1
|
Duan J, Zhu L, Shi Y, Wang W, Wang T, Ning T, Zhang L, Bai M, Li H, Liu R, Ge S, Wang X, Yang Y, Ji Z, Wang F, Sun Y, Ba Y, Deng T. Chemotherapy re-use versus anti-angiogenic monotherapy as the third-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world cohort study. BMC Cancer 2024; 24:302. [PMID: 38443891 PMCID: PMC10916076 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12072-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2023] [Accepted: 02/29/2024] [Indexed: 03/07/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There are various recommendations for third-line treatment in mCRC, however, there is no consensus on who is more suitable for particular strategy. Chemotherapy re-use in third-line setting is a common option in clinical practice. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of third-line chemotherapy re-use by the comparison with that of anti-angiogenic monotherapy, and further find the population more suitable for third-line chemotherapy. METHODS Using electronic medical records of patients with mCRC, a retrospective cohort study was conducted. A total of 143 patients receiving chemotherapy and 40 patients receiving anti-angiogenic monotherapy in third-line setting as control group were retrospectively collected. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using the χ² test or the Fisher's exact test. ROC curve and surv_cutpoint function of 'survminer' package in R software were used to calculate the cut-off value. Survival curves were plotted with the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared using the log-rank test. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to analyze the potential risk factors. RESULTS A total of 143 patients receiving chemotherapy and 40 patients receiving anti-angiogenic monotherapy in third-line setting were retrospectively collected. Chemotherapy rechallenge was recorded in 93 patients (93/143, 65.0%), and the remaining patients chose new chemotherapeutic drugs that had not been previously used, including irinotecan-based (22/50), oxaliplatin-based (9/50), raltitrexed (9/50), gemcitabine (5/50) and other agents (5/50). The ORR and DCR of third-line chemotherapy reached 8.8%, 61.3%, respectively (anti-angiogenic monotherapy group: ORR 2.6%, DCR 47.4%). The mPFS and mOS of patients receiving chemotherapy were 4.9 and 12.0 m, respectively (anti-angiogenic monotherapy group: mPFS 2.7 m, mOS 5.2 m). Subgroup analyses found that patients with RAS/RAF mutation, longer PFS (greater than 10.6 m) in front-line treatment or larger tumor burden had better prognosis with third-line chemotherapy rather than anti-angiogenic monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS Third-line chemotherapy re-use was effective in mCRC. Those with more aggressive characteristics (RAS/RAF mutant, larger tumor burden) or better efficacy of previous chemotherapy (longer PFS) were more appropriate for third-line chemotherapy, rather than anti-angiogenic monotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jingjing Duan
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan huxi Road, 300060, Tianjin, Tianjin, China
| | - Lila Zhu
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan huxi Road, 300060, Tianjin, Tianjin, China
| | - Yinghui Shi
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan huxi Road, 300060, Tianjin, Tianjin, China
| | - Weixue Wang
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan huxi Road, 300060, Tianjin, Tianjin, China
| | - Tongtong Wang
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan huxi Road, 300060, Tianjin, Tianjin, China
| | - Tao Ning
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan huxi Road, 300060, Tianjin, Tianjin, China
| | - Le Zhang
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan huxi Road, 300060, Tianjin, Tianjin, China
| | - Ming Bai
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan huxi Road, 300060, Tianjin, Tianjin, China
| | - Hongli Li
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan huxi Road, 300060, Tianjin, Tianjin, China
| | - Rui Liu
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan huxi Road, 300060, Tianjin, Tianjin, China
| | - Shaohua Ge
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan huxi Road, 300060, Tianjin, Tianjin, China
| | - Xia Wang
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan huxi Road, 300060, Tianjin, Tianjin, China
| | - Yuchong Yang
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan huxi Road, 300060, Tianjin, Tianjin, China
| | - Zhi Ji
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan huxi Road, 300060, Tianjin, Tianjin, China
| | - Feixue Wang
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan huxi Road, 300060, Tianjin, Tianjin, China
| | - Yansha Sun
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan huxi Road, 300060, Tianjin, Tianjin, China
| | - Yi Ba
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan huxi Road, 300060, Tianjin, Tianjin, China.
