and peritoneum in 8]. Second-line chemotherapy consisted of xelox or folfox in 13 patients, xeliri or folfiri in 12, and single-agent irinotecan in 3. Concurrent bevacizumab was given in 16 patients (57%), and cetuximab, in 2 (7%). Median survival was 28.0 months [95% confidence interval (ci): 22.8 months to 33.2 months] for patients receiving second-line therapy and 23.0 months (95% ci: 13.2 months to 32.8 months) for those not receiving it. Best response was partial in 6 patients (21%), stable disease in 11 (39%), and progressive disease in 11 (39%). Median progression-free survival was 4.8 months (95% ci: 2.4 months to 9.6 months), and overall survival was 15 months (95% ci: 9.6 months to 20.4 months).Conclusions Second-line chemotherapy after first-line triplet therapy in mcrc is feasible and suggests efficacy comparable to that reported for second-line therapy after a doublet, regardless of the agent used.by research evidence.

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.

Outcome of metastatic colorectal cancer patients receiving second line chemotherapy in Marmara University Hospital

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 14588-14588
Author(s):  
F. Dane ◽  
M. Gumus ◽  
A. Ozturk ◽  
F. Yumuk ◽  
S. Iyikesici ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Second Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

14588 Background: With the development of oxaliplatin and irinotecan, multiple effective regimens are now available in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), both as first- and second-line treatment options. Exposure to all of the active drugs is effective in prolonging overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP). There are limited studies, if any, analyzing the outcome of second line chemotherapy in metastatic CRC in Turkey. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the outcome of second-line treatments in metastatic CRC patients. Methods: Among 173 patients with metastatic CRC who were given first line chemotherapy 106 (47 female, 59 male) were administered second line treatment after progression. All patients histologically confirmed colorectal adenocarcinoma with ECOG performance score of 2 or lower, and received second line therapy for metastatic CRC after experienced disease progression during or following treatment with first-line therapy were entered the study. The patients were evaluated clinically and radiologically after each three-cycle period, and chemotherapy was changed or stopped if the cancer has progressed. Age, gender, grade, chemotherapy type (combination vs single agent), lymphatic, vascular, and perineural invasion, were analyzed as prognostic factors. Results: At a median follow up of 10 (range 1–40) months from the start of second line chemotherapy median TTP and OS time were 5 and 16 months respectively. Median age was 62 years (range 27–89). After second line therapy 16% of the patient had objective response rate (0.9% complete responses plus 15.1% partial responses), 37.7% had stable disease resulting in a tumor control rate of 53.7%, and 46.2% had progressive disease. One-year progression free survival and OS rates were 15 % and 53.5%, respectively. No difference was seen in the survival of patients received combination or single agent second line chemotherapy (p=0.14). Overall, over 12% of the patients suffered from grade 3 or 4 adverse effects. In multivariate analysis histological grade (p=0.015) was the only independent prognostic factor for survival. Conclusion: The survival outcome and adverse effects of second line treatments in Turkish patients in our department with metastatic CRC is consistent with the worlds’ literature. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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.

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.

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.

Treatment outcomes with first and second line chemotherapy in advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer patients

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 14107-14107
Author(s):  
A. Mancuso ◽  
P. Saletti ◽  
S. Sacchetta ◽  
E. Romagnani ◽  
F. Cavalli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Stable Disease ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Second Line Chemotherapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Clinical Records ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

14107 Background: Recent advances in the treatment of pancreatic cancer might influence the management of locally advanced and metastatic disease, nonetheless prognosis remains dismal (1-year survival rates: 24%). The impact on survival of palliative second-line therapy is hotly debated. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical records of 103 pancreatic cancer patients admitted to San Camillo/Forlanini Hospital (Rome, Italy) and the Oncology Institute of Southern Switzerland during the period June, 1997 to August, 2005 [60 males, 43 females, median age 65 years (range 43–80); median ECOG performance status (PS): 1]. All patients received Gemcitabine as single agent (90%) or in combination with Oxaliplatin (10%) as upfront therapy. A total of 12 fluoropyrimidine-based salvage regimens were administered to 46 patients in the second line setting. Best supportive care was selected in 57 patients after failing first line therapy. Results: Of 103 evaluable patients, first line chemotherapy produced overall tumor growth control of partial response (PR) and stable disease(SD) by RECIST criteria of 52.4% with a median progression free survival (PFS) of 4.6 months. Multivariate analysis revealed that the most important prognostic factor for PFS was the patient’s PS, as patients with PS of 1–2 at diagnosis had significantly worse results than patients with PS = 0 (First line PFS: 110 days vs 193 days, p<0.05). Baseline CA19–9 and number of metastatic sites were not independent prognostic factors for better first-line PFS. PR was observed in 8/46 patients (17.3%) who received second line chemotherapy, SD in 10 (21.7%), and 28 patients progressed (61%). Median overall second line PFS was 3.2 months. Patients who had responded to first-line Gemcitabine were more likely to respond or attain stable disease with second-line treatment, with a PFS of 5.6 vs 2.85 months (p<0.05). The overall survival for all evaluable patients was 8.4 months. 1-year survival was 52% for patients treated with second line therapy. Conclusions: These results are consistent with historical studies and suggest that fluoropyrimidine-based salvage regimens have marginal but definite activity and should be considered in patients who have responded to first line chemotherapy with an optimal PS. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document