XELIRI-bevacizumab versus FOLFIRI-bevacizumab as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group phase III trial with collateral biomarker analysis

QUATTRO-II randomized trial: CAPOXIRI+bevacizumab vs. FOLFOXIRI+bevacizumab as first-line treatment in patients with mCRC

BACKGROUND

The QUATTRO-II trial examined the efficacy and safety of capecitabine+oxaliplatin+irinotecan (CAPOXIRI)+bevacizumab (BEV) vs. 5-fluorouracil+folinic acid+oxaliplatin+irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI)+BEV in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

METHODS

In this phase II study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04097444; jRCTs041190072), patients were randomized (1:1) to FOLFOXIRI+BEV or CAPOXIRI+BEV. The induction treatment in the FOLFOXIRI+BEV/CAPOXIRI+BEV arms was continued for 8/6 cycles (maximum 12/8 cycles if feasible), and the maintenance treatment was 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin+BEV or capecitabine+BEV at the investigators' discretion. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), with the two arms deemed equivalent if the hazard ratio (HR) of the point estimate was 0.80 < HR < 1.25. Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), incidence of adverse events (AEs), and patient-reported outcomes.

FINDINGS

Overall, 51 and 52 patients were randomized to FOLFOXIRI+BEV and CAPOXIRI+BEV, respectively. The study met its primary endpoint; PFS at median follow-up of 23.7 months was 10.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.7-13.3) in the FOLFOXIRI+BEV arm vs. 10.9 months (95% CI, 9.3-14.3) in the CAPOXIRI+BEV arm (HR 1.114 [0.80 < HR < 1.25], p = 0.654). In the FOLFOXIRI+BEV vs. CAPOXIRI+BEV arms, the 2-year OS rate (95% CI) was 65.5% (49.5%-77.6%) vs. 74.3% (59.8%-84.2%), and the ORR (95% CI) was 76.5% (62.5%-87.2%) vs. 84.6% (71.9%-93.1%). Major (grade ≥3) AEs in the FOLFOXIRI+BEV vs. CAPOXIRI+BEV arms were neutropenia (68.6% vs. 40.4%), febrile neutropenia (9.8% vs. 11.5%), diarrhea (7.8% vs. 17.3%), and appetite loss (7.8% vs. 17.3%).

CONCLUSION

CAPOXIRI+BEV was well tolerated with reduced hematological toxicity and efficacy comparable to those of FOLFOXIRI+BEV, providing a potentially convenient first-line treatment alternative to FOLFOXIRI+BEV in patients with mCRC.

FUNDING

Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Overall survival with non-proportional hazards in first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Systematic review and network meta-analysis

This study aimed to identify the most effective first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer based on overall survival, identify the most commonly used treatment, and generate a meaningful ranking among all available treatments based on their relative effectiveness. Researchers used the ANOVA parametrization method to fit the second-order fractional polynomial network meta-analysis with a random-effect model. Using a non-proportional hazards network meta-analysis, 46 treatments were compared by considering a combination of direct and indirect evidence extracted from clinical trial studies. Included in the review were 46 trials involving 21350 patients. Between January 2000 and January 2023, researchers conducted a thorough search through Embase, PubMed/Medline, and Scopus. To undertake a secondary analysis of this data, we recreate individual patient data from published Kaplan-Meier (K-M) survival curves and assess the accuracy of that reconstruction. A random-effects model was used to evaluate the pooled overall survival and hazard ratio with a 95 percent confidence interval. The predicted survival curves for the network meta-analysis showed that GOLFIG and FOLFOX + Cetuximab treatments have higher survival, respectively. Our results provide moderate quality evidence and comparative effective estimates for various available first-line treatments for metastasis colorectal cancer based on network meta-analysis.

Safety of first-line systemic therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety of first-line systemic therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer through network meta-analysis.

METHODS

The literature from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was searched from the inception of the databases to August 15, 2023, and strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to screen studies. The Cochrane Bias Risk Assessment Tool (RoB 2.0) was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature. Network meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 15.0 and R4.3.1 software to compare the incidence of adverse events (AEs) among different treatment regimens.

RESULTS

A total of 53 randomized controlled trials, involving 17,351 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), were ultimately included, encompassing 29 different therapeutic approaches. According to SUCRA rankings, the CAPOX regimen is most likely to rank first in terms of safety, while the FOLFOXIRI + panitumumab regimen is most likely to rank last. In terms of specific AEs, the CAPOX regimen, whether used alone or in combination with targeted drugs (bevacizumab and cetuximab), is associated with a reduced risk of neutropenia and febrile neutropenia, as well as an increased risk of thrombocytopenia and diarrhea. The FOLFOX regimen, with or without bevacizumab, is linked to an increased risk of neutropenia and peripheral sensory neuropathy. The FOLFIRI/CAPIRI + bevacizumab regimen is associated with a reduced risk of peripheral sensory neuropathy. S-1 and S-1 + oxaliplatin are well-tolerated in terms of gastrointestinal reactions. The FOLFOXIRI regimen, whether used alone or in combination with targeted drugs, is associated with various AEs.

CONCLUSION

In summary, the CAPOX regimen may be the safest option among the first-line systemic treatment regimens for mCRC patients, while the FOLFOXIRI + panitumumab regimen may be associated with a higher incidence of grade 3 or higher AEs.

A phase I/II study of nintedanib and capecitabine for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Nintedanib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with efficacy in bevacizumab-resistant colorectal cancer models. This phase I/II study evaluated the recommended phase II dose and efficacy of nintedanib and capecitabine in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Key eligibility criteria included refractory metastatic colorectal cancer and ECOG performance status of 1 or lower. The primary endpoint was 18-week progression-free survival (PFS). A 1-sided binomial test (at α = .1) compared the observed 18-week PFS with a historic control of .25.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients were enrolled, including 39 at the recommended phase II dose. The recommended phase II dose was established to be nintedanib 200 mg by mouth twice daily and capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 by mouth twice daily. The protocol was evaluated for efficacy in 36 patients. The 18-week PFS was 42% (15/36 patients; P = .0209). Median PFS was 3.4 mo. Median overall survival was 8.9 mo. Sixteen (44%) patients experienced a grade 3/4 adverse event, most commonly fatigue (8%), palmoplantar erythrodysesthesia (8%), aspartate aminotransferase elevation (6%), asthenia (6%), pulmonary embolus (6%), and dehydration (6%). Osteopontin levels at cycle 1, day 1 and cycle 3, day 1 as well as ΔCCL2 levels correlated to disease control at 18 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of nintedanib and capecitabine is well tolerated. Clinical efficacy appears to be superior to regorafenib or tipiracil hydrochloride monotherapy. Further investigation of similar combinations is warranted.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT02393755.

Prognostic Effect of Performance Status on Outcomes of Patients with Colorectal Cancer Receiving First-Line Chemotherapy: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Performance status (PS) is a variable derived from the assessment of a patient's functional status, originally proposed to predict drug toxicity. However, despite its characteristic of being subjective and unidimensional, it has become one of the most important prognostic variables for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In light of the considerable progressive prolongation of median overall survival (OS) of patients with mCRC, it is unclear whether PS continues to be a valid prognostic factor. This article aims to perform a meta-analysis to verify the current prognostic role of PS.

METHODS

A search on two databases of prospective trials of first-line chemotherapy in mCRC patients, published in English from 1991 to 2020, was done by predefined criteria. After the selection of phase III trials evaluating the prognostic role of PS, a meta-analysis has been performed.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials were included in the meta-analysis. They reported a reduction in the risk of death with a PS 0 compared to a PS 1 or more (HR 0.63, CI 0.54-0.72; 13 studies), which was confirmed for the comparison between PS 0 and PS 1. However, the study found significant heterogeneity (Q = 68.10; p-value < 0.001) and high-grade inconsistency (I2 = 82.38%). Therefore, to explore the reasons for the heterogeneity, a univariate meta-regression was performed, which suggested a possible moderating activity for liver metastases and timing of metastasis.

CONCLUSIONS

PS is a reliable prognostic factor for patients with mCRC receiving first-line chemotherapy but is poorly evaluated in phase III trials.

Treatment response assessment to chemotherapy with bevacizumab for colorectal liver metastasis by contrast-enhanced ultrasound

Background

Though contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) perfusion parameters have been approved to be potential indicators for response to chemotherapy in solid tumors, their ability in assessment of colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) to chemotherapy with bevacizumab (Bev) has rarely been investigated.

