Randomized Phase II Trial of CapOX plus Bevacizumab and CapIRI plus Bevacizumab as First-Line Treatment for Japanese Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (CCOG-1201 Study)

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.

Impact of bevacizumab on clinical outcomes and its comparison with standard chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Advances in targeted therapies have expanded the treatment options for colorectal cancer (CRC), allowing for more tailored and effective approaches to managing the disease. In targeted therapy, Bevacizumab is a commonly prescribed anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody that has a direct anti-vascular impact in cancer patients. Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors (VEGFs), especially VEGF-A, are significant agents in promoting tumour angiogenesis.

Objective

To assess the impact of adding Bevacizumab to chemotherapy on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Methodology

Comprehensive searches have been performed on electronic databases such as PubMed, and Google Scholar using the following terms: colorectal cancer, adenocarcinoma, Bevacizumab, chemotherapy, and monoclonal antibody.

Results

In the meta-analysis, 16 out of the 24 included studies were analysed. In the final analysis, incorporating Bevacizumab with chеmothеrapy demonstrated favourable outcomes for OS with a hazard ratio (HR = 0.689,95%CI: 0.51-0.83, I² = 39%, p <0.01) and for PFS with a hazard ratio (HR = 0.77 95% CI: 0.60-0.96, I² = 54%, p < 0.01). The subgroup analysis of PFS, categorised by study dеsign (prospеctivе vs rеtrospеctivе), reveals that the Hazard Ratio (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.62-0.97, I² = 21%, p < 0.01) and for OS with a hazard ratio (HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.52-0.86, I² = 17%, p < 0.01).

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that combining Bevacizumab with chemotherapy enhances clinical outcomes and results in a significant increase in PFS and OS in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Positive outcomes are demonstrated by a substantial 23% increase in PFS and 31% increase in OS in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who undergo Bevacizumab in conjunction with chemotherapy.

Morphological response and tumor shrinkage as predictive factors in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with first-line capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab

BACKGROUND

Morphologic response (MR) is a novel chemotherapeutic efficacy predictor of solid tumors, especially those treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibodies. Nevertheless, the importance of systemic chemotherapy MR for colorectal liver metastases (CLM) remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the usefulness of MR as a factor associated with the therapeutic effects of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab for initially unresectable CLM cases.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated the associations between MR and/or Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) in patients who received first-line capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab treatment for initially unresectable CLM using multivariate analysis. Patients who showed a complete or partial response based on the RECIST, or an optimal response based on MR, were defined as "responders."

RESULTS

Ninety-two patients were examined, including 31 (33%) patients who responded optimally. PFS and OS estimates were comparable in MR responders and non-responders (13.6 vs. 11.6 months, p = 0.47; 26.6 vs. 24.6 months, p = 0.21, respectively). RECIST responders showed better PFS and OS than non-responders (14.8 vs. 8.6 months, p < 0.01; 30.7 vs. 17.8 months, p < 0.01, respectively). The median PFS and OS estimates of MR and RECIST responders were better than those of single responders or non-responders (p < 0.01). Histological type and RECIST response were independently associated with PFS and OS.

CONCLUSION

MR predicts neither PFS nor OS; nevertheless, it may be useful when combined with the RECIST. The Ethics Committee of The Cancer Institute Hospital of JFCR approved this study in 2017 (No. 2017-GA-1123): retrospectively registered.

The Vermiform Appendix and Its Pathologies

The vermiform appendix is a muscular cylindrical structure originating near the junction of the cecum and ileum, averaging 9 cm (5-35 cm) in size. As the most mobile viscera, it can adopt several positions, the most common being the retrocecal position. Perceived as an atavistic organ lacking physiological relevance, the vermiform appendix appears to be involved in immune function, serving in the maturation of B lymphocytes and the production of immunoglobulin A, in endocrine function, excreting amines and hormones in the 2-3 mL of mucus secreted daily, and in digestive function, by storing beneficial bacteria from where they can recolonize the colon. With a lumen of about 6 mm, the vermiform appendix has a reduced storage capacity, so any blockage of the appendix with fecoliths (fecaliths), seeds derailed from the colon, or enlarged lymph nodes prevents drainage and intraluminal accumulation of secreted mucus. Unable to relax, the appendix wall severely limits its intraluminal volume, so mucus accumulation leads to inflammation of the appendix, known generically as appendicitis. In addition, the vermiform appendix may be the site of the development of neoplastic processes, which may or may not involve mucus production, some of which can significantly affect the standard of living and ultimately lead to death. In general, mucinous tumors may have a better prognosis than non-mucinous tumors. This review takes a comprehensive path, starting by describing the anatomy and embryology of the vermiform appendix and further detailing its inflammatory pathologies, pathologies related to congenital anomalies, and appendix tumors, thus creating an up-to-date framework for better understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of these health problems.