| | - Ting Deng
- Department of GI Medical Oncology, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Digestive Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Huan huxi Road, 300060, Tianjin, Tianjin, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Taşçı EŞ, Oyan B, Sönmez Ö, Mutlu AU, Atcı MM, Sakin A, Öner İ, Çınkır HY, Eryılmaz MK, Çağlayan D, Balçık OY, Paksoy N, Karabulut S, Salim DK, Bilir C, Özen M, Özçelik M, Arıcan A, Akagündüz B, İnal A, Aydın D, Özer L, Gülmez A, Turhal NS, Esen SA, Algın E, Akbaş S, İriağaç Y, Şakalar T, Ünal Ç, Er Ö, Seçmeler Ş, Bozkurt M. Comparing the efficacy of regorafenib and 5-fluorouracil-based rechallenge chemotherapy in the third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer 2024; 24:16. [PMID: 38166764 PMCID: PMC10763265 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-11783-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2023] [Accepted: 12/21/2023] [Indexed: 01/05/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The optimal treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after the second line is still controversial. Regorafenib has been the standard of care in this setting as it improved overall survival (OS) compared to placebo. In real-world practice chemotherapy rechallenge is also a preferred option even though supporting evidence is not enough. We aim to compare the efficacy of regorafenib and 5-fluorouracil-based (5-FU) rechallenge treatment in the third line setting of mCRC. METHODS In this retrospective multi-institutional trial, mCRC patients from 21 oncology centers who progressed after 2 lines of chemotherapy were analyzed. Patients who were treated with regorafenib or rechallenge therapy in the third-line setting were eligible. Rechallenge chemotherapy was identified as the re-use of the 5-FU based regimen which was administered in one of the previous treatment lines. OS, disease control rate (DCR), progression free survival (PFS) and toxicity were analyzed. RESULTS Three hundred ninety-four mCRC patients were included in the study. 128 (32.5%) were in the rechallenge, and 266 (67.5%) were in the regorafenib group. Median PFS was 5.82 months in rechallenge and 4 months in regorafenib arms (hazard ratio:1.45,95% CI, p = 0.167). DCR was higher in the rechallenge group than regorafenib (77% vs 49.5%, respectively, p = < 0.001). Median OS after the third-line treatment was 11.99 (95% CI, 9.49-14.49) and 8.08 months (95% CI, 6.88-9.29) for rechallenge and regorafenib groups, respectively (hazard ratio:1.51, 95% CI, p < 0.001). More adverse effects and discontinuation were seen with regorafenib treatment. CONCLUSION Our study revealed that higher disease control and OS rates were achieved with rechallenge treatment compared to regorafenib, especially in patients who achieved disease control in one of the first two lines of therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elif Şenocak Taşçı
- Department of Medical Oncology, Saglık Bilimleri University, Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Research and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
| | - Başak Oyan
- Department of Medicine, Acıbadem MAA University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Özlem Sönmez
- Department of Medicine, Acıbadem MAA University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Arda Ulaş Mutlu
- Department of Medicine, Acıbadem MAA University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Muhammed Mustafa Atcı
- Department of Medical Oncology, Haseki Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Abdullah Sakin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medipol Bahçelievler Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - İrem Öner
- Department of Medical Oncology, Konya City Hospital, Konya, Turkey
| | - Havva Yeşil Çınkır
- Department of Medical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey
| | - Melek Karakurt Eryılmaz
- Meram Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Oncology, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
| | - Dilek Çağlayan
- Meram Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Oncology, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
| | - Onur Yazdan Balçık
- Department of Medical Oncology, Mardin Education and Research Hospital, Mardin, Turkey
| | - Nail Paksoy
- Department of Medical Oncology, Tekirdağ Dr. İsmail Fehmi Cumalıoğlu City Hospital, Tekirdağ, Turkey
| | - Senem Karabulut
- Department of Medical Oncology, Şişli Kolan Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Derya Kıvrak Salim
- Department of Medical Oncology, Antalya Education and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey
| | - Cemil Bilir
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Park Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Miraç Özen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sakarya University Research and Education Hospital, Sakarya, Turkey
| | - Melike Özçelik
- Department of Medical Oncology, University of Health Sciences Umraniye Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Ali Arıcan
- Department of Medicine, Acıbadem MAA University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Baran Akagündüz
- Department of Medical Oncology, Binali Yıldırım University, Erzincan, Turkey
| | - Ali İnal
- Department of Medical Oncology, Mersin City Hospital, Mersin, Turkey
| | - Dinçer Aydın
- Department of Medical Oncology, Derince Education and Research Hospital, Kocaeli, Turkey
| | - Leyla Özer
- Department of Medicine, Acıbadem MAA University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Ahmet Gülmez
- Department of Medical Oncology, Adana City Hospital, Adana, Turkey
| | | | - Selin Aktürk Esen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Efnan Algın
- Department of Medical Oncology, Ankara City Hospital, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Sinem Akbaş
- Department of Medical Oncology, Koç University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Yakup İriağaç
- Department of Medical Oncology, Namık Kemal University, Tekirdağ, Turkey
| | - Teoman Şakalar
- Department of Medical Oncology, Necip Fazıl City Hospital, Kahramanmaraş, Turkey
| | - Çağlar Ünal
- Department of Medical Oncology, Bilim University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Özlem Er
- Department of Medicine, Acıbadem MAA University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Şaban Seçmeler
- Department of Medical Oncology, Medical Park Bahçelievler Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Mustafa Bozkurt