Methods

From March 2021 to May 2022, 115 consecutive CRLM patients with CEUS pre- and post-2 months' chemotherapy with Bev were prospectively enrolled. One target lesion per patient underwent CEUS quantitative analysis with SonoLiver software. Rise time, time-to-peak, mean transit time, maximal intensity (IMAX), and area under the time-intensity curve (AUC) were assessed with region of interest (ROI) selected on whole lesion, lesion periphery, and internal lesion, respectively. The reduction and ratio of post- to pre-treatment in parameters were investigated in development cohort (n=89) and validated in internal validation cohort (n=26) according to the chronological order.

Results

With modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor as reference, 48, 14 responders and 41, 12 non-responders were included in development and validation cohort, respectively. Significantly smaller values of IMAX and AUC on ROIwhole, ROIperipheral, and ROIinternal, were observed post-treatment in development cohort (all P<0.05). In predicting treatment response, the influence of ROI selection was observed when using ∆IMAX and ∆AUC, while no influence was observed using ratios. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCs) for ∆IMAX and ∆AUC on ROIperipheral were 0.939 (0.867-0.979), 0.951 (0.883-0.985), and 0.917 (0.740-0.988), 0.923 (0.748-0.990) in development and validation cohort, respectively. For ratios of IMAX and AUC, AUROCs were 0.976 (0.919-0.997), 0.938 (0.865-0.978), and 0.899 (0.717-0.982), 0.982 (0.836-1.000) in development and validation cohort, respectively.

Conclusions

IMAX and AUC showed significant reductions in responders, and different analyses ROIs influence the performance of ∆IMAX and ∆AUC in response assessment. Parameters derived from ROI peripheral exhibited the most promising results in predicting treatment response.

Effectiveness and safety of capecitabine, irinotecan and panitumumab in advanced colorectal cancer

Introduction

Capecitabine, irinotecan, and panitumumab (CAPIRI-P) is a controversial regimen for metastatic colorectal cancer, with concerns regarding the efficacy and toxicity. However, its toxicity profile has been improved with dose reduction, and concerns regarding efficacy have been extrapolated from other trials. This retrospective study reports the real-world effectiveness and safety of modified CAPIRI-P (mCAPIRI-P).

Material and methods

Advanced colorectal cancer patients receiving mCAPIPI-P in the first-line setting between July 2019 and December 2021 were analyzed. The progression-free survival on treatment (PFSOT) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the association with clinical and disease factors was analyzed using the Cox regression model. Serial changes in carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level and treatment toxicity were also evaluated.

Results

A total of 106 patients were included, of whom 97 (92%) and 31 (29%) had left-sided primary and unresectable liver-only disease, respectively. The median PFSOT and OS were 15.4 (95% CI 12.5-18.3) and 25.5 (95% CI 17.6-33.4) months, respectively. Sixteen (51.6%) and 10 (32.3%) liver-only disease patients underwent secondary liver treatment and R0 resection, respectively. In multivariable Cox regression, CEA responders (PFSOT: HR 0.53) and CEA normalization (PFSOT: HR 0.27; OS: HR 0.28) were independent favorable prognostic factors for PFSOT and OS. Grade ≥3 toxicity rate was 43%, mainly related to uncomplicated hematological toxicities.

Conclusion

The real-world data show that mCAPIRI-P is safe and effective as the first-line treatment regimen for RAS wild-type advanced colorectal cancer and warrants further study.

Efficacy and Safety of Systemic Treatments Among Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Systemic treatments, namely, either monotherapy or combination therapy, are commonly administered to patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to provide the complete efficacy and safety profiles and ranking of systemic therapies for the treatment of unresectable advanced or metastatic CRC.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception until June 30, 2021, and also the bibliographies of relevant studies. Randomized controlled trials comparing two or more treatments, namely, at least capecitabine, 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, bevacizumab, cetuximab, oxaliplatin, or panitumumab were investigated. A network meta-analysis using the Bayesian approach was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of treatments. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated for the probability of each treatment as the most effective. The overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs) grade ≥3, and serious adverse events (SAEs) were evaluated.

RESULTS

One hundred two publications with 36,147 participants were assigned to 39 different treatments. Among 11 treatments with full information on six outcomes, FOLFIRI/FOLFOX/FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab significantly improved both the ORR and DCR, compared to FOLFIRI. Although FOLFOX and FOLFIRI/FOLFOX + cetuximab significantly prolonged both OS and PFS, treatments were comparable in terms of AEs grade ≥3 and SAEs. The top highest SUCRA values were observed in the FOLFOXIRI + panitumumab group for ORR (96%) and DCR (99%), FOLFIRI + bevacizumab + panitumumab group for OS (62%) and PFS (54%), and FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab group for AEs grade ≥3 (59%) and SAEs (59%) outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest an available range of systemic treatment therapies with different efficacy and safety profiles with patients. Further investigations of the side effects and mutation status are required to confirm our findings.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42019127772.

Network Meta-analysis of First-Line Systemic Treatment for Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Purpose

To assess the relative efficacy and safety of first-line systemic therapies in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Experimental Design

A comprehensive literature review was conducted including MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials for phase II or III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to and including July 15, 2019. We included RCTs in which at least 1 intervention was either chemotherapeutic agents (such as fluorouracil, irinotecan, or oxaliplatin) or antibodies targeting angiogenesis (such as bevacizumab) or agents that act on the epidermal growth factor receptor pathway (such as cetuximab and panitumumab) or studies reported at least one of the following outcomes: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and/or Grade 3 + adverse events (AEs). Using a random effect model, we performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to analyze the probability of optimal therapeutic regime obtained from direct comparisons with indirect evidences. We estimated hazard ratios for OS and PFS.

Results

A total of 30 RCTs comprising 12,146 mCRC patients with 25 different treatment strategies were included. The triple combination FOLFOXIRI [fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan] plus bevacizumab provided significant survival benefits with improved OS over all other treatments. The network meta-analysis also indicated a significant advantage of using FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab in comparison to other treatment strategies for PFS. Besides, FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab was associated with the well-tolerated adverse events.

Conclusions

Our study supported the use of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as the best first-line regimen and potentially effective and safe strategy for the management of patients with mCRC.

Prognostic and predictive significance of osteopontin in malignant neoplasms

Osteopontin is an extracellular matrix protein which is produced by different types of cells and plays an important functional role in many biological processes. This review discusses the main functions of osteopontin, its role in the progression and chemoresistance of malignant neoplasms, in the regulation of epithelial-mesenchymal transition, angiogenesis, and the body’s immune response to the tumor. The article considers the currently known mechanisms by which osteopontin affects to the survival, mobility and invasion of tumor cells, to tumor sensitivity to drug treatment, as well as the prospects for a integrated study of the predictive significance of osteopontin, markers of hypoxia, angiogenesis, epithelial- mesenchymal transition, and immunological tolerance.

Management of colorectal cancer in the era of COVID-19: Challenges and suggestions

The Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic had a huge impact on all sectors around the world. In particular, the healthcare system has been subject to an enormous pressure that has surpassed its ability in many instances. Additionally, the pandemic has called for a review of our daily medical practices, including our approach to colorectal cancer management where treatment puts patients at high risk of virus exposure. Given their higher median age, patients are at an increased risk for severe symptoms and complications in cases of infection, especially in the setting of immunosuppression. Therefore, a review of the routine colorectal cancer practices is needed to minimize risk of exposure. Oncologists should weigh risk of exposure versus the patient's oncologic benefits when approaching management. In addition, treatment protocols should be modified to minimize hospital visits and admissions while maintaining the same treatment efficacy. In this review, we will focus on challenges that colorectal cancer patients face during the pandemic, while highlighting the priority in each case. We will also discuss the evidence for potential modifications to existing treatment plans that could reduce infectious exposure without compromising care. Finally, we will discuss the impact of the socio-economic difficulties faced by Lebanese patients due to a poor economy toppled by an unexpected pandemic.