Reporting of tobacco use and tobacco-related analyses in cancer cooperative group clinical trials: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND

Continued smoking after a diagnosis of cancer negatively impacts cancer outcomes, but the impact of tobacco on newer treatments options is not well established. Collecting and evaluating tobacco use in clinical trials may advance understanding of the consequences of tobacco use on treatment modalities, but little is known about the frequency of reporting and analysis of tobacco use in cancer cooperative clinical trial groups.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify cancer cooperative group clinical trials published from January 2017-October 2019. Eligible studies evaluated either systemic and/or radiation therapies, included ≥100 adult patients, and reported on at least one of: overall survival, disease/progression-free survival, response rates, toxicities/adverse events, or quality-of-life.

RESULTS

A total of 91 studies representing 90 trials met inclusion criteria with trial start dates ranging from 1995 to 2015 with 14% involving lung and 5% head and neck cancer patients. A total of 19 studies reported baseline tobacco use; 2 reported collecting follow-up tobacco use. Seven studies reported analysis of the impact of baseline tobacco use on clinical outcomes. There was significant heterogeneity in the reporting of baseline tobacco use: 7 reported never/ever status, 10 reported never/ex-smoker/current smoker status, and 4 reported measuring smoking intensity. None reported verifying smoking status or second-hand smoke exposure. Trials of lung and head and neck cancers were more likely to report baseline tobacco use than other disease sites (83% versus 6%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Few cancer cooperative group clinical trials report and analyze trial participants' tobacco use. Significant heterogeneity exists in reporting tobacco use. Routine standardized collection and reporting of tobacco use at baseline and follow-up in clinical trials should be implemented to enable investigators to evaluate the impact of tobacco use on new cancer therapies.

The Validity of Surrogate Endpoints in Sub Groups of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Defined by Treatment Class and KRAS Status

Background and Aim: Findings from the literature suggest that the validity of surrogate endpoints in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) may depend on a treatments' mechanism of action. We explore this and the impact of Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) status on surrogacy patterns in mCRC. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for pharmacological therapies in mCRC. Bayesian meta-analytic methods for surrogate endpoint evaluation were used to evaluate surrogate relationships across all RCTs, by KRAS status and treatment class. Surrogate endpoints explored were progression free survival (PFS) as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS), and tumour response (TR) as a surrogate for PFS and OS. Results: 66 RCTs were identified from the systematic review. PFS showed a strong surrogate relationship with OS across all data and in subgroups by KRAS status. The relationship appeared stronger within individual treatment classes compared to the overall analysis. The TR-PFS and TR-OS relationships were found to be weak overall but stronger within the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor + Chemotherapy (EGFR + Chemo) treatment class; both overall and in the wild type (WT) patients for TR-PFS, but not in patients with the mutant (MT) KRAS status where data were limited. Conclusions: PFS appeared to be a good surrogate endpoint for OS. TR showed a moderate surrogate relationship with PFS and OS for the EGFR + Chemo treatment class. There was some evidence of impact of the mechanism of action on the strength of the surrogacy patterns in mCRC, but little evidence of the impact of KRAS status on the validity of surrogate endpoints.

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.

Comparison of irinotecan and oxaliplatin as the first-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Irinotecan (IRI) and oxaliplatin (Ox) are standard therapeutic agents of the first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that treatment with Ox-based compared with IRI-based regimens was associated with better overall survival (OS). However, these reports did not include trials of molecular targeting agents and did not take methods for the administration of concomitant drugs, such as bolus or continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil, into account. A systematic literature review was performed to compare the efficacy and toxicity profiles between IRI- and Ox-based regimens as the first-line treatments for mCRC.

METHODS

This meta-analysis used data from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and SCOPUS. The primary endpoint was OS, and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Nineteen trials involving 4571 patients were included in the analysis. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of OS, PFS, and ORR. There was no significant heterogeneity. Regarding ≥ grade 3 AEs, IRI-based regimens were associated with a high incidence of leukopenia, febrile neutropenia, and diarrhea. Moreover, there was a high incidence of thrombocytopenia and peripheral sensory neuropathy in patients who received Ox-based regimens. In a subgroup analysis, IRI combined with bevacizumab was correlated with a better PFS (HR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.82-0.98, P = 0.02), but not with OS (pooled HR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.80-1.03, P = 0.15).