- Department of Medicine, Acıbadem MAA University, Istanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Xue WH, Li XW, Ding YQ, Wu N, Pei BB, Ma XY, Xie J, Yang WH. Efficacy and safety of third-line or later-line targeted treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Front Oncol 2023; 13:1165040. [PMID: 37324019 PMCID: PMC10265471 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1165040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/20/2023] [Accepted: 05/17/2023] [Indexed: 06/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Targeted therapy has been standardized in front-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), while explicit recommendations for third- or later-line are still lacking. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of combining targeted therapy with chemotherapy in the third- or later-line treatment for mCRC via meta-analysis, providing evidence-based guidance for clinical or research practice. Comprehensive retrieval of related studies was conducted according to the PRISMA guideline. Studies were stratified with patient characteristics and pharmacological classification of the drugs. For the data available for quantitative analysis, pooled overall response rate, disease control rate, hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events rate with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A total of 22 studies (1,866 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Data from 17 studies (1,769 patients) involving targets of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) were extracted for meta-analyses. The overall response rates for monotherapy and combined therapy were 4% (95% CI: 3%, 5%) and 20% (95% CI: 11%, 29%). The pooled HRs (combined therapy vs. mono) for OS and PFS were 0.72 (95% CI: 0.53, 0.99) and 0.34 (95% CI: 0.26, 0.45). Another five studies were included in narrative depiction, involving targets of BRAF, HER-2, ROS1, and NTRK. The findings of this meta-analysis indicate that VEGF and EGFR inhibitors manifest promising clinical response rates and prolonged survival in the treatment of mCRC with acceptable adverse events.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wen-Hui Xue
- Department of Digestive Oncology, Cancer Center, Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Tongji Shanxi Hospital, Third Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China
| | - Xue-Wei Li
- Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Shanxi Key Laboratory of Birth Defect and Cell Regeneration, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China
| | - Ya-Qian Ding
- Department of Digestive Oncology, Cancer Center, Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Tongji Shanxi Hospital, Third Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China
| | - Na Wu
- Department of Digestive Oncology, Cancer Center, Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Tongji Shanxi Hospital, Third Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China
| | - Bei-Bei Pei
- Department of Digestive Oncology, Cancer Center, Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Tongji Shanxi Hospital, Third Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China
| | - Xiao-Yan Ma
- Department of Digestive Oncology, Cancer Center, Shanxi Bethune Hospital, Shanxi Academy of Medical Sciences, Tongji Shanxi Hospital, Third Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China
| | - Jun Xie
- Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Shanxi Key Laboratory of Birth Defect and Cell Regeneration, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China
| | - Wen-Hui Yang
- Department of Gastroenterology, Shanxi Province Cancer Hospital/Shanxi Hospital Affiliated to Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences/Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, Shanxi, China
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Min ST, Roohullah A, Tognela A, Jalali A, Lee M, Wong R, Shapiro J, Burge M, Yip D, Nott L, Zimet A, Lee B, Dean A, Steel S, Wong HL, Gibbs P, Lim SHS. Patient demographics and management landscape of metastatic colorectal cancer in the third-line setting: Real-world data in an australian population. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol 2021; 18:e56-e63. [PMID: 33870631 DOI: 10.1111/ajco.13553] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/26/2020] [Accepted: 12/02/2020] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer mortality in Australia, thus carrying a significant disease burden. AIMS This analysis aims to explore real-world treatment landscape of metastatic colorectal cancer in the third-line setting. METHODS We retrospectively analysed treatment of recurrent and advanced colorectal cancer (TRACC) registry database from 2009 onwards. Patients treated with palliative intent who progressed after two lines of therapies were included. One treatment line was defined as any combination of systemic therapy given until progression. RESULTS Out of 1820 patients treated palliatively, 32% (590 patients) met study criteria. Of these, 43% (254 patients) proceeded to third-line therapy, equating to 14% of all metastatic patients. In KRAS mutant or unknown tumours (97 patients), fluoropyrimidine (FP)-oxaliplatin combination was the most common choice (51%), followed by FP-irinotecan (15%), trifluridine/tipiracil (11%), mono-chemotherapy (10%), regorafenib (5%) and others (7%). Majority of FP-doublet (83%) was given as rechallenge. In 157 patients with KRAS wildtype disease, monotherapy with EGFR inhibitor was most commonly used (41%), followed by EGFR inhibitor with chemotherapy (20%), FP-doublet (18%), mono-chemotherapy (6%), trifluridine/tipiracil (6%), regorafenib (1%) and others (8%). Median overall survival was 7.1 months (range 0.4-41.2), and median time on third-line treatment was 3 months (range 0.1-40). CONCLUSIONS In real-world Australian population, treatment choices differed based on KRAS status and will likely change with the availability of newer drugs on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Survival outcomes are comparable to newer agents in clinical trials for select patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sandy Tun Min
- Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre, Campbelltown, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Aflah Roohullah
- Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre, Campbelltown, New South Wales, Australia.,School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Annette Tognela
- Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre, Campbelltown, New South Wales, Australia.,School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Azim Jalali
- Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Medical Oncology, Western Health, St Albans, Victoria, Australia
| | - Margaret Lee
- Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Medical Oncology, Western Health, St Albans, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Medical Oncology, Eastern Health, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia
| | - Rachel Wong
- Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Medical Oncology, Eastern Health, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.,Epworth Health Care, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia
| | - Jeremy Shapiro
- Department of Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.,Cabrini Haematology and Oncology Centre, Malvern, Victoria, Australia
| | - Matthew Burge
- Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, Queensland, Australia.,Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - Desmond Yip
- Department of Medical Oncology, Canberra and Calvary Hospitals, Garran, Australia Capital Territory, Australia
| | - Louise Nott
- Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
| | - Allan Zimet
- Epworth HealthCare, Richmond, Victoria, Australia
| | - Belinda Lee
- Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.,Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,The Northern Hospital, Epping, Victoria, Australia
| | - Andrew Dean
- Department of Medical Oncology, St John of God Hospital, Subiaco, Western Australia, Australia
| | - Simone Steel
- Peninsula Private Hospital, Frankston, Victoria, Australia
| | - Hui-Li Wong
- Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.,Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Peter Gibbs
- Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Medical Oncology, Western Health, St Albans, Victoria, Australia.,Department of Medical Oncology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.,Faculty of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