Optimum patient selection for irinotecan-containing regimens in metastatic colorectal cancer: Literature review and lessons from clinical practice

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) accounts for over 20% of CRC cases and is associated with a poor prognosis. Irinotecan is an important first- and second-line chemotherapy option for mCRC. In this review, we summarize the clinical efficacy and safety of irinotecan-based regimens for the treatment of mCRC and discuss various tumor- and patient-related factors that affect the clinical response, survival, and toxicity associated with these regimens. Uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase (UGT) gene polymorphisms such as UGT1A1*28/*6, age, performance status, serum lactate dehydrogenase levels, and bilirubin levels could be important considerations for predicting outcomes and tolerability with irinotecan-based regimens. The role of tumor location; chemotherapy backbone; and emerging evidence on the presence of microsatellite instability-high status, consensus molecular subtype 4 tumors, and signet-ring morphology in predicting response to irinotecan-based therapy have also been highlighted. Careful consideration of these factors will help guide clinicians in optimizing the selection of mCRC patients for irinotecan-based treatment.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of selective first-line use of biologics for unresectable RAS wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer

Background

Evidence from a retrospective analysis of multiple large phase iii trials suggested that primary tumour location (ptl) in RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (wtRAS mcrc) might have predictive value with respect to response to drug therapies. Recent studies also show a potential preferential benefit for epidermal growth factor inhibitors (egfris) for left-sided tumours. In the present study, we aimed to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (icer) for the first-line use of an egfri for patients with left-sided wtRAS mcrc.

Methods

We developed a state-transition model to determine the cost effectiveness of alternative treatment strategies in patients with left-sided mcrc:■ Standard of care■ Use of an egfri in first-line therapyThe cohort for the study consisted of patients diagnosed with unresectable wtRAS mcrc with an indication for chemotherapy and previously documented ptl. Model parameters were obtained from the published literature and calibration. The perspective was that of a provincial ministry of health in Canada. We used a 5-year time horizon and an annual discount rate of 1.5%.

Results

Selecting patients for first-line egfri treatment based on left-sided location of their colorectal primary tumour was more effective than the standard of care, resulting in an increase in quality-adjusted life-years (qalys) of 0.226 (or 0.644 life-years gained). However, the strategy was also more expensive, costing an average of $60,639 more per patient treated. The resulting icer was $268,094 per qaly. A 35% price reduction in the cost of egfri would be needed to make this strategy cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold (wtp) of $100,000 per qaly.

Conclusions

Selective use of an egfri based on ptl was more cost-effective than unselected use of those agents; however, based on traditional wtp thresholds, it was still not cost-effective. While awaiting the elucidation of more precise predictive biomarkers that might improve cost-effectiveness, the price of egfris could be reduced to meet the wtp threshold.

Multicenter phase II study of biweekly CAPIRI plus bevacizumab as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (JSWOG-C3 study)

Background

Triweekly capecitabine plus irinotecan (CAPIRI) was not a replacement for fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) because of the potential for greater toxicity. Recently, it has reported that mCAPIRI is well tolerated and non-inferior to FOLFIRI. In this study, we conducted a multicenter phase II trial to assess the efficacy and safety of biweekly CAPIRI plus bevacizumab as second-line chemotherapy for mCRC with reduced toxicity and preserved efficacy.

Methods

Patients with mCRC who had received prior chemotherapy, including oxaliplatin-based regimens, were eligible for this study. The treatment protocol administered capecitabine at 1000 mg/m² twice daily from the evening of day 1 to the morning of day 8, intravenous irinotecan at 150 mg/m² on day 1, and bevacizumab at 10 mg/kg on day 1 every 2 weeks. Primary endpoints for this study were progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure, response rate (RR), and disease control rate (DCR).

Results

Fifty-one patients were enrolled in this study. Median PFS was 5.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.23–7.40 months], and median OS was 13.5 months (95% CI 11.57–20.23 months). The RR was 14.6% (95% CI 6.5–28.4%), and the DCR was 66.7% (95% CI 51.5–79.2%). Hypertension was the most common Grade 3 adverse event (27.5%), followed by neutropenia (17.6%). Only two patients suffered from grade 3 hand–foot syndrome.

Conclusions

In mCRC patients, biweekly CAPIRI + bevacizumab appears effective and feasible as a second-line chemotherapy with relatively low toxicities, and has potential as a useful substitute for FOLFIRI + bevacizumab.

Systemic treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer in the era of precision medicine

The treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer has evolved over the last two decades with the FDA approval of several cytotoxic, biological, and targeted agents. In this paper, we review the impact of sidedness, RAS, BRAF, HER-2, and other immune biomarkers on metastatic colorectal cancer treatment selection and sequencing in both the palliative and curative intent settings.

Capecitabine Versus Continuous Infusion Fluorouracil for the Treatment of Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: a Meta-analysis

OPINION STATEMENT

Nowadays, systemic chemotherapy with intravenous (IV) 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) remains the most commonly prescribed treatment for metastatic colorectal cancers (CRC), in combination with other cytotoxic drugs. 5-FU can be administered through a bolus injection or continuous infusion (cIV), with the latter becoming the preferred administration method and standard of care in recent years. Oral fluoropyrimidines were developed to overcome challenges associated with the IV administration of 5-FU, among which capecitabine has become the most widely used one. However, although capecitabine and other oral fluoropyrimidine-based regimens are more convenient to administer, their efficacy and safety in comparison with IV 5-FU are not well understood. Results from recent randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and meta-analyses have been inconsistent. Safety, in particular, remains controversial. Our review, a first comprehensive meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of cIV 5-FU with capecitabine, the two most widely used fluorouracil modalities in CRC, showed that cIV 5-FU-based regimens are associated with greater response rates compared with capecitabine-based regimens, with no difference in progression-free survival, time to treatment failure, overall survival, or disease-free survival between the two. Furthermore, cIV 5-FU-based regimens showed an improved safety profile compared with capecitabine-based regimens. Our findings suggest that cIV 5-FU remains a more effective and safer modality of fluorouracil administration than capecitabine, thus providing supporting evidence to guide clinical practice in the management of colorectal cancer.

Reporting of patient characteristics and stratification factors in phase 3 trials investigating first-line systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient characteristics and stratification factors are important factors influencing trial outcomes. Uniform reporting on these parameters would facilitate cross-study comparisons and extrapolation of trial results to clinical practice. In 2007, standardisation on patient characteristics reporting and stratification in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) trials was proposed. We investigated the reporting of prognostic factors and implementation of this proposal in mCRC trials published from 2005 to 2016.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase (January 2005 - June 2016) for first-line phase 3 mCRC trials. Patient characteristics reporting and use of stratification factors were extracted and analysed for adherence to the proposal from 2007.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven trials (35,315 patients) were identified, reporting 48 different patient characteristics (median: 9 [range: 5-18] per study). Age, gender, performance status (PS), primary tumour site and adjuvant chemotherapy were frequently reported (87%-100%), in contrast to laboratory values, such as alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase and white blood cell count (10%-25%). We identified 29 different stratification factors (median: 3 [range: 1-9] per study). The most common strata were PS and treatment centre (>60%). A median of 8/12 (range: 4-11) of the proposed parameters was reported. Although the percentage of studies reporting each factor slightly increased over time, there was no significant correlation between publication year and adherence to the proposal from 2007.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed persistent heterogeneity in the reporting of patient characteristics and use of stratification factors in first-line mCRC trials. The proposal from 2007 has not led to increased uniformity of patient characteristics reporting and use of stratification over time. There is an urgent need to address this issue to improve the interpretation of trial results.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab (review of technology appraisal no. 176) and panitumumab (partial review of technology appraisal no. 240) for previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the UK after breast, lung and prostate cancer. People with metastatic disease who are sufficiently fit are usually treated with active chemotherapy as first- or second-line therapy. Targeted agents are available, including the antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents cetuximab (Erbitux^®, Merck Serono UK Ltd, Feltham, UK) and panitumumab (Vecitibix^®, Amgen UK Ltd, Cambridge, UK).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy and cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy for rat sarcoma (RAS) wild-type (WT) patients for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

DATA SOURCES

The assessment included a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, a review and critique of manufacturer submissions, and a de novo cohort-based economic analysis. For the assessment of effectiveness, a literature search was conducted up to 27 April 2015 in a range of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library.

