Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in Chinese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III ARTIST trial

Monoclonal Antibodies for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

In addition to discontinuing treatment at disease progression, cumulative toxicity limitations and genetic mutations play important roles in chemotherapy choice in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, in recent years, targeted therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors or monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs), have been used with chemotherapy to improve clinical outcomes in patients with mCRC.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

Approximately 15% of patients with CRC would be eligible for further targeted therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors based on genetic testing, but most patients with CRC would not qualify, especially Kirsten rat sarcoma wild-type. Therefore, adding MoAb is only an option for most patients until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurs. However, the results are not consistent with the combination of MoAb and different chemotherapy bases. In addition, most results from combining MoAb with different chemotherapy bases are not consistent.

DATA SOURCES

This meta-analysis includes published of the PubMed and Embase databases, limited to English literature, and patients were treated with MoAb combination. Randomized control trials conducted published up to May 2021 were considered for inclusion.

THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

Fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy has been the backbone of palliative therapy for mCRC, with demonstrated benefits. This article will review the efficacy and safety of randomized control trials comparing different MoAb with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy for patients with mCRC, particularly in Kirsten rat sarcoma wild-type.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis revealed that MoAb plus chemotherapy has better progression-free survival and objective response rate than chemotherapy alone. However, treatment-related serious adverse events (grade ≥ 3) should be considered, particularly severe rash, diarrhea, and hypertension.

Risks of hypertension and thromboembolism in patients receiving bevacizumab with chemotherapy for colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Guidelines show that for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), a combination of three-drug regimens, fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin and bevacizumab (BVZ), is one of the first-line standard therapies. BVZ is generally well tolerated; however, it is associated with infrequent, life-threatening side effects such as severe hypertension (HTN) (5%-18%), Grade ≥3 arterial thromboembolism (ATE) (2.6%), Grade ≥3 hemorrhagic events (1.2%-4.6%), and gastrointestinal perforation (0.3%-2.4%). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the additive risk of BVZ-induced severe HTN and thromboembolism when BVZ is combined with a standard chemotherapy regime in patients with mCRC.

METHODS

Our search was conducted from January 29, 2022, to February 22, 2022, through databases of PubMed, clinicaltrial.gov, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Data analysis from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical trials was conducted using Review Manager V.5.4, comparing BVZ-chemotherapy to chemotherapy only, focusing on cardiovascular AE such as HTN and arterial and venous thromboembolism.

RESULTS

The analysis from 26 clinical trials and RCTs showed that the odds of HTN were about four times higher, and ATE subgroup analysis of 11 studies showed over two times higher odds of ATE in patients being treated with BVZ compared to the chemotherapy-only group.

CONCLUSION

BVZ, when added to the standard chemotherapy regimen for mCRC, was associated with higher odds of developing HTN and thromboembolism, specifically ATE, than the chemotherapy-only group. Our findings are significant as they provide vital information in analyzing the risk-benefit ratio of adding BVZ to the standard chemotherapy regime in patients with mCRC, especially in patients with vascular comorbidities.

Different doses of bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis and Bayesian analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to explore the incremental benefit of bevacizumab (Bev) in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) with different doses.

METHODS

A literature search of eight electronic databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang databases, Chinese Biomedical Database, VIP medicine information, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE) was conducted from database creation to December 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared Bev at various dosages + chemotherapy (CT) versus placebo (or blank control) + CT were selected. The overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR; complete response [CR] + partial response [PR]), and grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) were integrated first by pooled analysis. The likelihood of ideal dosage of Bev was then ranked using random effects within Bayesian analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-six RCTs involving 18,261 patients met the inclusion criteria. OS increased significantly after using 5 mg (HR: 0.87, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00) and 10 mg dosages of Bev (HR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.85) with CT, but statistical significance was not attained for the 7.5 mg dose (HR: 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.08). A significantly increased in PFS with doses of 5 mg (HR: 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.83), 7.5 mg (HR: 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.00), and 10 mg (HR: 0.60, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.68). ORR distinctly increased after 5 mg (RR: 1.34, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.55), 7.5 mg (RR: 1.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.50), and10 mg (RR: 2.27, 95% CI 1.82 to 2.84) doses were administered. Grade ≥ 3 AEs increased clearly in 5 mg (RR: 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.20) compared to 7.5 mg (RR: 1.05, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.35) and 10 mg (RR: 1.15, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.36). Bayesian analysis demonstrated that 10 mg Bev obtained the maximum time of OS (HR: 0.75, 95% CrI 0.58 to 0.97; probability rank = 0.05) indirectly compared to 5 mg and 7.5 mg Bev. Compared with 5 mg and 7.5 mg Bev, 10 mg Bev also holds the longest duration for PFS (HR: 0.59, 95% CrI 0.43 to 0.82; probability rank = 0.00). In terms of ORR, 10 mg Bev holds the maximum frequency (RR: 2.02, 95% CrI 1.52 to 2.66; probability rank = 0.98) in comparison to 5 mg and 7.5 mg Bev clearly. For grade ≥ 3 AEs, 10 mg Bev has the maximum incidence (RR: 1.15, 95% CrI 0.95 to 1.40, probability rank = 0.67) in comparison to other doses of Bev.