| | - Stephanie Hui-Su Lim
- Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre, Campbelltown, New South Wales, Australia.,School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, New South Wales, Australia.,Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Madu CO, Wang S, Madu CO, Lu Y. Angiogenesis in Breast Cancer Progression, Diagnosis, and Treatment. J Cancer 2020; 11:4474-4494. [PMID: 32489466 PMCID: PMC7255381 DOI: 10.7150/jca.44313] [Citation(s) in RCA: 124] [Impact Index Per Article: 31.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/27/2020] [Accepted: 04/04/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Angiogenesis is a significant event in a wide range of healthy and diseased conditions. This process frequently involves vasodilation and an increase in vascular permeability. Numerous players referred to as angiogenic factors, work in tandem to facilitate the outgrowth of endothelial cells (EC) and the consequent vascularity. Conversely, angiogenic factors could also feature in pathological conditions. Angiogenesis is a critical factor in the development of tumors and metastases in numerous cancers. An increased level of angiogenesis is associated with decreased survival in breast cancer patients. Therefore, a good understanding of the angiogenic mechanism holds a promise of providing effective treatments for breast cancer progression, thereby enhancing patients' survival. Disrupting the initiation and progression of this process by targeting angiogenic factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor (Vegf)-one of the most potent member of the VEGF family- or by targeting transcription factors, such as Hypoxia-Inducible Factors (HIFs) that act as angiogenic regulators, have been considered potential treatment options for several types of cancers. The objective of this review is to highlight the mechanism of angiogenesis in diseases, specifically its role in the progression of malignancy in breast cancer, as well as to highlight the undergoing research in the development of angiogenesis-targeting therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chikezie O. Madu
- Departments of Biological Sciences, University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152. USA
| | - Stephanie Wang
- Departments of Biology and Advanced Placement Biology, White Station High School, Memphis, TN 38117. USA
| | - Chinua O. Madu
- Departments of Biology and Advanced Placement Biology, White Station High School, Memphis, TN 38117. USA
| | - Yi Lu
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN 38163. USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Current Options for Third-line and Beyond Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Spanish TTD Group Expert Opinion. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2020; 19:165-177. [PMID: 32507561 DOI: 10.1016/j.clcc.2020.04.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2019] [Revised: 04/08/2020] [Accepted: 04/13/2020] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a public health problem: it is the third most common cancer in men (746,000 new cases/year) and the second in women (614,000 new cases/year), representing the second leading cause of death by cancer worldwide. The survival of patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has increased prominently in recent years, reaching a median of 25 to 30 months. A growing number of patients with mCRC are candidates to receive a treatment in third line or beyond, although the optimal drug regimen and sequence are still unknown. In this situation of refractoriness, there are several alternatives: (1) To administer sequentially the 2 oral drugs approved in this indication: trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib, which have shown a statistically significant benefit in progression-free survival and overall survival with a different toxicity profile. (2) To administer cetuximab or panitumumab in treatment-naive patients with RAS wild type, which is increasingly rare because these drugs are usually indicated in first- or second-line. (3) To reuse drugs already administered that were discontinued owing to toxicity or progression (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluoropyrimidine, antiangiogenics, anti-epidermal growth factor receptor [if RAS wild-type]). High-quality evidence is limited, but this strategy is often used in routine clinical practice in the absence of alternative therapies especially in patients with good performance status. (4) To use specific treatments for very selected populations, such as trastuzumab/lapatinib in mCRC human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, immunotherapy in microsatellite instability, intrahepatic therapies in limited disease or primarily located in the liver, although the main recommendation is to include patients in clinical trials.
Collapse
|
7
|
Köstek O, Hacıoğlu MB, Sakin A, Demir T, Sarı M, Ozkul O, Araz M, Doğan AF, Demircan NC, Uzunoğlu S, Çiçin İ, Erdoğan B. Regorafenib or rechallenge chemotherapy: which is more effective in the third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer? Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2018; 83:115-122. [PMID: 30374523 DOI: 10.1007/s00280-018-3713-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2018] [Accepted: 10/25/2018] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib versus rechallenge chemotherapy in previously treated mCRC patients in third-line setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS The data of 104 patients diagnosed with mCRC enrolled from 2010 to 2017 in six oncology centers were analyzed. Tumor treatment options were obtained from follow-up and treatment files. Rechallenge chemotherapy was identified as the re-use of the regimen which was previously administered to patients in one of the therapy lines and obtained disease control, these were the patients whose disease did not progress within 3 months. RESULTS A total of 104 patients had received previously two lines of chemotherapy regimens for mCRC. Of these, 73 patients with mCRC who received regorafenib and 31 those who received rechallenge chemotherapy in third-line therapy were analyzed. Overall survival was better with rechallenge than it was with regorafenib (HR 0.29 95% CI 0.16-0.54, p < 0.001). Median OS was 12.0 months (95% CI 8.1-15.9) in rechallenge versus 6.6 months (95% CI 6.0-7.3) in regorafenib group (p < 0.001). Progression-free survival in the rechallenge group showed a higher median value of 9.16 months (95% CI 7.15-11.18) versus with that recorded in the regorafenib group of 3.41 months (95% CI 3.01-3.82), in favor of rechallenge chemotherapy. The most common adverse events of regorafenib was liver function test abnormality and hand-foot syndrome. Although grade 3 or 4 adverse events were similar, non-hematologic toxicities were more common than those of rechallenge. CONCLUSIONS Rechallenge is still a valuable option against regorafenib in patients who achieved disease control in one of the first two lines of therapy. Even though mCRC patients treated with regorafenib benefited clinically from this treatment, we revealed that chemotherapy rechallenge compared to regorafenib was more effective in the third-line treatment for mCRC patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Osman Köstek
- Department of Medical Oncology, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey.