REVIEW METHODS

Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews of RCTs of cetuximab or panitumumab in participants with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS WT status. All steps in the review were performed by one reviewer and checked independently by a second. Narrative synthesis and network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted for outcomes of interest. An economic model was developed focusing on first-line treatment and using a 30-year time horizon to capture costs and benefits. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Scenario analyses and probabilistic and univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The searches identified 2811 titles and abstracts, of which five clinical trials were included. Additional data from these trials were provided by the manufacturers. No data were available for panitumumab plus irinotecan-based chemotherapy (folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + irinotecan) (FOLFIRI) in previously untreated patients. Studies reported results for RAS WT subgroups. First-line treatment with anti-EGFR therapies in combination with chemotherapy appeared to have statistically significant benefits for patients who are RAS WT. For the independent economic evaluation, the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for RAS WT patients for cetuximab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + oxaliplatin) (FOLFOX) compared with FOLFOX was £104,205 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained; for panitumumab plus FOLFOX compared with FOLFOX was £204,103 per QALY gained; and for cetuximab plus FOLFIRI compared with FOLFIRI was £122,554 per QALY gained. The ICERs were sensitive to treatment duration, progression-free survival, overall survival (resected patients only) and resection rates.

LIMITATIONS

The trials included RAS WT populations only as subgroups. No evidence was available for panitumumab plus FOLFIRI. Two networks were used for the NMA and model, based on the different chemotherapies (FOLFOX and FOLFIRI), as insufficient evidence was available to the assessment group to connect these networks.

CONCLUSIONS

Although cetuximab and panitumumab in combination with chemotherapy appear to be clinically beneficial for RAS WT patients compared with chemotherapy alone, they are likely to represent poor value for money when judged by cost-effectiveness criteria currently used in the UK. It would be useful to conduct a RCT in patients with RAS WT.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015016111.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Modified XELIRI (capecitabine plus irinotecan) versus FOLFIRI (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan), both either with or without bevacizumab, as second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (AXEPT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Studies of a modified XELIRI (mXELIRI; capecitabine plus irinotecan) regimen suggest promising efficacy and tolerability profiles in the first-line and second-line settings. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the mXELIRI regimen with that of standard FOLFIRI (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan), with or without bevacizumab in both regimens, as a second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. We enrolled patients from 98 hospitals in Japan, China, and South Korea who were aged 20 years or older with histologically confirmed and unresectable colorectal adenocarcinoma, and who had withdrawn from first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to receive either mXELIRI with or without bevacizumab (irinotecan 200 mg/m² intravenously on day 1 plus oral capecitabine 800 mg/m² twice daily on days 1-14, repeated every 21 days, with or without bevacizumab 7·5 mg/kg intravenously on day 1) or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab (irinotecan 180 mg/m² intravenously on day 1, leucovorin 200 mg/m² intravenously on day 1, fluorouracil 400 mg/m² intravenously on day 1, and a 46-h continuous intravenous infusion of fluorouracil [2400 mg/m²], repeated every 14 days, with or without the addition of bevacizumab 5 mg/kg intravenously on day 1) via a centralised electronic system. We used the minimisation method to stratify randomisation by country, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, number of metastatic sites, previous oxaliplatin treatment, and concomitant bevacizumab treatment. Patients and clinicians were not masked to the allocated treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival analysed on an intention-to-treat basis with a non-inferiority upper margin of 1·30 for the hazard ratio (HR). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01996306, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 2, 2013, and Aug 13, 2015, 650 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive mXELIRI with or without bevacizumab (n=326) or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab (n=324). After a median follow-up of 15·8 months (IQR 8·7-24·9), a total of 490 patients had died (242 in the mXELIRI with or without bevacizumab group and 248 in the FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab group) and the median overall survival was 16·8 months (95% CI 15·3-19·1) in the mXELIRI group and 15·4 months (13·0-17·7) in the FOLFIRI group (HR 0·85, 95% CI 0·71-1·02; p_{non-inferiority}<0·0001). In the per-protocol safety population, the most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia (affecting 52 [17%] of 310 patients in the mXELIRI group and 133 [43%] of 310 in the FOLFIRI group). Incidences of grade 3-4 diarrhoea were higher in the mXELIRI group (22 [7%]) than in the FOLFIRI group (ten [3%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 46 (15%) of 310 patients in the mXELIRI group and 63 (20%) of 310 in the FOLFIRI group. Two treatment-related deaths (one pneumonitis and one lung infection) were observed in the mXELIRI group and there was one treatment-related death (lung infection) in the FOLFIRI group.

INTERPRETATION

mXELIRI with or without bevacizumab is well tolerated and non-inferior to FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab in terms of overall survival. mXELIRI could be an alternative to FOLFIRI as a standard second-line backbone treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer, at least for Asian patient populations.

FUNDING

Chugai Pharmaceutical and F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Oral fluoropyrimidine versus intravenous 5-fluorouracil for the treatment of advanced gastric and colorectal cancer: Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

5-Fluorouracil (5-Fu) is one of the most commonly prescribed antineoplastic agents against gastric and colorectal cancers. Continuous infusion would be the optimal way of its administration, however, may usually cause thrombosis, infection, and prolonged hospital stay. Oral fluoropyrimidines would be an attractive alternative, but their efficiency and toxicities for the treatment of gastric and colorectal cancer are still obscure as compared with infusion 5-Fu.

METHODS

Literature retrieval, trials selection and assessment, data collection, and statistic analysis were performed according to the Cochrane Handbook. The outcome measures were tumor response rate, progression-free survival, overall survival, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials, comprising totally 15 154 patients, were included. Meta-analysis showed similar overall outcome in terms of response rate (1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-1.12), progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.00; 95%CI, 0.94-1.06), and overall survival (hazard ratio 0.96; 95%CI, 0.92-1.01) between oral fluoropyrimidine-based and intravenous 5-Fu-based regimens in gastric and colorectal cancer patients. The risk of grade 3/4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and stomatitis was more prominent in intravenous 5-Fu-based regimens; while more frequent grade 3/4 hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea, and anorexia were detected in oral fluoropyrimidine-based regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral-fluoropyrimidines showed equivalent response and similar survival outcomes, but different toxicity profiles, as compared with intravenous 5-Fu. Thus, it would be a more convenient and adjustable alternative in treatment of advanced gastric and colorectal cancer.

Combination adjuvant chemotherapy with targeted drugs for treatment of colorectal cancer: A network meta-analysis

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most fatal diseases in the world. The efficacy of present chemotherapy treatments are limited and the addition of targeted drugs have been put into practice. However, the preferred treatments among adjuvant chemotherapies still remain controversial and uncertain. To evaluate the efficacy of different adjuvant chemotherapies combined with or without targeted drugs to determine the optimal treatment for patients with CRC in clinical practice. PubMed and Embase were searched for eligible articles and only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. R (Version 3.2.5) software was utilized to conduct the Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA). Outcomes including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were displayed using hazard ratios. And the rank probabilities of each treatment were evaluated using the surface under cumulative ranking curve. A total of 75 RCTs published after 1997 were included in the data analysis. Overall, FOLFIRI+ cetuximab was found to be the most effective treatment in terms of long-term survival and FOLFOX was the most effective pure chemotherapy treatment. The addition of targeted drugs will greatly improve the efficacy of chemotherapy. Targeted drug cetuximab combined with the chemotherapy regiment FOLFIRI is the preferable treatment for patients with CRC in clinical practice.