CONCLUSION

The study suggests that 10 mg dose Bev could be more effective in treating advanced CRC in efficacy, but 5 mg Bev could be more safer in terms of safety.

A Real-World Study of Safety, Immunogenicity and Efficacy of Bevacizumab in Patients With Solid Malignancies: A Phase IV, Post-Marketing Study in India

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the post-marketing safety, tolerability, immunogenicity and efficacy of Bevacizumab (manufactured by Hetero Biopharma) in a broader population of patients with solid tumors.

Patients And Methods

This phase IV, prospective, multi-centric clinical study was carried out in Indian patients with solid malignancies (metastatic colorectal cancer, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, metastatic renal cell carcinoma) treated with Bevacizumab between April 2018 and July 2019. This study included 203 patients from 16 tertiary care oncology centers across India for safety assessment, of which a subset of 115 patients who have consented were also evaluated for efficacy and immunogenicity. This study was prospectively registered in the Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI), and was commenced only after receiving approval from the competent authority (Central Drugs Standard Control Organization, CDSCO).

Results

Out of the 203 enrolled patients, 121 (59.6%) patients reported 338 adverse events (AEs) during this study. Of 338 reported AEs, 14 serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported by 13 patients including 6 fatal SAEs, assessed as unrelated to the study medication and 7 non-fatal SAEs, 5 assessed as related, and 3 unrelated to Bevacizumab. Most AEs reported in this study (33.9%) were general disorders and administration site conditions, followed by gastrointestinal disorders (29.1%). The most frequently reported AEs were diarrhea (11.3%), asthenia (10.3%), headache (8.9%), pain (7.4%), vomiting (7.9%), and neutropenia (5.9%). At the end of the study, 2 (1.75%) of 69 patients reported antibodies to Bevacizumab without affecting safety and efficacy. However, at the end of 12 months, no patient had reported antibodies to Bevacizumab. Complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) were reported in 18.3%, 22.6%, 9.6%, and 8.7% of patients, respectively. The overall response rate (CR + PR) was reported in 40.9% of patients at the end of the study. Disease control rate (DCR), also known as the clinical benefit rate (CBR) was reported in 50.4% of patients.

Conclusions

Bevacizumab (Cizumab, Hetero Biopharma) was observed to be safe, well tolerated, lacking immunogenicity, and efficacious in the treatment of solid tumors. The findings of this phase IV study of Bevacizumab, primarily as a combination therapy regimen suggest its suitability and rationality for usage in multiple solid malignancies.

Clinical Trial Registry Number

CTRI/2018/4/13371 [Registered on CTRI http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/advsearch.php : 19/04/2018]; Trial Registered Prospectively.

Bevacizumab Treatment for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Real-World Clinical Practice

Background and Objectives: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality and morbidity worldwide. Bevacizumab was approved for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on favorable benefit-risk assessments from randomized controlled trials, but evidence on its use in the real-world setting is limited. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the outcomes and safety profile of bevacizumab in mCRC in a real-world setting in Romania. Patients and Methods: This was an observational, retrospective, multicentric, cohort study conducted in Romania that included patients with mCRC treated with bevacizumab as part of routine clinical practice. Study endpoints were progression-free survival, overall survival, adverse events, and patterns of bevacizumab use. Results: A total of 554 patients were included in the study between January 2008 and December 2018. A total of 392 patients (71%) received bevacizumab in the first line and 162 patients (29%) in the second line. Bevacizumab was mostly combined with a capecitabine/oxaliplatin chemotherapy regimen (31.6%). The median PFS for patients treated with bevacizumab was 8.4 months (interquartile range [IQR], 4.7-15.1 months) in the first line and 6.6 months (IQR, 3.8-12.3 months) in the second line. The median OS was 17.7 months (IQR, 9.3-30.6 months) in the first line and 13.5 months (IQR, 6.7-25.2 months) in the second line. Primary tumor resection was associated with a longer PFS and OS. The safety profile of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy was similar to other observational studies in mCRC. Conclusions: The safety profile of bevacizumab was generally as expected. Although the PFS was generally similar to that reported in other studies, the OS was shorter, probably due to the less frequent use of bevacizumab after disease progression and the baseline patient characteristics. Patients with mCRC treated with bevacizumab who underwent resection of the primary tumor had a higher OS compared to patients with an unresected primary tumor.

Phase II study of anlotinib in combination with oxaliplatin and capecitabine for patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma as the first-line therapy

BACKGROUND

Anlotinib, an oral small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting VEGFR 1/2/3, FGFR 1-4, PDGFR a/β, and c-kit, had demonstrated prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This multicenter, single-arm, phase II, exploratory study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anlotinib combined with capecitabine and oxaliplatin as first-line treatment for unresectable RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC.

METHODS

Patients aged 18-75 with RAS/BRAF wild-type unresectable mCRC, without prior systemic treatment, and ECOG performance status ≤1 were enrolled. Eligible patients received capecitabine (850 mg/m2, p.o., bid, on day 1-14 every 21 days), oxaliplatin (130 mg/m2, i.v., on day 1 every 21 days), and anlotinib (12 mg, p.o., qd, on days 1-14 every 21 days) as induction therapy. Following 6 cycles of therapy, patients who achieved response or stable disease received capecitabine and anlotinib as maintenance therapy until tumor progression. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST (version: 1.1), and the secondary endpoints were PFS, disease control rate (DCR), duration of response (DOR), and safety.