| | | | - Abdullah Sakin
- Okmeydanı Training and Research Hospital, Clinic of Medical Oncology, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Tarık Demir
- Department of Medical Oncology, Bezmi Alem Vakıf University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Murat Sarı
- Department of Medical Oncology, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
| | - Ozlem Ozkul
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey
| | - Murat Araz
- Department of Medical Oncology, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyon, Turkey
| | | | | | - Sernaz Uzunoğlu
- Department of Medical Oncology, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey
| | - İrfan Çiçin
- Department of Medical Oncology, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey
| | - Bülent Erdoğan
- Department of Medical Oncology, Trakya University, Edirne, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Arnold D, Prager GW, Quintela A, Stein A, Moreno Vera S, Mounedji N, Taieb J. Beyond second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review. Ann Oncol 2018; 29:835-856. [PMID: 29452346 PMCID: PMC5913602 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdy038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The optimal chemotherapeutic regimen for use beyond the second line for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains unclear. Materials and methods We systematically searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE and Medline for records published between January 2002 and May 2017, and cancer congress databases for records published between January 2014 and June 2017. Eligible studies evaluated the efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes of monotherapies or combination therapies at any dose and number of treatment cycles for use beyond the second line in patients with mCRC. Studies were assessed for design and quality, and a qualitative data synthesis was conducted to understand the impact of treatment on overall survival and other relevant cancer-related outcomes. Results The search yielded 938 references of which 68 were included for qualitative synthesis. There was limited evidence to support rechallenge with chemotherapy, targeted therapy or both. Compared with placebo, an overall survival benefit for trifluridine/tipiracil (also known as TAS-102) or regorafenib has been shown for patients previously treated with conventional chemotherapy and targeted therapy. There was no evidence to suggest a difference in efficacy between these treatments. Patient choice and quality of life at this stage of treatment should also be considered when choosing an appropriate therapy. Conclusions These findings support the introduction of an approved agent such as trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib beyond the second line before any rechallenge in patients with mCRC who have failed second-line treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D Arnold
- Instituto CUF de Oncologia, Lisbon, Portugal; Asklepios Tumorzentrum Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
| | - G W Prager
- Medical University Vienna, Department of Medicine I and Comprehensive Cancer Centre Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - A Quintela
- Instituto CUF de Oncologia, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - A Stein
- University Hamburg, Hubertus Wald Tumor Center and Department for Hematology and Oncology, Hamburg, Germany
| | - S Moreno Vera
- Servier Global Medical Affairs, Oncology, Suresnes, France
| | - N Mounedji
- Servier Global Medical Affairs, Oncology, Suresnes, France
| | - J Taieb
- Georges Pompidou European Hospita, Paris Descartes University, Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Schad F, Axtner J, Kröz M, Matthes H, Steele ML. Safety of Combined Treatment With Monoclonal Antibodies and Viscum album L Preparations. Integr Cancer Ther 2016; 17:41-51. [PMID: 29444603 PMCID: PMC5950938 DOI: 10.1177/1534735416681641] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Combination strategies involving chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies (mAb) are
commonly used in attempts to produce better clinical outcomes. This practice has
led to new and ongoing toxicities that may lead to reductions in dose or
noncompliance, limiting the effectiveness of treatment. Viscum
album L (VA) preparations are widely used in Europe as additive
therapy and have been associated with reduced chemotherapy-related adverse
reactions and increased health-related quality of life. Concomitant VA therapy
might also reduce toxicity related to mAb. This retrospective study investigated
the safety of combined treatment with VA and mAb in cancer patients. A total of
43 patients had combined therapy (474 exposures); 12 had VA without mAb (129
exposures), and 8 had mAb without VA (68 exposures). Most patients (89.3%)
received concomitant chemotherapy or supportive therapies. A total of 34
patients (60.7%) experienced 142 adverse events (AEs). Leucopenia (14.1% of all
events), acneiform rash (8.5%), and stomatitis (6.3%) occurred most frequently.
Longitudinal logistic regression analysis suggested a nearly 5 times higher odds
of experiencing an AE following treatment with mAb compared with mAb plus VA
(95% CI = 1.53-16.14). Our results, together with theoretical consideration of
potential botanical-drug interactions, suggest that combined treatment with VA
and mAb is safe.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Friedemann Schad
- 1 Research Institute Havelhoehe, Berlin, Germany.,2 Hospital Havelhoehe, Berlin, Germany
| | - Jan Axtner
- 1 Research Institute Havelhoehe, Berlin, Germany
| | - Matthias Kröz
- 1 Research Institute Havelhoehe, Berlin, Germany.,2 Hospital Havelhoehe, Berlin, Germany.,3 Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany.,4 University of Witten/Herdecke, Herdecke, Germany
| | - Harald Matthes
- 1 Research Institute Havelhoehe, Berlin, Germany.,2 Hospital Havelhoehe, Berlin, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Nielsen DL, Palshof JA, Larsen FO, Jensen BV, Pfeiffer P. A systematic review of salvage therapy to patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan +/- targeted therapy. Cancer Treat Rev 2014; 40:701-15. [PMID: 24731471 DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2014.02.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 56] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/14/2013] [Revised: 02/18/2014] [Accepted: 02/20/2014] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
UNLABELLED Oxaliplatin, irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil in combination with or without targeted therapies are well-documented treatment options for first- and second-line treatments of metastatic colorectal cancer. However, there are much less data on the beneficial effect on systemic therapy in the third-line setting. We therefore performed a systematic review of the current literature on third or later lines of treatment to patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after the use of approved drugs or combinations. METHODS A computer-based literature search was carried out using Pubmed and data reported at international meetings. Original studies reporting ≥15 patients who had previously received 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan were included. Furthermore, patients with KRAS wild type tumours should had received EGFR-directed therapy. RESULTS Conventional chemotherapeutic agents as capecitabine, mitomycin C, and gemcitabine have limited or no activity. Retreatment with oxaliplatin might be an option in selected patients. In addition, rechallenge with EGFR-directed therapy might be a valuable strategy. Data also suggest that angiogenetic drugs may postpone further progression and prolong survival. Lately, regorafinib has been approved. In conclusion, our current knowledge is based on many retrospective studies, some phase II studies and very few randomized clinical trials. Further prospective phase III trials comparing an investigational drug or combination with best supportive care in third- or later lines of treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer are highly warranted. Identification of predictive biomarkers and improvement of our understanding of molecular mechanisms is crucial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Finn Ole Larsen
- Department of Oncology, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
| | | | - Per Pfeiffer
- Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Lelli G, Cataldo S, Carandina I, Urbini B, Bonetti F, Marzola M, Biasco G, Pantaleo M, Brandes A, Calandri C, Ravaioli E, Nanni O, Boni C, Banzi C, Negri F, Panetta A, Di Fabio F, Turci D. The Role of Cetuximab in Pre-Treated Refractory Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Outcome Study in Clinical Practice. J Chemother 2013; 20:374-9. [DOI: 10.1179/joc.2008.20.3.374] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/31/2022]
|
12
|
Medina-Echeverz J, Berraondo P. How can chemoimmunotherapy best be used for the treatment of colon cancer? Immunotherapy 2013; 4:1787-90. [PMID: 23240744 DOI: 10.2217/imt.12.124] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
|
13
|
Abstract
Since angiogenesis is critical for tumor growth and metastasis, anti-angiogenic treatment is a highly promising therapeutic approach. Thus, for over last couple of decades, there has been a robust activity aimed towards the discovery of angiogenesis inhibitors. More than forty anti-angiogenic drugs are being tested in clinical trials all over the world. This review discusses agents that have approved by the FDA and are currently in use for treating patients either as single-agents or in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rajeev S Samant
- Mitchell Cancer Institute, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, USA.
| | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
García-Foncillas J, Díaz-Rubio E. Progress in metastatic colorectal cancer: growing role of cetuximab to optimize clinical outcome. Clin Transl Oncol 2011; 12:533-42. [PMID: 20709651 DOI: 10.1007/s12094-010-0551-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
The prognosis of metastatic colorectal cancer remains poor despite advances made in recent years, particularly with new treatments directed towards molecular targets. Cetuximab, a chimeric immunoglobulin (Ig)G1 monoclonal antibody that targets the ligand-binding domain of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), is active in metastatic colorectal cancer. As an IgG1 antibody, cetuximab may exert its antitumour efficacy through both EGFR antagonism and antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity. The benefits of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer are well documented in clinical trials and are acknowledged in the approval and licensing of this agent. There is evidence of the role of cetuximab not only in irinotecan-refractory or heavily pretreated patients, but also of the efficacy and safety of the addition of this agent to FOLFIRI (irinotecan/5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer, with an enhanced effect in 5-fluorouracil patients with Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) wild-type tumours. In these patients, a recent meta-analysis of the pooled Cetuximab Combined with Irinotecan in First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (CRYSTAL) and Oxaliplatin and Cetuximab in First-Line Treatment of mCRC (OPUS) patient populations confirms that the addition of cetuximab to first-line chemotherapy achieves a statistically significant improvement in the best overall response, overall survival time, and progression-free survival (PSF) compared with chemotherapy alone. In nonresectable colorectal liver metastases, cetuximab plus FOLFOX-6 (oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) or cetuximab plus FOLFIRI increased significantly resectability of liver metastases, including R0 resections. Also, preliminary data indicate that cetuximab can be administered in a more convenient 2-week schedule in combination with standard chemotherapy. Cetuximab is generally well tolerated. Acne-form rash is the most frequent toxicity. Up to the present time, the results obtained with targeted therapy combinations are not as encouraging as initially expected. The identification of biomarkers associated with disease control, including KRAS and BRAF mutation status in patients treated with cetuximab, is changing the current management of metastatic colorectal cancer. Clinical and molecular predictive markers of response are under active evaluation in order to better select patients who could benefit from cetuximab treatment, with the aim of both optimising patient outcomes and avoiding unnecessary toxicities.
Collapse
|
15
|
Bouchahda M, Macarulla T, Liedo G, Lévi F, Elez ME, Paule B, Karaboué A, Artru P, Tabernero J, Machover D, Innominato P, Goldschmidt E, Bonnet D, Ducreux M, Castagne V, Guimbaud R. Feasibility of cetuximab given with a simplified schedule every 2 weeks in advanced colorectal cancer: a multicenter, retrospective analysis. Med Oncol 2010; 28 Suppl 1:S253-8. [PMID: 21053102 DOI: 10.1007/s12032-010-9716-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2009] [Accepted: 10/05/2010] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
Cetuximab was approved using a weekly schedule, alone or in combination with chemotherapy (CT). However, many CT regimens in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) are delivered every 2 weeks (q2wks). Preliminary data suggested that a simplified schedule using cetuximab q2wks, 500 mg/m² would be equivalent to the standard weekly administration. Medical data of all patients with advanced CRC who received cetuximab q2wks were retrospectively collected and checked for consistency by an independent monitor in 4 European centers. Ninety-one patients were treated between 2005 and 2007 when the K-RAS mutational status of tumors was not determined routinely. They received a median of 4 (0-5) previous drugs, including previous weekly cetuximab in 38.5% of patients. Cetuximab q2wks was associated with an irinotecan-based regimen in 85.7% of patients. The median number of cetuximab administrations was 6 (1-23). Skin toxicity was observed in 68.2% of evaluable patients (grade 3 in 15%). Only one grade 1 allergy was reported. In the 84 patients beyond first-line therapy, response rate was 29.3%. The median progression-free survival was 3.0 months (range 2.2-3.8), and median overall survival was 9.0 months (range 6.2-11.8). Cetuximab q2wks appears safe and effective in heavily pretreated patients and convenient in combination with q2wks CT schedules.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Bouchahda
- Service d'Oncologie Médicale, Oncology Unit, Hopital Paul Brousse, 12 avenue Paul Vaillant Couturier, 94800 Villejuif, France.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Hoag JB, Azizi A, Doherty TJ, Lu J, Willis RE, Lund ME. Association of cetuximab with adverse pulmonary events in cancer patients: a comprehensive review. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2009; 28:113. [PMID: 19682368 PMCID: PMC2735734 DOI: 10.1186/1756-9966-28-113] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2009] [Accepted: 08/14/2009] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Compounds derived from biologic sources, or biologicals, are increasingly utilized as therapeutic agents in malignancy. Development of anti-cancer targeted therapies from biologics is increasingly being utilized. Cetuximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody, is one such anti-cancer targeted therapeutic that has shown efficacy in quelling the rate of patient decline in colorectal, head/neck, and non-small cell lung cancer. However, due to the relatively recent addition of biologic compounds to the therapeutic arsenal, information related to adverse reactions is less well known than those seen in traditional chemotherapeutics. Dermatologic reactions have been demonstrated as the most frequent side effect cited during cetuximab therapy for malignancy; however, other effects may lead to greater morbidity. In general, pulmonary complications of therapeutics can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this review is to compile the various pulmonary side effects seen in patients treated with cetuximab for various malignancies, and to compare the incidence of these adverse reactions to standard therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeffrey B Hoag
- Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Eastern Regional Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Aimel Azizi
- Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | | | - Jason Lu
- Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Rudolph E Willis
- Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Eastern Regional Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Mark E Lund
- Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Eastern Regional Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Cartwright T, Kuefler P, Cohn A, Hyman W, Berger M, Richards D, Vukelja S, Nugent JE, Ruxer RL, Boehm KA, Asmar L. Results of a phase II trial of cetuximab plus capecitabine/irinotecan as first-line therapy for patients with advanced and/or metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2009; 7:390-7. [PMID: 19036692 DOI: 10.3816/ccc.2008.n.052] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND XELIRI (capecitabine/irinotecan) is effective and well tolerated in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Cetuximab is active in mCRC alone or with chemotherapy. This study evaluated cetuximab plus XELIRI in first-line treatment of mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Subjects had histologically confirmed unresectable colorectal adenocarcinoma (with T4 lesions) after preoperative chemoradiation and/or metastases. Treatment was capecitabine 1700 mg/m2 (850 mg/m2 orally twice a day on days 1-14 for 3 weeks), irinotecan 200 mg/m2 intravenously (I.V.) on day 1 every 3 weeks, and weekly cetuximab (initially 400 mg/m2 I.V. [120 minutes], subsequently 250 mg/m2 [30 minutes]). RESULTS Baseline characteristics (N = 70): 43 men (61%); median age, 61.5 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 = 66%/34%; 94% adenocarcinoma. Previous therapy: surgery (91%), chemotherapy (14%), or radiation therapy (7%). Responses (patients completing > or = 2 cycles): complete response (5.7%), partial response (37.7%), stable disease (43.4%), and progressive disease (PD; 13.2%); 16 patients discontinued early (n = 4 allergic reaction, n = 2 withdrew consent, n = 2 death, and n = 8 other adverse events [AEs]). The overall per-protocol response rate was 43.4% (34% intent to treat [ITT]; disease control rate, 86.8%; 69% ITT). The median time to progression was 8.1 months (range, < 1-27.0 months), and the median time to response was 1.6 months (range, 1.1-8.4 months). The median survival was 20.5 months, and 45.7% of patients remain alive. Of the 38 deaths, 84% were because of PD. No death was treatment related. The most frequent grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs included diarrhea, neutropenia, and nausea/vomiting; 32% of patients required dose reductions. All patients are off the study primarily because of PD (34.3%) or AEs (40.0%). CONCLUSION In summary, XELIRI plus cetuximab is a promising regimen that merits further study for first-line mCRC.
Collapse
|
18
|
Bauer KA, Hammerman S, Rapoport B, Lacouture ME. Completeness in the Reporting of Dermatologic Adverse Drug Reactions Associated with Monoclonal Antibody Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors in Phase II and III Colorectal Cancer Clinical Trials. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2008; 7:309-14. [DOI: 10.3816/ccc.2008.n.040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
|
19
|
Bachet JB, Afchain P, Fermanian C, Bouchahda M, Mitry E, Landi B, André T, Lièvre A, Louvet C, Aegerter P, Levi F, Rougier P. Cetuximab efficacy in patients treated routinely in university hospitals. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2008; 31:941-9. [PMID: 18166882 DOI: 10.1016/s0399-8320(07)78302-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of cetuximab (Cx) in patients with irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (IRMCRC) treated routinely at five university hospitals. PATIENTS AND METHODS Data from all patients treated with Cx (N=105) during the study period (between January 2004 and September 2005) were included in the analysis. RESULTS Median number of Cx infusions was 12 (range: 1 to 62). Objective response rate was 24.8%; stable disease in 23.8%; progression in 34.3%; 17.1% of the patients were not evaluable. Digestive and hematological adverse events were grade III in 20% and 12%, respectively, and grade IV in 12% and 11%, respectively. Response rates were higher in patients with acne-like rashes than in patients without (P=0.005). Median time to tumor progression (TTP; intention-to-treat) was 3.9 months (95% CI: 2.6-4.8). Median overall survival after Cx initiation was 8.3 months (95% CI: 6.310.7). Four prognostic factors were significantly associated with a shorter TTP: center (Center 4: HR=2.25, 95% CI: 1.16-4.35, P=0.017); absence of hepatic metastases (HR=2.5, 95% CI: 1.434.37, P=0.001); WHO performance status (HR=1.47, 95% CI: 1.10-1.96, P=0.008); and number of metastatic sites (HR=1.30, 95% CI: 1.05-1.60, P=0.014). CONCLUSION This analysis of a random population of IRMCRC patients supports Cx efficacy and feasibility, and is in agreement with the results of the BOND study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jean-Baptiste Bachet
- Hôpital Ambroise-Paré, APHP, Boulogne, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, UFR Paris Ile-de-France Ouest.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
Bouchahda M, Macarulla T, Spano JP, Bachet JB, Lledo G, Andre T, Landi B, Tabernero J, Karaboué A, Domont J, Levi F, Rougier P. Cetuximab efficacy and safety in a retrospective cohort of elderly patients with heavily pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2008; 67:255-62. [PMID: 18400508 DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2008.02.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/08/2007] [Revised: 02/05/2008] [Accepted: 02/06/2008] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Few data are available from clinical trials for elderly patients receiving cetuximab. PATIENTS AND METHODS The clinical data of consecutive patients aged > or =70 years given cetuximab for metastatic CRC were retrospectively captured from hospital pharmacy registries in seven centers. RESULTS Fifty-six patients received cetuximab+/-with irinotecan. Median age was 76 years (70-84), 86% of patients were pretreated with fluoropyrimidines, irinotecan and oxaliplatin and 69.6% had documented resistance to irinotecan. Objective response rate was 21% (95% CI: 11-32%). The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months (95% CI: 3.0-5.7 months) and the median overall survival was 16.0 months (95% CI: 13.5-18.5 months). Skin rash occurred in 75% of the patients (11% grade 3) and diarrhea in 80% (20% grades 3-4). CONCLUSION Tolerability of cetuximab was acceptable in elderly patients with pretreated metastatic CRC. Efficacy appeared similar to that observed in younger patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M Bouchahda