Oral versus intravenous fluoropyrimidines for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients prefer oral to intravenous (IV) palliative chemotherapy, provided that oral therapy is not less effective. We compared the efficacy and safety of oral and IV fluoropyrimidines for treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of oral and IV fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in patients treated with curative or palliative intent for CRC.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5), along with OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and Web of Science databases, in June 2016. We also searched five clinical trials registers, several conference proceedings, and reference lists from study reports and systematic reviews. We contacted pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral and IV fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in patients treated with curative or palliative intent for CRC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently. We assessed the seven domains in the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool and three additional domains: schedules of outcome assessment and/or follow-up; use of intention-to-treat analysis; and baseline comparability of treatment arms.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs (total of 10,918 participants) that examined treatment with curative intent for CRC with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy. We included 35 RCTs (total of 12,592 participants) that examined treatment with palliative intent for inoperable advanced or metastatic CRC with chemotherapy (31 first-line studies, two second-line studies, and two studies of first- or second-line chemotherapy). All studies included male and female participants, and no studies included participants younger than 18 years of age. Patients treated with curative intent for CRC with neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant chemotherapy • Disease-free survival (DFS): DFS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.00; seven studies, 8903 participants; moderate-quality evidence).• Overall survival (OS): OS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.00; seven studies, 8902 participants analysed; high-quality evidence).• Grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs): Participants treated with oral fluoropyrimidines experienced less grade ≥ 3 neutropenia/granulocytopenia (odds ratio (OR) 0.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.16; seven studies, 8087 participants; moderate-quality evidence), stomatitis (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.30; five studies, 4212 participants; low-quality evidence), and any grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90; five studies, 7741 participants; low-quality evidence). There was more grade ≥ 3 hand foot syndrome (OR 4.59, 95% CI 2.97 to 7.10; five studies, 5731 participants; low-quality evidence) in patients treated with oral fluoropyrimidines. There were no differences between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines in occurrence of grade ≥ 3 diarrhoea (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.25; nine studies, 9551 participants; very low-quality evidence), febrile neutropenia (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.90; four studies, 2925 participants; low-quality evidence), vomiting (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.34; eight studies, 9385 participants; low-quality evidence), nausea (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.51; seven studies, 9233 participants; low-quality evidence), mucositis (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.62; four studies, 2233 participants; very low-quality evidence), and hyperbilirubinaemia (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.52 to 5.38; three studies, 2757 participants; very low-quality evidence). Patients treated with palliative intent for inoperable advanced or metastatic CRC with chemotherapy • Progression-free survival (PFS): Overall, PFS was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11; 23 studies, 9927 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Whilst PFS was worse in participants treated with oral compared with IV fluoropyrimidines when UFT/Ftorafur or eniluracil with oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was used, PFS did not differ between individuals treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines when capecitabine, doxifluridine, or S-1 was used.• OS: Overall, OS did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.05; 29 studies, 12,079 participants; high-quality evidence). OS was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines when eniluracil with oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was used.• Time to progression (TTP): TTP was inferior in participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14; six studies, 1970 participants; moderate-quality evidence).• Objective response rate (ORR): ORR did not differ between participants treated with oral versus IV fluoropyrimidines (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.06; 32 studies, 11,115 participants; moderate-quality evidence).• Grade ≥ 3 AEs: Participants treated with oral fluoropyrimidines experienced less grade ≥ 3 neutropenia/granulocytopenia (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.18; 29 studies, 11,794 participants; low-quality evidence), febrile neutropenia (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.36; 19 studies, 9407 participants; moderate-quality evidence), stomatitis (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.33; 21 studies, 8718 participants; low-quality evidence), mucositis (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.24; 12 studies, 4962 participants; low-quality evidence), and any grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94; 14 studies, 5436 participants; low-quality evidence). There was more grade ≥ 3 diarrhoea (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.50 to 1.84; 30 studies, 11,997 participants; low-quality evidence) and hand foot syndrome (OR 3.92, 95% CI 2.84 to 5.43; 18 studies, 6481 participants; moderate-quality evidence) in the oral fluoropyrimidine arm. There were no differences between oral and IV fluoropyrimidine arms in terms of grade ≥ 3 vomiting (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.40; 23 studies, 9528 participants; low-quality evidence), nausea (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.36; 25 studies, 9796 participants; low-quality evidence), and hyperbilirubinaemia (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.64; nine studies, 2699 participants; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Results of this review should provide confidence that treatment for CRC with most of the oral fluoropyrimidines commonly used in current clinical practice is similarly efficacious to treatment with IV fluoropyrimidines. Treatment with eniluracil with oral 5-FU was associated with inferior PFS and OS among participants treated with palliative intent for CRC, and eniluracil is no longer being developed. Oral and IV fluoropyrimidines have different patterns of side effects; future research may focus on determining the basis for these differences.

A Complete Response Case in a Patient with Multiple Lung Metastases of Rectal Cancer Treated with Bevacizumab plus XELIRI Therapy

It has been reported that many patients with lung metastasis of colorectal cancer (CRC) underwent chemotherapy with fluorouracil, folinic acid, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, or capecitabine. There is a small number of reports about the capecitabine and irinotecan (XELIRI) plus bevacizumab (BV) therapy for patients with metastatic CRC in Japan. We report a case of successful BV+XELIRI therapy for rectal cancer with multiple lung metastases as first-line chemotherapy. A 53-year-old female presented with advanced rectal cancer and metastatic lung tumors. Following surgery, the patient was treated with XELIRI+BV. After 6 courses, a computed tomography scan showed complete response of the lung metastases. No recurrence has occurred for 3 years after chemotherapy was stopped.

Study protocol of the Asian XELIRI ProjecT (AXEPT): a multinational, randomized, non-inferiority, phase III trial of second-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, comparing the efficacy and safety of XELIRI with or without bevacizumab versus FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab

BACKGROUND

Capecitabine and irinotecan combination therapy (XELIRI) has been examined at various dose levels to treat metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Recently, in the Association of Medical Oncology of the German Cancer Society (AIO) 0604 trial, tri-weekly XELIRI plus bevacizumab, with reduced doses of irinotecan (200 mg/m2 on day 1) and capecitabine (1600 mg/m2 on days 1-14), repeated every 3 weeks, has shown favorable tolerability and efficacy which were comparable to those of capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) plus bevacizumab. The doses of capecitabine and irinotecan in the AIO trial are considered optimal. In a phase I/II study, XELIRI plus bevacizumab (BIX) as second-line chemotherapy was well tolerated and had promising efficacy in Japanese patients.

METHODS

The Asian XELIRI ProjecT (AXEPT) is an East Asian collaborative, open-labelled, randomized, phase III clinical trial which was designed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of XELIRI with or without bevacizumab versus standard FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan combination) with or without bevacizumab as second-line chemotherapy for patients with mCRC. Patients with 20 years of age or older, histologically confirmed mCRC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and disease progression or intolerance of the first-line regimen will be eligible. Patients will be randomized (1:1) to receive standard FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab (5 mg/kg on day 1), repeated every 2 weeks (FOLIRI arm) or XELIRI with or without bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg on day 1), repeated every 3 weeks (XELIRI arm). A total of 464 events were estimated as necessary to show non-inferiority with a power of 80% at a one-sided α of 0.025, requiring a target sample size of 600 patients. The 95% confidence interval (CI) upper limit of the hazard ratio was pre-specified as less than 1.3.

CONCLUSION

The Asian XELIRI ProjecT is a multinational phase III trial being conducted to provide evidence for XELIRI with or without bevacizumab as a second-line treatment option of mCRC. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01996306. UMIN000012263.

Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy compared to chemotherapy alone in previously untreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of neoplasm-related death in the United States. Several studies analyzed the efficacy of bevacizumab combined with different chemotherapy regimens consisting on drugs such as 5-FU, capecitabine, irinotecan and oxaliplatin. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab versus chemotherapy alone in patients with previously untreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

METHODS

Several databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL. The primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival. Data extracted from the studies were combined by using hazard ratio (HR) or risk ratio (RR) with their corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI).

RESULTS

The final analysis included 9 trials comprising 3,914 patients. Patients who received the combined treatment (chemotherapy + bevacizumab) had higher response rates (RR = 0.89; 95 % CI: 0.82 to 0.96; p = 0.003) with heterogeneity, higher progression-free survival (HR = 0.69; 95 % CI: 0.63 to 0.75; p < 0.00001) and also higher overall survival rates (HR = 0.87; 95 % CI: 0.80 to 0.95; p = 0.002) with moderate heterogeneity. Regarding adverse events and severe toxicities (grade ≥ 3), the group receiving the combined therapy had higher rates of hypertension (RR = 3.56 95 % CI: 2.58 to 4.92; p < 0.00001), proteinuria (RR = 1.89; 95 % CI: 1.26 to 2.84; p = 0.002), gastrointestinal perforation (RR = 3.63; 95 % CI: 1.31 to 10.09; p = 0.01), any thromboembolic events (RR = 1.44; 95 % CI: 1.20 to 1.73; p = 0.0001), and bleeding (RR = 1.81; 95 % CI: 1.22 to 2.67; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

The combination of chemotherapy with bevacizumab increased the response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival of patients with mCRC without prior chemotherapy. The results of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were comparatively higher in those subgroups of patients receiving bolus 5-FU or capecitabine-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, when compared to patients treated with infusional %-FU plus bevacizumab (no difference in PFS and OS). Regarding the type of cytotoxic scheme, regimens containing irinotecan and fluoropyrimidine monotherapy showed superior efficacy results when combined to bevacizumab.