RESULTS

Between November 2019 and February 2021, 31 patients were enrolled. One patient was excluded for refusing treatment. The primary endpoint of ORR was 76.7% (95% CI, 57.7-90.1) with 1 patient achieving a complete response and 22 patients partial response. DCR was 93.3% (95% CI, 77.9-99.2). At a median follow-up of 14.1 months (95% CI, 9.9-18.3), median PFS was 11.3 months (95% CI, 7.1-14.1), and DOR was 7.9 months (95% CI, 5.5-12.7). Twenty-five (83.3%) patients experienced grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). No grade 5 TEAE was reported. The most common grade 3 or 4 TEAEs (>10%) were hypertension (15/30; 50%), neutrophil count decreased (8/30; 26.7%), and diarrhea (4/30; 13.3%). A total of 18 (60%) patients had TEAEs that resulted in dose reduction, interruptions, or delays.

CONCLUSIONS

Anlotinib combined with capecitabine and oxaliplatin showed considerable ORR, DCR, PFS, and DOR in the first-line therapy of mCRC with manageable toxicity profiles.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT04080843.

Overall Survival and Progression-Free Survival Comparison of Bevacizumab Plus Chemotherapy Combination Regiment versus Chemotherapy Only Regiment in Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third-most common cancer in the world, in which 15%–25% of patients already had metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) at the time of diagnosis. The overall survival (OS) of mCRC is poor with the use of chemotherapy. AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to examine the outcomes of OS and progression-free survival (PFS) of adding bevacizumab to different chemotherapy regiments compared to chemotherapy regiments only in the treatment of untreated mCRC. METHODS: Literature searching was done in databases such as PubMed, EBSCO, SCOPUS, and ScienceDirect. The primary outcome measured in this systematic review and meta-analysis was OS, while the secondary outcome was PFS. Hazard ratio (HR) was used as the main summary measure with 95% confidence interval (CI). Publication bias was measured using a funnel plot. RESULTS: Literature searching resulted in 11 selected studies, 9 selected for meta-analysis. Addition of bevacizumab showed significant better results in OS (HR 0.83, CI 95% 0.74–0.93; p = 0.002; I2 = 29%) and PFS (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.51–0.75; p < 0.0001, I2 = 78%). CONCLUSION: The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy resulted in better OS and PFS in untreated mCRC. Further studies are needed to confirm PFS benefit from the combination of bevacizumab and chemotherapy due to significant heterogeneity.

Cancer combination therapies by angiogenesis inhibitors; a comprehensive review

Abnormal vasculature is one of the most conspicuous traits of tumor tissue, largely contributing to tumor immune evasion. The deregulation mainly arises from the potentiated pro-angiogenic factors secretion and can also target immune cells' biological events, such as migration and activation. Owing to this fact, angiogenesis blockade therapy was established to fight cancer by eliminating the nutrient and oxygen supply to the malignant cells by impairing the vascular network. Given the dominant role of vascular-endothelium growth factor (VEGF) in the angiogenesis process, the well-known anti-angiogenic agents mainly depend on the targeting of its actions. However, cancer cells mainly show resistance to anti-angiogenic agents by several mechanisms, and also potentiated local invasiveness and also distant metastasis have been observed following their administration. Herein, we will focus on clinical developments of angiogenesis blockade therapy, more particular, in combination with other conventional treatments, such as immunotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, targeted therapy, and also cancer vaccines. Video abstract.

Evaluation of tyrosine kinase inhibitors combined with antiprogrammed cell death protein 1 antibody in tyrosine kinase inhibitor-responsive patients with microsatellite stable/proficient mismatch repair metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma: protocol for open-label, single-arm trial

INTRODUCTION

The prognosis of patients with advanced metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma (mCRC) after multiple-line therapy remains poor due to the high tumour load, high level of malignancy and strong drug resistance. The application of programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade alone for patients with microsatellite stable/proficient mismatch repair (MSS/pMMR) mCRC is ineffective. PD-1 blockade combined with antiangiogenic therapy has synergistic effects and has initially shown therapeutic effects. The aim of this trial is to explore the efficiency and safety of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) combined with PD-1 blockade therapy in patients with mCRC with MSS/pMMR.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The screening phase of the trial will involve administering one cycle of TKIs (fruquintinib or regorafenib). Patients will be divided into three arms-arm A (obvious response to TKIs), arm B (general response to TKIs) and arm C (poor response to TKIs)-according to their response to TKIs, as determined by significant changes in imaging findings. Patients in arm A will then receive TKIs in combination with anti-PD-1 antibody, patients in arm C will withdraw from the study, and those in arm B will continue to take TKIs for another one further cycle. Next, patients with obvious response to TKIs will be reallocated to arm A, those with general response to TKIs will stay in arm B and will continue to take TKIs, and patients with poor response to TKIs will withdraw from the study. Administration of arm A or arm B will last until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Anti-PD-1 antibody can be administered for up to 2 years. This trial will provide necessary data to improve the prognosis of patients with MSS/pMMR mCRC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04483219; Pre-results.

Systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of pembrolizumab versus other interventions for previously untreated, unresectable or metastatic, microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer

Aim: To compare pembrolizumab with competing interventions for previously untreated, unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer. Method: Trials were identified via a systematic literature review and synthesized using a Bayesian network meta-analysis with time-varying hazard ratios (HRs). Results: Using intention-to-treat data, HRs for overall survival were generally in favor of pembrolizumab but not statistically significant; however, statistical significance was reached versus all comparators by month 16 when accounting for crossover. Estimated HRs for progression-free survival significantly favored pembrolizumab versus all comparators by month 12. Pembrolizumab was also superior to all comparators in terms of grade ≥3 adverse events. Conclusion: These analyses suggest that pembrolizumab is a highly efficacious and safe treatment in this population.

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.

Serious Adverse Events Reporting in Phase III Randomized Clinical Trials of Colorectal Cancer Treatments: A Systematic Analysis

Objective: The occurrence, development, and prognosis of serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with anticancer drugs in clinical trials have important guiding significance for real-world clinical applications. However, to date, there have been no studies investigating SAEs reporting in randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments. This article systematically reviewed the SAEs reporting of phase III randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments and analyzed the influencing factors. Methods: We reviewed all articles about phase III randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments published in the PubMed, Embase, Medline, and New England Journal of Medicine databases from January 1, 1993, to December 31, 2018, and searched the registration information of clinical trials via the internet sites such as "clinicaltrials.gov". We analyzed the correlation between the reported proportion (RP) of SAEs in the literature and nine elements, including the clinical trial sponsor and the publication time. Chi-square tests and binary logistic regression were used to identify the factors associated with improved SAEs reports. This study was registered on PROSPERO. Results: Of 1560 articles identified, 160 were eligible, with an RP of SAEs of 25.5% (41/160). In forty-one publications reporting SAEs, only 14.6% (6/41) described the pattern of SAEs in detail. In clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, the RP of SAEs was significantly higher than that in those sponsored by investigators (57.6 versus 20.7%, p < 0.001). From 1993 to 2018, the RP of SAEs gradually increased (none (0/6) before 2000, 17.1% (12/70) from 2000 to 2009, and 34.5% (29/84) after 2009). The average RP of SAEs published in the New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med), the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Lancet Oncology (Lancet Oncol), and the Journal of Clinical Oncology (J Clin Oncol) was significantly higher than that published in other journals (31.9 versus 16.7%, p = 0.030). In the clinical trials referenced by clinical guidelines, the RP of SAEs was higher than that in non-referenced clinical trials (32.0 versus 15.9%, p = 0.023). Binary logistic regression analysis showed that pharmaceutical company sponsorship, new drug research, and sample size greater than 1000 were positive influencing factors for SAEs reporting. Conclusion: Although the RP of SAEs increased over time, SAEs reporting in clinical trials needs to be further improved. The performance, outcomes and prognosis of SAEs should be reported in detail to guide clinical practice in the real world.

Efficacy and safety of chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab in Chinese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A prospective, multicenter, observational, non-interventional phase IV trial

OBJECTIVE

Bevacizumab has an important and evolving role in improving outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) worldwide and was approved in China in 2010. However, there are limited real-world data on the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy regimens combined with bevacizumab in Chinese patients with mCRC. This observational, phase IV trial study aimed to obtain more experience on the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in Chinese mCRC patients.

METHODS

Between September 2013 and November 2016, patients with histologically confirmed mCRC were enrolled in a prospective, multicenter, observational, non-interventional phase IV trial at 26 centers across China. Eligible patients received different chemotherapeutic regimens combined with bevacizumab. The efficacy and safety data in the intention-to-treat study population were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 611 patients were included in the efficacy analysis. The median overall survival and median progression-free survival was 18.00 and 10.05 months, respectively. The objective response rate was 21.00% and disease control rate was 89.40%. In subgroup analyses, the survival differences were observed according to metastatic status, duration of treatment and elevation in blood pressure. A total of 613 patients were evaluable for safety assessments. And 569 (92.82%) patients reported at least one adverse event (AE), and 151 (24.63%) experienced grade 3 or higher AEs. The incidence of bevacizumab-associated AEs of special interest was reported in 31 (5.06%) patients with hypertension (n=12), abscesses and fistulae (n=7), bleeding (n=6), proteinuria (n=3), gastrointestinal perforation (n=2) and venous thrombotic events (n=1).

CONCLUSIONS

This observational phase IV trial broadens our experience and knowledge of bevacizumab in the Chinese population and provides a good indication of its overall efficacy and safety. Bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy offers clinical benefits to Chinese patients with mCRC and has an acceptable and manageable safety profile.

Angiogenesis Inhibitors for Colorectal Cancer. A Review of the Clinical Data

Since the late 1990s, therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has changed considerably, and the combination of doublet or triplet chemotherapy and a targeted agent are now routinely used. The targeting of angiogenesis, the development of new blood vessels, represents a key element in the overall treatment strategy. Since the approval in 2004 of the first anti-angiogenetic drug, multiple agents have been approved and others are currently under investigation. We present an overview of the recent literature on approved systemic treatment of mCRC, with a focus on anti-angiogenic drugs, and current treatment approaches, and elaborate on the future role of angiogenesis in colorectal cancer as seen from a clinical perspective. The treatment of mCRC, in general, has changed from "one strategy fits all" to a more personalized approach. This is, however, not entirely the case for anti-angiogenetic treatments, partly due to a lack of validated biomarkers. The anti-angiogenetic standard treatment at the present primarily includes monoclonal antibodies. The therapeutic field of angiogenesis, however, has received increased interest after the introduction of newer combinations. These approaches will likely change the current treatment strategy, once again, to the overall benefit of patients.