CONCLUSION

Although the safety profiles of IRI- and Ox-based regimens varied, their efficacy did not significantly differ. The combination of anti-VEGF antibody and IRI was associated with better PFS compared with anti-VEGF antibody and Ox. Both regimens could be used as the first-line treatments for mCRC with consideration of the patients' condition or toxicity profiles.

Efficacy and Safety of Bevacizumab Plus Oxaliplatin- or Irinotecan-Based Doublet Backbone Chemotherapy as the First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Guidelines recommend combined doublet backbone chemotherapy based on 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (OX) or irinotecan (IR) as the first-line treatment options for metastatic colorectal cancer. However, it is still unknown which is better when combined with bevacizumab (BEV). This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare BEV-IR with BEV-OX regimens in terms of efficacy and safety.

METHODS

We searched studies from databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and conference papers. The outcomes were overall response rate, overall survival, progression-free survival, and the incidence of the most common adverse events. The dichotomous data were reported as the risk ratio (RR) and the survival outcomes were extracted as the hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Eleven studies including 5632 patients were identified. No difference was found in overall survival or overall response rate between BEV-IR and BEV-OX regimens. The pooled progression-free survival was significantly longer in the BEV-IR group than the BEV-OX group (hazard ratio = 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.98, p = 0.08). Compared with the BEV-OX group, the BEV-IR group was related to a higher risk of bleeding events (RR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.64-0.98, p = 0.03), venous thromboembolism (RR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.46-0.79, p = 0.0002), and diarrhea (RR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.62-0.80, p < 0.00001). Conversely, the BEV-OX group was related to a higher risk of thrombocytopenia (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.67-3.42, p < 0.00001) and neuropathy (RR 3.80, 95% CI 1.90-7.64, p = 0.0002).

CONCLUSIONS

The BEV-IR regimen was superior in improving progression-free survival as the first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. The two different doublet regimens combined with BEV had their specific features of adverse events.

Comparative Cost-effectiveness of Aflibercept and Ramucirumab in Combination with Irinotecan and Fluorouracil-based Therapy for the Second-line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Japan

PURPOSE

The addition of aflibercept (AFL) or ramucirumab (RAM) to folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) prolongs overall survival and progression-free survival compared with FOLFIRI alone in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) as second-line therapy. Although these combination regimens are recommended among the standard therapies, significant additional cost is a concern. The comparative cost-effectiveness of AFL and RAM was examined from the perspective of the Japanese health care payer.

METHODS

A partitioned survival analysis was constructed. The data sources were the VELOUR (Aflibercept Versus Placebo in Combination With Irinotecan and 5-FU in the Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer After Failure of an Oxaliplatin Based Regimen) and RAISE (Ramucirumab Versus Placebo in Combination With Second-Line FOLFIRI in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma That Progressed During or After First-Line Therapy With Bevacizumab, Oxaliplatin, and a Fluoropyrimidine) trials, which compared FOLFIRI alone with AFL or RAM in second-line treatment for mCRC. The cost and effectiveness of the combination of AFL or RAM with FOLFIRI were compared with those of FOLFIRI alone and examined between both agents in a 10-year time horizon. The health outcomes were life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The costs were 2019 revisions to the drug prices and medical fees. The robustness of the model was verified by 1-way sensitivity analyses and a probability sensitivity analysis. A 2% annual discount was applied to the expenses and QALYs. A willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥7.5 million was used.

FINDINGS

Compared with FOLFIRI alone, combination AFL or RAM with FOLFIRI had incremental effects of 0.173 QALYs (0.253 LYs) and 0.137 QALYs (0.197 LYs), incremental costs of ¥3,423,481 (US $31,010) and ¥5,766,106 (US $52,229), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of ¥19, 836, 504 (US $179,678) and ¥41, 947, 989 (US $379,964) per QALY, respectively. Results of 1-way sensitivity analyses and probability sensitivity analysis all exceeded a willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥7.5 million. In the comparison of the 2 agents, AFL was a dominant over RAM.

IMPLICATIONS

Adding AFL or RAM to FOLFIRI in the second line of mCRC treatment was not cost-effective in the Japanese health care system. On the basis of the results of this study, in the treatment of mCRC, it will be necessary to adjust the prices of AFL and RAM with the improvement of clinical parameters, such as survival time and adverse events. Of the 2 agents, AFL was more cost-effective than RAM.