Osteopontin splice variants are differential predictors of breast cancer treatment responses

Background

Osteopontin is a marker for breast cancer progression, which in previous studies has also been associated with resistance to certain anti-cancer therapies. It is not known which splice variants may mediate treatment resistance.

Methods

Here we analyze the association of osteopontin variant expression before treatment, differentiated according to immunohistochemistry with antibodies to exon 4 and to the osteopontin-c splice junction respectively, with the ensuing therapy responses in 119 Polish breast cancer patients who presented between 1995 and 2008.

Results

We found from Cox hazard models, logrank test and Wilcoxon test that osteopontin exon 4 was associated with a favorable response to tamoxifen, but a poor response to chemotherapy with CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil). Osteopontin-c is prognostic, but falls short of being a significant predictor for sensitivity to treatment.

Conclusions

The addition of osteopontin splice variant immunohistochemistry to standard pathology work-ups has the potential to aid decision making in breast cancer treatment.

Capecitabine in the routine first-line treatment of elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer--results from a non-interventional observation study

Background

The purpose of this observational study was to evaluate feasibility, efficacy results and toxicity observations of capecitabine in routine first line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, with particular regard of elderly patients (>75 years of age).

Methods

Patients with colorectal cancer receiving capecitabine as part of their first-line treatment were recorded until detection of disease progression or up to a maximum of 12 cycles on standardized evaluation forms. Additional information on long-term outcomes, progression-free survival, and overall survival were retrieved at two follow-up time points. Obtained data were analyzed with regard to age up to 75 and >75 years of age. There were no specific requirements for patient selection and conduct of therapy, corresponding to the non-interventional nature of the study.

Results

In total, 1249 evaluable patients were enrolled in Germany. The median age of the study population was 74 years (range: 21–99). Capecitabine-based combination was administered in 56 % of patients in the overall population. The median treatment duration was about 5 months. Severe toxicities occurred rarely without any difference regarding age groups. The most common hematological toxicity was anemia. Gastrointestinal side effects and hand-food-syndrome (HFS) were the most frequent non-hematologic toxicities. Overall response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in the patient group <=75 years compared to patients >75 years of age (38 vs. 32 %, p=0.019). Median progression free survival (PFS 9.7 vs. 8.2 months, p=0.00021) and overall survival (OS 31.0 vs. 22.6 months, p<0.0001) was decreased in elderly patients.

Conclusion

Efficacy and tolerability of capecitabine treatment either as single drug or in various combination regimens, as proven in randomized studies, could be confirmed in a clinical routine setting. Patients older than 75 years may derive a relevant benefit by first line capecitabine-based treatment with good tolerability.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-016-2113-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effectiveness and safety of monoclonal antibodies for metastatic colorectal cancer treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of chemotherapy (CT) for select cases of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) has been well established in the literature, however, it provides limited benefits and in many cases constitutes a treatment with high toxicity. The use of specific molecular biological treatments with monoclonal antibodies (MA) has been shown to be relevant, particularly for its potential for increasing the response rate of the host to the tumour, as these have molecular targets present in the cancerous cells and their microenvironment thereby blocking their development. The combination of MA and CT can bring a significant increase in the rate of resectability of metastases, the progression-free survival (PFS), and the global survival (GS) in MCRC patients.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and safety of MA in the treatment of MCRC.

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out with a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comparing the use of cetuximab, bevacizumab, and panitumumab in the treatment of MCRC.

RESULTS

Sixteen randomised clinical trials were selected. The quality of the evidence on the question was considered moderate and data from eight randomised clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis. The GS and PFS were greater in the groups which received the MA associated with CT, however, the differences were not statistically significant between the groups (mean of 17.7 months versus 17.1 months; mean difference of 1.09 (CI: 0.10-2.07); p = 0.84; and 7.4 versus 6.9 months. mean difference of 0.76 (CI: 0.08-1.44); p = 0.14 respectively). The meta-analysis was not done for any of the secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The addition of MA to CT for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer does not prolong GS and PFS.

XELOX plus bevacizumab vs. FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab treatment for first-line chemotherapy in metastatic colon cancer: a retrospective study of the Anatolian Society of Medical Oncology

BACKGROUND

XELOX plus bevacizumab (XELOX-Bev) and FOLFIRI plus Bevacizumab (FOLFIRI - Bev) treatments are an effective strategies patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).The aim of this study was to compare efficacy of first-line XELOX-Bev treatment vs FOLFIRI-Bev treatment for mCRC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 409 patients with mCRC who received chemotherapy were included and divided into 2 groups. Group 1 (n=298) received XELOX-Bev and Group 2 (n=111) FOLFIRI-Bev. Comparisons were made in terms of overall (OS) and progression-free (PFS) survival, response rate (RR), and grade 3-4 toxicity.

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 11 months in Group 1 and 15 months for Group 2. Complete remission was observed in 29 (9.7%) and 2 (1.8%) patients, partial remission in 139 (46.6%) and 27 (24.5%) , stable disease in 88 (29.5%) and 49 (44.1%) and progressive disease in 42 (14.1%) and 33 (30.0%) patients in Group 1 and 2, respectively. Median OS was 25 months (range 2-57 months, 95%CI; 22.2-27.7) for Group 1 and 20 months (range 1-67 months, 95%CI; 16.8-23.1) for Group 2 (p=0.036). Median PFS was 9.6 months (range 2-36 months, 95%CI; 8.8-10.4) for Group 1 and 9 months (range 1-44 months, 95%CI; 7.4-10.5) for Group 2 (p=0.019). Objective RR was 56.4% in Group 1 and 26.1% in Group 2 (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

First-line XELOX-Bev is more effective with a better response rate, prolongation of median PFS/OS, and a superior safety profile compared with FOLFIRI-Bev.

Bevacizumab: a review of its use in advanced cancer

The humanized monoclonal antibody bevacizumab (Avastin(®)) has been available in the EU since 2005. Results of phase III trials demonstrate that adding intravenous bevacizumab to antineoplastic agents improves progression-free survival and/or overall survival in patients with advanced cancer, including when used as first- or second-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer, as first-line therapy in advanced nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer, as first-line therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma, as first-line therapy in metastatic breast cancer, and as first-line therapy in epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube or primary peritoneal cancer or in recurrent, platinum-sensitive or platinum-resistant disease. Results of these studies are supported by the findings of routine oncology practice studies conducted in real-world settings. The tolerability profile of bevacizumab is well defined and adverse events associated with its use (e.g. hypertension, proteinuria, haemorrhage, wound healing complications, arterial thromboembolism, gastrointestinal perforation) are generally manageable. In conclusion, bevacizumab remains an important option for use in patients with advanced cancer.

Is more not better?: combination therapies in colorectal cancer treatment

The treatment of colorectal cancer has evolved dramatically in recent years with the availability of new chemotherapeutic agents and inhibitors of the vascular endothelial growth factor- and epidermal growth factor-signaling pathways. The incremental benefit of each individual line of therapy for advanced disease is relatively small. Advances in our ability to select patients should improve the cost-effectiveness of our treatment strategies (avoiding unnecessary toxicity in the patients who are unlikely to benefit and accepting the potential for adverse events in the patients who stand to benefit the most from a given regimen).

Anti-angiogenic agents in metastatic colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major public health concern being the third leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States. The availability of better therapeutic options has led to a decline in cancer mortality in these patients. Surgical resection should be considered in all stages of the disease. The use of conversion therapy has made surgery a potentially curative option even in patients with initially unresectable metastatic disease. In this review we discuss the role of various anti-angiogenic agents in patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC). We describe the mechanism of action of these agents, and the rationale for their use in combination with chemotherapy. We also review important clinical studies that have evaluated the safety and efficacy of these agents in mCRC patients. Despite the discovery of several promising anti-angiogenic agents, mCRC remains an incurable disease with a median overall survival of just over 2 years in patients exposed to all available treatment regimens. Further insights into tumor biology and tumor microenvironment may help improve outcomes in these patients.

Capecitabine and irinotecan with bevacizumab 2-weekly for metastatic colorectal cancer: the phase II AVAXIRI study

Background

The optimal sequence of chemotherapeutic agents is not firmly established for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This phase II multi-centre study investigated the efficacy and tolerability of a standard capecitabine plus irinotecan (XELIRI) regimen with bevacizumab in previously untreated patients with mCRC.