Are Quality of Randomized Clinical Trials and ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale Two Sides of the Same Coin, to Grade Recommendations for Drug Approval?

The approval of a new drug for cancer treatment by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is based on positive, well-designed randomized phase III clinical trials (RCTs). However, not all of them are analyzed to support the recommendations. For this reason, there are different scales to quantify and evaluate the quality of RCTs and the magnitude of the clinical benefits of new drugs for treating solid tumors. In this review, we discuss the value of the progression-free survival (PFS) as an endpoint in RCTs and the concordance between it and the overall survival (OS) as a measure of the quality of clinical trial designs. We summarize and analyze the different scales to evaluate the clinical benefits of new drugs such as the The American Society of Clinical Oncology value framework (ASCO-VF-NHB16) and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) and the concordance between them, focusing on metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We propose several definitions that would help to evaluate the quality of RCT, the magnitude of clinical benefit and the appropriate approval of new drugs in oncology.

Optimal duration of therapy in the first line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: single center experience

Background / Aim. FOLFOX (5fluorouracil, folinic acid, oxaliplatin)/CapOx (capecitabine, oxaliplatin) plus bevacizumab and FOLFIRI (5 fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan) plus bevacizumab are a standard treatment options for a first line treatment of metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC). The aim of this study was to compare overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the groups of patients with mCRC who were treated in the first line with FOLFIRI/bev versus FOLFOX/bev. At the same time, it was compared the safety profile in observed groups of patients and investigated optimal treatment duration and characteristics of patients who had the best treatment outcomes. Methods. In a retrospective-prospective study, patients with mCRC were treated with a chemotherapy protocols for the first line in combination with bevacizumab (FOLFOX/bev, respectively, FOLFIRI/bev). Treatment efficacy was evaluated on the basis of overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and the safety of treatment was evaluated by monitoring adverse drug reactions. Results. ORR was 70% in the FOLFIRI/bev group and 50% in the FOLFOX/bev group. Median PFS for FOLFIRI/bev (n = 30) and for FOLFOX/bev (n = 30) was 15.6 months and 12.1 months respectively (HR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-1.53; P = 0.5591). Median OS for FOLFIRI/bev and for FOLFOX/bev was 24.7 months and 19.9 months respectively (HR, 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37-1.23; P = 0.1552). In both patient groups, the patients who received more than 9 cycles of induction therapy had better treatment response in comparison with patients who received less than 9 cycles of therapy. In FOLFOX/bev group PFS was 16.9 versus 9.7 months and OS was 22.1 versus 17.6 months respectively. In FOLFIRI/bev group PFS was 9 months for patients who received less than 9 cycles of therapy versus 18.8 months for patients who received more than 9 cycles, OS was 18.0 versus 27.7 respectively. The adverse drug reactions grade 3 and 4 were 7% in the FOLFIRI/bev group versus 27% in the FOLFOX/bev group. Conclusion. Patients who received FOLFIRI/bev had better ORR (70 % versus 50 %), PFS (15.6 versus 12.1 months) and OS (24.7 versus 19.9 months). In both patient groups, better treatment response had the patients who received induction therapy for 4-6 months (more than 9 cycles of therapy).

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. First Line Therapy for Unresectable Disease

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a commonly diagnosed malignancy. The prognosis of patients with unresectable, metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is dismal and medical treatment is mainly palliative in nature. Although chemotherapy remains the backbone of treatment, the landscape is changing with the understanding of its heterogeneity and molecular biology. First-line therapy relies on a combination of chemotherapy and targeted therapies, according to clinical patient characteristics and tumor molecular profile. Here we review current evidence from randomized clinical trials for using chemotherapy doublets or triplets, and for the addition of bevacizumab or anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents. Novel therapies developed for small, selected populations are also discussed.

Precision Approaches in the Management of Colorectal Cancer: Current Evidence and Latest Advancements Towards Individualizing the Treatment

The genetic and molecular underpinnings of metastatic colorectal cancer have been studied for decades, and the applicability of these findings in clinical decision making continues to evolve. Advancements in translating molecular studies have provided a basis for tailoring chemotherapeutic regimens in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatment, which have informed multiple practice guidelines. Various genetic and molecular pathways have been identified as clinically significant in the pathogenesis of metastatic colorectal cancer. These include rat sarcoma (RAS), epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR), vascular endothelial growth factor VEGF, microsatellite instability, mismatch repair, and v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog b1 (BRAF) with established clinical implications. RAS mutations and deficiencies in the mismatch repair pathway guide decisions regarding the administration of anti-EGFR-based therapies and immunotherapy, respectively. Furthermore, there are several emerging pathways and therapeutic modalities that have not entered mainstream use in mCRC treatment and are ripe for further investigation. The well-established data in the arena of targeted therapies provide evidence-based support for the use or avoidance of various therapeutic regimens in mCRC treatment, while the emerging pathways and platforms offer a glimpse into the future of transforming a precision approach into a personalized treatment.