- Hôpital Paul Brousse,Villejuif, Paris, France
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Bringing unresectable liver disease to resection with curative intent. Eur J Surg Oncol 2007; 33 Suppl 2:S42-51. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2007.09.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 51] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2007] [Accepted: 09/26/2007] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
|
22
|
Vincenzi B, Santini D, Russo A, Gavasci M, Battistoni F, Dicuonzo G, Rocci L, Rosaria VM, Gebbia N, Tonini G. Circulating VEGF reduction, response and outcome in advanced colorectal cancer patients treated with cetuximab plus irinotecan. Pharmacogenomics 2007; 8:319-27. [PMID: 17391070 DOI: 10.2217/14622416.8.4.319] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We designed this trial to investigate if modifications in levels of circulating vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) may be related to clinical response and outcome in advanced colorectal cancer patients during treatment with a weekly combination of cetuximab plus irinotecan. METHODS A total of 45 heavily pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer patients were prospectively evaluated for circulating levels of VEGF during the treatment with cetuximab plus weekly irinotecan. VEGF circulating levels were assessed at the following time points: just before and at 1, 21, 50 and 92 days after the start of cetuximab plus irinotecan treatment. RESULTS Basal VEGF median levels were significantly decreased just 1 day after the first anticancer infusion (p = 0.016) and reached the highest statistical significance 92 days after the first infusion (p < 0.0001). A total of 22 patients showed a reduction in median VEGF circulating levels of at least 50% 92 days after the first infusion with respect to the basal time point. For patients with at least a 50% reduction in VEGF levels, the response rate was 45.5% compared with 8.7% in the nonreduced VEGF group (p = 0.014). The median time to progression was 6 months in the reduced VEGF group versus 3.9 months in the other patients (p < 0.0001). In addition, overall survival was longer in patients with VEGF reduction (11.0 months) than in patients without (9.6 months; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION These data represent the first evidence that suggests a role of VEGF reduction in the prediction of efficacy of treatment with cetuximab plus weekly irinotecan in heavily pretreated advanced colorectal cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bruno Vincenzi
- University Campus Bio-Medico, Medical Oncology, Via Emilio Longoni, 69, 00155, Rome, Italy.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Gundgaard MG, Soerensen JB, Ehrnrooth E. Third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2007; 61:1-13. [PMID: 17786445 DOI: 10.1007/s00280-007-0573-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/10/2007] [Accepted: 07/24/2007] [Indexed: 10/22/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The past years' therapy for colorectal cancer has evolved rapidly with the introduction of novel cytotoxic agents such as irinotecan, capecitabine and oxaliplatin. Further advances have been achieved with the integration of targeted agents such as bevacizumab, cetuximab and recently, panitumumab. As a result, third-line treatment is now a necessary step in the optimal treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted a literature review of English language publications on third-line therapy for MCRC from January 2000 to April 2007. Data on median overall survival (mOS), median time to progression (mTTP) and response rate were recorded. RESULTS We found 27 articles and 22 abstracts to fulfil the criteria. Patients who received regimens containing oxaliplatin and infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) demonstrated mTTP up to 7 months and a mOS of 16 months. With irinotecan and 5-FU, mOS around 8 months were reported and with cetuximab combined with irinotecan, the highest mOS was 9.8 months. CONCLUSION Third-line therapy in advanced colorectal cancer may improve mOS for patients with MCRC. Therefore, randomized studies should be conducted in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M G Gundgaard
- Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Current awareness: Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007. [DOI: 10.1002/pds.1375] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
|
25
|
|
26
|
Vincenzi B, Schiavon G, Silletta M, Santini D, Tonini G. The new era in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer patients: the role of monoclonal antibodies. Expert Opin Emerg Drugs 2006; 11:665-83. [PMID: 17064225 DOI: 10.1517/14728214.11.4.665] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents a major health problem in the Western world. Approximately 60% of patients with CRC require systemic therapy for metastatic disease, either at diagnosis or at disease recurrence. Until recently, classic chemotherapeutic agents have been combined in the treatment of advanced CRC. The recent considerable development of novel monoclonal antibodies that target key components of biological pathways has expanded the options to treat advanced CRC patients. These newer agents more specifically target unique features of the cancer cell and its surroundings and so attempt to exploit the progress that has been made in the understanding of basic cell biology. Two targets in particular--the process of new blood vessel development, or angiogenesis, and the EGF receptor and its signalling pathway--are exploited by the newest monoclonal antibodies available for use in this setting. This clinical review focuses on the defining role of the two most clinically advanced novel agents, bevacizumab and cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bruno Vincenzi
- University Campus Bio-Medico, Medical Oncology, Via Emilio Longoni 69, 00155, Rome, Italy.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|