Methods

Patients received intravenous irinotecan 175 mg/m² on day 1 and oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m² (800 mg/m² for patients >65 years of age) twice daily on days 2–8, followed by a 1-week rest, and bevacizumab 5 mg/kg as an intravenous infusion on day 1 every 2 weeks.

Results

Seventy-seven patients were included in the intention-to-treat and safety populations. Progression-free survival at 9 months was 61%. The overall response and disease control rates were 51% and 84%, respectively. Median progression-free and overall survival times were 11.9 and 24.8 months, respectively. 48 patients (62%) had at least one grade 3/4 adverse event, the most common being asthenia, diarrhoea and neutropenia. Quality of life varied little over the study period with mean visual analogue scale general health scores ranging from 71 to 76 over cycles 1–11.

Conclusion

Our study found irinotecan and capecitabine administered fortnightly with bevacizumab in patients with mCRC to be an effective and tolerable regimen.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00875771. Trial registration date: 04/02/2009.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1293-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A c.*237C>T polymorphism is associated with bevacizumab efficacy and related hypertension in metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

No predictive marker has been yet identified for bevacizumab which is widely used in metastatic colorectal cancer.

AIMS

Evaluate impact of single nucleotide polymorphisms involved in Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor pathway on efficacy and tolerance of bevacizumab.

METHODS

We retrospectively included patients who were treated with bevacizumab-based chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, and for whom a deoxyribonucleic acid sample was available. Ten polymorphisms in Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor-A, his receptors and hypoxia inducible factor-1α were genotyped on germ line DNA using real-time polymerase chain reaction TaqMan(®).

RESULTS

89 patients were included. The CC genotype for rs3025039 (Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor-A c.*237C>T) was associated with a significantly better time to treatment failure (14.2 months) as compared to the CT and TT genotypes (6.0 months) in univariate (p = 0.004) and multivariate (p = 0.022; HR = 0.57; 95% CI [0.35-0.92]) analysis. Patients with at least one T allele showed worse overall survival and progression-free survival as compared to homozygous CC patients in univariate analysis (respectively p = 0.016 and p = 0.044). There was significantly more severe hypertension for the CC genotype (29.5%) compared to CT and TT genotypes (7.1%) (p = 0.022) in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective study, the rs3025039 polymorphism was significantly associated with time to treatment failure and hypertension in patients treated with bevacizumab-based chemotherapy.

Treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer with or without bevacizumab: can the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio predict the efficiency of bevacizumab?

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to analyze the predictive value of neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) to better clarify which patient groups will benefit the most from particular treatments like bevacizumab.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 245 treatment-naive metastatic colorectal cancern (mCRC) patients were retrospectively enrolled and divided into 2 groups: 145 group A patients were treated with chemotherapy in combination with bevacizumab, and 100 group B patients were treated as above without bevacizumab.

RESULTS

Group A patients had better median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) (24.0 and 9.0 months) than group B patients (20 and 6.0 months) (p=0.033; p=0.015). In patients with low NLR, OS and PFS were significantly longer in group A patients (27 vs 18 months, p=0.001; 11 vs 7 months, p=0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that NLR, a basal cancer related inflammation marker, is associated with the resistance to bevacizumab- based treatments in mCRC patients.

Biomarkers of reactive resistance and early disease progression during chemotherapy plus bevacizumab treatment for colorectal carcinoma

Molecular markers for predicting or monitoring the efficacy of bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remain to be identified. We have now measured the serum concentrations of 25 angiogenesis-related molecules with antibody suspension bead array systems for 25 mCRC patients both before and during treatment in a previously reported phase II trial of FOLFIRI chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. The serum concentration of vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) decreased after the onset of treatment (P < 0.0001), whereas that of placental growth factor increased (P < 0.0001). Significant differences in the levels of several factors (such as VEGF-A, soluble VEGF receptor-2, and interleukin-8) were apparent between responders and nonresponders during treatment. The rapid and pronounced decrease in serum VEGF-A level after treatment onset was apparent in all subjects and was independent of the baseline concentration. However, four of nine nonresponders showed a subsequent early increase in the serum VEGF-A level. Our results thus suggest that an early increase in the serum VEGF-A concentration after the initial decrease is a potential predictive marker of a poor response and reactive resistance to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy.

Meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of metastatic colorectal cancer treatment regimens, capecitabine plus irinotecan (CAPIRI) and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin plus irinotecan (FOLFIRI)

The relative efficacy and safety of first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatment regimens, capecitabine with irinotecan (CAPIRI) and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin plus irinotecan (FOLFIRI), are not well defined. We identified and subsequently examined seven independent, randomized controlled clinical trials, performing a meta-analysis to compare these two treatment regimens. Using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting to search available literature until February 2014, we identified seven studies comparing safety and efficacy of CAPIRI and FOLFIRI in mCRC patients. These studies were pooled and evaluated for rates of progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and diarrhea. CAPIRI and FOLFIRI demonstrated similar efficacy outcomes, though CAPIRI was associated with a higher incidence of diarrhea. CAPIRI and FOLFIRI are equally effective options for first-line treatment of mCRC.

Evaluation in usual practice of the bevacizumab-FOLFIRI combination for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer treated in 2006: focus on resected patients and oncogeriatrics: AVASTIN OUEST cohort of the Observatory of Cancer of the Brittany and Pays de la Loire Areas (Observatoire dédié au Cancer Bretagne / Pays de la Loire)

BACKGROUND

In 2006, bevacizumab, a targeted therapy agent was combined with FOLFIRI for the firstline treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer.

METHODS/RESULTS

A study on a homogenous series of 111 patients from the Brittany and Pays de la Loire areas who received bevacizumab-FOLFIRI as first-line treatment in 2006 showed the following results: 51 responses, 29 stabilisations, 21 progressions and 10 cases of toxicity prior to assessment. Median overall survival (OS) was 25.1 months and median progression-free survival was 10.2 months. Surgery secondary to treatment tripled median OS which reached 59.2 months in resected patients versus 18.8 months in unresected patients. Comparison of patients aged more or less than 70 years showed no differences in terms of benefits or risks.

CONCLUSION

Bevacizumab-FOLFIRI could be administered as part of a routine care protocol to elderly patients previously evaluated by a geriatric assessment and validated by a multidisciplinary staff.

Phase II study of weekly irinotecan and capecitabine treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer patients

Background

The purpose of this phase II study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of weekly irinotecan and capecitabine (wXELIRI) treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, specifically the rate of severe diarrhea.

Methods

Patients with unresectable histologically confirmed metastatic colorectal cancer with measurable disease received weekly irinotecan 90 mg/m² on day 1 and capecitabine 1200 mg/m² twice daily on days 1–5. Patients naïve to systemic chemotherapy for metastatic disease or who had failed FOLFOX (infusional 5-fluorouracil [5-FU], leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or XELOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) as first-line treatment were eligible. The primary endpoint was the rate of grade 3/4 diarrhea. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.

Results

A total of 52 patients were enrolled, 30 of whom received wXELIRI as first-line treatment and 22 as second-line treatment. Grade 4 diarrhea was observed in one patient and the rate of grade 3/4 diarrhea was 7.7%. The other common grade 3/4 toxicities included leukopenia (9.6%), neutropenia (17.3%), nausea (3.8%), vomiting (3.8%), fatigue (1.9%), and hand-foot syndrome (1.9%). The median progression-free survival and overall survival for the 30 patients treated in the first-line setting was 8.5 and 16.3 months, while those for the 22 patients treated in the second-line setting was 5.0 and 10.7 months, respectively.

Conclusions

The wXELIRI regimen resulted in a low rate of severe diarrhea with an acceptable toxicity profile. This study provides a basis for a subsequent randomized controlled study of wXELIRI versus FOLFIRI (irinotecan, 5-FU, and folinic acid) to further explore the efficacy and safety of this regimen.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01322152.