Simulating Progression-Free and Overall Survival for First-Line Doublet Chemotherapy With or Without Bevacizumab in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Based on Real-World Registry Data

BACKGROUND

Simulation models utilizing real-world data have potential to optimize treatment sequencing strategies for specific patient subpopulations, including when conducting clinical trials is not feasible. We aimed to develop a simulation model to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival for first-line doublet chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab for specific subgroups of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients based on registry data.

METHODS

Data from 867 patients were used to develop two survival models and one logistic regression model that populated a discrete event simulation (DES). Discrimination and calibration were used for internal validation of these models separately and predicted and observed medians and Kaplan-Meier plots were compared for the integrated DES. Bootstrapping was performed to correct for optimism in the internal validation and to generate correlated sets of model parameters for use in a probabilistic analysis to reflect parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

The survival models showed good calibration based on the regression slopes and modified Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics at 1 and 2 years, but not for short-term predictions at 0.5 years. Modified C-statistics indicated acceptable discrimination. The simulation estimated that median first-line PFS (95% confidence interval) of 219 (25%) patients could be improved from 175 days (156-199) to 269 days (246-294) if treatment would be targeted based on the highest expected PFS.

CONCLUSIONS

Extensive internal validation showed that DES accurately estimated the outcomes of treatment combination strategies for specific subpopulations, with outcomes suggesting treatment could be optimized. Although results based on real-world data are informative, they cannot replace randomized trials.

Combining Correlated Outcomes and Surrogate Endpoints in a Network Meta-Analysis of Colorectal Cancer Treatments

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of systemic therapies in the treatment of unresectable advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer. Predicted hazard ratios (HRs) and their 95% credible intervals (CrIs) for overall survival (OS) were calculated from the odds ratio (OR) for the overall response rate and/or HR for progression-free survival using multivariate random effects (MVRE) models. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) of 49 articles to compare the efficacy and safety of FOLFOX/FOLFIRI±bevacizumab (Bmab)/cetuximab (Cmab)/panitumumab (Pmab), and FOLFOXIRI/CAPEOX±Bmab. The NMA showed significant OS improvement with FOLFOX, FOLFOX+Cmab, and FOLFIRI+Cmab compared with that of FOLFIRI (HR = 0.84, 95% CrI = 0.73-0.98; HR = 0.76, 95% CrI = 0.62-0.94; HR = 0.80, 95% CrI = 0.66-0.96, respectively), as well as with FOLFOX+Cmab and FOLFIRI+Cmab compared with that of FOLFOXIRI (HR = 0.69, 95% CrI = 0.51-0.94 and HR = 0.73, 95% CrI = 0.54-0.97, respectively). The odds of adverse events grade ≥3 were significantly higher for FOLFOX+Cmab vs. FOLFIRI+Bmab (OR = 2.34, 95% CrI = 1.01-4.66). Higher odds of events were observed for FOLFIRI+Pmab in comparison with FOLFIRI (OR = 2.16, 95% CrI = 1.09-3.84) and FOLFIRI+Bmab (OR = 3.14, 95% CrI = 1.51-5.89). FOLFOX+Cmab and FOLFIRI+Bmab showed high probabilities of being first- and second-line treatments in terms of the efficacy and safety, respectively. The findings of the efficacy and safety comparisons may support the selection of appropriate treatments in clinical practice. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020153640.

Quality of adverse event reporting in phase III randomized controlled trials of breast and colorectal cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial reports often emphasize efficacy over harms, leading to misinterpretation of the risk-to-benefit ratio of new therapies. Clear and sufficiently detailed reporting of methods and results is especially important in the abstracts of trial reports, as readers often base their assessment of a trial on such information. In this study, we evaluated the quality of adverse event (AE) reporting and abstract quality in phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic therapies in breast and colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of RCTs, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from November 2005 to September 2018. Phase III RCTs evaluating systemic therapies in breast or colorectal cancer were included. Each article was independently reviewed by two investigators using a standardized data extraction form based on guidelines developed by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and multivariable linear regression were used to analyze data. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Of 166 RCTs identified, 99.4% reported harms in the manuscript body, and 59.6% reported harms in the abstract. Reporting was restricted to severe harms in 15.6% of RCTs. Statistical comparison of AE rates went unreported in 59.0% of studies. Information regarding AEs leading to dose reductions, treatment discontinuations, or study withdrawals went unreported in 59.3%, 18.7%, and 86.8% of studies, respectively. Recently published RCTs (P = .009) and those sponsored at least partially by for-profit companies (P = .003) had higher abstract quality scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast and colorectal cancer phase III RCTs inadequately report CONSORT-compliant AE data. Improved guideline adherence and abstract reporting is required to properly weigh benefits and harms of new oncologic therapies.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019140673.

Meta-analysis on the risk of fatal adverse events by bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab in 31 randomized trials including 25,000 patients with colorectal carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Targeted drugs including bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab have been widely used during the management of patients diagnosed with colorectal carcinoma, especially as palliative treatment. The present meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the fatal adverse events (FAEs) of targeted drugs including bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab in patients with colorectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Studies of prospective, randomized, and controlled feature from EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane Library, which reported FAEs potentially associated with bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab were adopted. Clinical characteristics and FAEs were collected from the enrolled literatures, with the quality of which been evaluated. Pooled analysis of FAEs, caused by each agent as first line, second/further line, and adjuvant treatment were performed with relative risks (RRs) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in software RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

Thirty-one studies including 25,939 patients were brought into the final analysis. The RR and its 95% CI of the FAEs among all the agents including bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.89-1.29; P = .50). The RRs and their 95% CIs of the FAEs as first line, second or further line, and adjuvant treatment related to bevacizumab were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.62-1.32; P = .61), 1.14 (95% CI, 0.57-2.28; P = .71), and 1.10 (95% CI, 0.67-1.79; P = .72). The RRs and their 95% CIs of the FAEs as first line, second or further line, and adjuvant treatment related to cetuximab were 1.02 (95% CI, 0.60-1.76; P = .93), 2.51 (95% CI, 0.49-12.88; P = .27), and 2.40 (95% CI, 1.00-5.77; P = .05). The RRs and their 95% CIs of the FAEs as first line, second or further line treatment related to panitumumab were 1.40 (95% CI, 0.89-2.18; P = .14) and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.43-1.09; P = .11), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis did not show any significantly increased RR of FAEs belonging to bevacizumab, cetuximab, or panitumumab, whether as first line, second/further line, or adjuvant treatment among patients with colorectal carcinoma comparing to placebo or blank treatment.

Efficacy and Safety of Proposed Bevacizumab Biosimilar BE1040V in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Phase III, Randomized, Double-blind, Noninferiority Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a proposed bevacizumab biosimilar to those of the reference product in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

METHODS

This Phase III, multicenter, randomized, double-blind (patient- and assessor-blind), active-controlled, 2-armed, parallel-group, noninferiority trial was conducted in patients with histologically verified colorectal cancer with evidence of at least 1 metastasis. Patients with mCRC were randomized 2:1 to receive 5 mg/kg IV of either study drug plus FOLFIRI-3 (with repeated irinotecan 100 mg/m² 60-min infusion on day 3) or the reference drug plus FOLFIRI-3 every 2 weeks for 1 year. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point, and overall survival, objective response rate, and time to treatment failure as well as safety and immunogenicity were secondary end points. The population assessable for PFS was per protocol, and the intention-to-treat population was used for sensitivity analysis. Safety was assessed based on reports of adverse events, laboratory test results, and vital sign measurements.

FINDINGS

A total of 126 patients were enrolled; PFS values in the biosimilar and reference arms were 232 days (7.7 months) and 210 days (7 months), respectively (P = 0.47). The hazard ratio of the biosimilar arm versus the reference arm was 0.79 in the per-protocol population (90% CI, 0.46-1.35; P = 0.47). The upper limit for the 2-sided 90% CI was lower than the margin of 1.44, indicating that the biosimilar drug was noninferior to the reference drug. The hazard ratio for overall survival in the intent-to-treat population was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.55-1.80; P = 0.99). The difference between other efficacy end points among the groups was not statistically significant. No significant difference was observed in the comparison of the two arms for safety. The antidrug antibody was positive in 1 patient in each arm.

IMPLICATIONS

The proposed biosimilar BE1040V was noninferior to the reference product in terms of efficacy in the treatment of mCRC, and tolerability was comparable between the 2 drugs. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03288987.

Magnitude of advantage in tumor response contributes to a better correlation between treatment effects on overall survival and progression-free survival: a literature-based meta-analysis of clinical trials in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Although it is suggested that the endpoints originated from the concept of tumor shrinkage dynamics, such as early tumor shrinkage and depth of response, are strongly associated with overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), they are yet to be validated as a single surrogate endpoint of OS by themselves. This study aimed to investigate the impact of advantage in tumor response on the correlation between treatment effects on progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in mCRC patients.

METHODS

Based on an electronic search, we identified randomized controlled trials of first-line therapy for mCRC. The impact of advantage in objective response rate (ORR) on the correlation between treatment effects on PFS and OS was evaluated based on Spearman correlation coefficients (r_s).

RESULTS

Forty-seven trials with a total of 24,018 patients were identified. The hazard ratio for PFS showed a relatively higher correlation with that for OS (r_s = 0.63) when the trials were limited to those that demonstrated a larger difference in ORR, compared to the case for trials that demonstrated a smaller difference (r_s = 0.32). This tendency was also observed in the subgroup analysis stratified by the types of treatment agents (targeted or non-targeted).

CONCLUSIONS

The magnitude of advantage in tumor response was suggested to contribute to a better prediction of OS benefit based on PFS in patients with mCRC. The accuracy of OS estimation in mCRC is expected to be improved by considering the degree of tumor shrinkage in conjunction with PFS.

A Phase I, Randomized, Single-Dose Study Evaluating the Biosimilarity of TAB008 to Bevacizumab in Healthy Volunteers

Objective: This study compared the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and immunogenicity of the biosimilar TAB008 monoclonal antibody to bevacizumab (Avastin^®) in normal healthy Chinese male volunteers.

Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, parallel controlled study, a total of 100 healthy Chinese male subjects were randomized (1:1) to receive a single 1 mg/kg intravenous dose of TAB008 or Avastin^® over a 90-min infusion. The subjects were followed for 99 days after drug administration. Primary endpoints were bioequivalence of major pharmacokinetic parameters (AUC_0-t and AUC_0-∞) and maximum observed serum concentration (C_max). Secondary endpoints included safety and immunogenicity parameters.