Incidence and relative risk of grade 3 and 4 diarrhoea in patients treated with capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil: a meta-analysis of published trials

AIM

Capecitabine is an oral fluoropyrimidine that can effectively replace infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) for treatment of colorectal, gastric and breast cancer. This study aims to analyze the incidence and the relative risk of grade 3 and 4 diarrhoea in patients treated with capecitabine or 5-FU in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

METHODS

MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were reviewed for RCTs that compared capecitabine with 5-FU for treatment of solid malignancies. The incidence and relative risk (RR) of grade 3/4 diarrhoea were estimated for each arm in the overall population and in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies and 15,761 patients were included. Among these 8303 and 7458 patients received capecitabine or 5-FU based therapies, respectively. In the overall populations severe diarrhoea was reported in 16.6% (95% CI 15.8, 17.4) and in 12.7% (95% CI 11.9, 13.4) of patients treated with capecitabine or 5-FU-based therapies, respectively. The RR was 1.39 (95% CI 1.14, 1.69, P = 0.0010). In 14,899 CRC patients, the incidence of severe diarrhoea was 17.0% (95% CI 16.2, 17.9) and 12.9% (95% CI 12.1, 13.7), respectively, with a RR of 1.46 (95% CI 1.18, 1.81, P < 0.0001). In CRC patients treated with combined chemotherapy, the RR was 1.40 (95% CI 1.07, 1.82; P = 0.01) for patients receiving oxaliplatin and 2.35 (95% CI 1.76, 3.13; P < 0.0001) for patients receiving irinotecan.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with capecitabine is characterized by an increased risk of severe diarrhoea, mainly in patients affected by CRC and treated with polichemotherapy. Combination treatment with irinotecan doubles the risk over 5-FU.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus surgery alone for colorectal cancer: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Effects of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) on colorectal cancer (CRC) have been largely studied, while its survival and surgical benefits remain controversial. This study aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing efficacy and safety of NAC plus surgery with surgery alone (SA) for CRC. We searched systematically databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs comparing NAC and surgery with SA for treating CRC. References of relevant articles and reviews, conference proceedings, and ongoing trial databases were also screened. Primary outcomes included overall and disease-free survivals, total and perioperative mortalities, recurrence, and metastasis. Meta-analysis was performed where possible comparing parameters using relative risks (RRs). Safely analysis was then performed. Outcomes for stages II and III tumors were also meta-analyzed, respectively. Our study was conducted according to intention-to-treat analysis. A total of 6 RCTs comparing NAC (n=1393) with SA (n=1358) published from 2002 to 2012 were identified. Compared with SA, NAC tended to reduce overall recurrences (21.86% vs 25.15%, RR: 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32-1.56, P=0.09), and prevent vascular invasion (32.30% vs 43.12%, RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.53-1.00, P=0.05); and significantly lowered distant metastasis (15.58% vs 23.80%, RR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.50-0.86, P=0.002), especially liver metastasis rate (13.00% vs 18.25%, RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.51-0.99, P=0.04), and associated with higher incidence of ypT0-2 cases upon resection (13.04% vs 6.42%, RR: 2.36, 95% CI: 1.02-5.44, P=0.04). All other parameters were comparable. NAC-related side-effects were generally mild. NAC mainly benefited patients with stage III disease. NAC could prevent recurrence and metastasis, associates with better tumor stages upon resection, and potentially impedes vascular invasion among CRC patients. NAC does not contribute to significant survival benefits for CRC, and compares favorably with SA in tumor-free resection rates, nodal status upon resection, and postsurgical complications. This level 1a evidence does not support NAC to obviously outweigh SA in terms of survival and surgical benefits for CRC currently.

XELIRI compared with FOLFIRI as a second-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety and survival rate of a treatment regimen comprising capecitabine plus irinotecan (XELIRI) to those of a standard regimen comprising leucovorin, fluorouracil and irinotecan (FOLFIRI), to determine the correlation among the inherited genetic variations in UGT1A1, UGT1A7 and UGT1A9. A total of 84 consecutive patients with histologically confirmed metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were included in the study. All patients were treated with FOLFIRI or XELIRI. The median progression-free survival time was 4.4 months for FOLFIRI and 5.7 months for XELIRI (hazard ratio=1.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-2.21; P=0.22). When compared with FOLFIRI (6.34%), XELIRI was associated with lower rates of severe toxicity (3.29) (P=0.026) and similar disease control rates (69.57% for FOLFIRI and 61.11% for XELIRI; P=0.49). In total, 17 single nucleotide polymorphisms were identified, five of which revealed an association with grade 3/4 neutropenia, including UGT1A7*4; however, UGT1A1*28 and UGT1A1*6, which have been previously reported, were not significant. Additionally, H2 haplotypes, which include UGT1A9*22, and H5 and H7 haplotypes, which include UGT1A7*2, UGT1A7*3 and UGT1A7*4, were associated with a higher risk of severe neutropenia. In conclusion, XELIRI is an effective treatment regimen with acceptable response rates and tolerability for mCRC patients as a second-line treatment. Furthermore, inherited genetic variations in UGT1A1, UGT1A7 and UGT1A9 are associated with grade 3/4 neutropenia.

Should capecitabine replace 5-fluorouracil in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer?

Fluoropyrimidines play a central role in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Our aim was to review whether capecitabine was a safer, non-inferior, economically superior and more convenient alternative to 5-fluorouracil. Capecitabine has previously been compared to 5-fluorouracil-either as a monotherapy or in combination with oxaliplatin, irinotecan, or biological drugs-and has been found to have comparable efficacy and safety profiles. Furthermore, pharmacoeconomic data and patients’ preferences for oral chemotherapy further favor capecitabine. Therefore, capecitabine appears to be an effective and safe alternative to fluorouracil in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

FOLFIRI® and bevacizumab in first-line treatment for colorectal cancer patients: safety, efficacy and genetic polymorphisms

BACKGROUND

Over 50% of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients develop metastases. The aim of this study was to evaluate efficacy and tolerance of first-line FOLFIRI® + bevacizumab (B) treatment for metastatic CRC, and to assess genetic polymorphisms as potential markers.

METHODS

Adult patients with histologically-proven, non-resectable metastatic CRC and ECOG ≤ 2 were included. 14-day cycles consisted of bevacizumab (5 mg/kg), irinotecan (180 mg/m2), bolus FU (400 mg/m2) and leucovorin (400 mg/m2), followed by 46-hour FU infusions (2400 mg/m2). Primary endpoint was response rate according to RECIST criteria. Secondary endpoints were overall (OS) and progression-free (PFS) survivals, response duration, and toxicity. Associations between clinical data, UGT1A1, thymidylate synthase, VEGFA polymorphisms and PFS, OS and toxicity were analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients were enrolled (median age 68y). 59/62 patients were eligible and evaluable for response at 6 months: 28 showed partial response (47.5%; 95% CI; 34.3-60.9), 20 stable disease (33.9%) and 11 progression (18.6%). Grade 3/4 toxicities were as follows: neutropenia 16.1%; diarrhea 11.3%; nausea-vomiting 1.6%. Median response duration was 9.5 months (range 2.7-20); median PFS 10.3 months (range 8.8-11.7); and median OS 25.7 months (range 20.2-29.7). 11/59 initially unresectable patients were resectable after treatment. VEGFA polymorphism (rs25648) was associated with better OS (HR: 3.61; 95% CI: 1.57-8.30).

CONCLUSIONS

FOLFIRI® + bevacizumab is active with good response rate, long median OS, and a good safety profile. A VEGFA polymorphism might have a prognostic value in this malignancy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00467142 (registration date: April 25, 2007).

The effect of trapidil and bevacizumab on tracheal anastomotic wound healing

Background

Although bevacizumab has deleterious effects on the healing of colonic anastomoses, trapidil improves wound healing of colonic and tracheal anastomoses.

Objective

We aimed to assess the effects of bevacizumab and trapidil on wound healing after tracheal transection.

Materials and methods

We evaluated 35 rats divided in 5 groups: bevacizumab (Group I, n = 7), trapidil (Group II, n = 7), trapidil + bevacizumab (Group III, n = 7), controls (Group IV, n = 7), and sham (Group V, n = 7). Anastomotic healing was assessed by measurement of bursting pressure and inflammation score at the anastomotic region on the seventh day.

Results

The bursting pressures of Group II, Group III, and Group V were significantly higher than controls (P = 0.001, P = 0.033, and P = 0.035, respectively). Fibrosis was significantly high in the sham group when compared with the other four groups (P = 0.047).

Conclusions

Although bevacizumab seems to impair anastomotic healing, trapidil can be suggested to improve tracheal anastomoses.