Results: The two groups of test subjects (49 subjects in the TAB008 group and 50 subjects in the Avastin^® group) were well matched in regards to all demographic and baseline characteristics. The treatment group ratios of LS geometric means for the three primary PK parameters were fully contained within the bioequivalence limits of 80.00–125.00% (90% CI was 103.66–118.33% for C_max, 94.32–111.72% for AUC_0-t, and 94.69–112.23% for AUC_0-∞). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported for 24 (49.0%) subjects in the TAB008 group and 22 (44.0%) subjects in the Avastin^® group. TEAEs related to the study drug were reported for 19 (38.8%) subjects in the TAB008 group and 19 (38.0%) subjects in the Avastin^® group. National Cancer Institute-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) Grade 3 TEAEs were reported for 1 (2.0%) subject in the TAB008 group and 3 (6.0%) subjects in the Avastin^® group. There were no Grade 4 or 5 TEAEs or serious adverse events (SAEs) during the study. Anti-drug antibody generation was reported once only in each group, and neutralizing antibody (Nab) analysis was negative upon follow-up.

Conclusion: TAB008 attained pharmacokinetic similarity to bevacizumab, and was safe and well tolerated.

The changing face of treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer

Introduction: Since late 1990's therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients has changed considerable, and the combination of doublet or triplet chemotherapy and a targeted agent are now routinely used. With the introduction of more intensified regimens, it has become even more important to identify patients that will benefit from and can tolerate therapy. Furthermore, the increasing understanding of the biology of mCRC has led to the discovery of new potential targets. Therefore, therapy of patients with mCRC has undergone considerable change from 'one strategy fits all' towards a more personalized therapy. Areas covered: We present an overview of the recent literature on approved systemic treatment of mCRC however with focus on how the treatment strategy has changed based on clinical and molecular parameters that presently are used routinely in the clinical situation. Expert commentary: The face of treatment of mCRC has changed from 'one strategy fits all' to a personalized approach in which both clinical, molecular parameters and the aim of therapy have to be taking into account when planning the optimal treatment strategy for the individual mCRC patient.

Risk of bleeding associated with antiangiogenic monoclonal antibodies bevacizumab and ramucirumab: a meta-analysis of 85 randomized controlled trials

Aim

Bevacizumab and ramucirumab are antiangiogenic monoclonal antibodies, which target vascular endothelial growth factor-A and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, respectively, used in various cancers. Bleeding events have been described with these two agents. We conducted an up-to-date meta-analysis to determine the relative risk (RR) associated with the use of antiangiogenic monoclonal antibodies, bevacizumab and ramucirumab.

Methods

This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed after searching PubMed, American Society for Clinical Oncology Abstracts, European Society for Medical Oncology Abstracts, and the proceedings of major conferences for relevant clinical trials. RR and 95% CIs were calculated by random-effects or fixed-effects models for all-grade and high-grade bleeding events related to the angiogenesis inhibitors.

Results

Eighty-five randomized controlled trials were selected for the meta-analysis, covering 46,630 patients. The results showed that antiangiogenic monoclonal antibodies significantly increased the risk of all-grade (RR: 2.38, 95% CI: 2.09–2.71, p<0.00001) and high-grade (RR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.48–1.97, p<0.00001) bleeding compared with control arms. In the subgroup analysis, bevacizumab significantly increased the risk of all-grade (RR: 2.73, 95% CI: 2.24–3.33, p<0.00001) and high-grade bleeding (RR: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.68–2.34, p<0.00001), but ramucirumab only increased the risk of all-grade bleeding (RR: 1.94, 95% CI: 1.76–2.13, p<0.00001) and no difference was observed for the risk of high-grade bleeding (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.78–1.39, p=0.79) compared with the control group. For lung cancer patients, bevacizumab significantly increased the risk of all-grade (RR: 4.72, 95% CI: 1.99–11.19, p=0.0004) and high-grade pulmonary hemorrhage (RR: 3.97, 95% CI: 1.70–9.29, p=0.001), but no significant differences in the risk of all-grade (RR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.76–1.57, p=0.64) and high-grade (RR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.35–4.21, p=0.75) pulmonary hemorrhage were observed for ramucirumab. The increased risk of all-grade and high-grade bleeding was also observed in colorectal cancer or non-colorectal tumors and low-dose or high-dose angiogenesis inhibitors.

Conclusion

Antiangiogenic monoclonal antibodies are associated with a significant increase in the risk of all-grade and high-grade bleeding. Ramucirumab may be different from bevacizumab in terms of the risk of high-grade bleeding and the risk of all-grade and high-grade pulmonary hemorrhage in lung cancer patients.

Bevacizumab in Colorectal Cancer: Current Role in Treatment and the Potential of Biosimilars

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of tumor-related morbidity and mortality worldwide, with mortality most often attributable to metastatic disease. Bevacizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting vascular endothelial growth factor, has a significant role in the treatment of metastatic CRC (mCRC). However, patient access to bevacizumab may be limited in some regions or circumstances, owing to factors related to insurance coverage, reimbursement, patient out-of-pocket costs, or availability. As a result, outcomes for patients with mCRC may be worsened. Additionally, counterfeit bevacizumab has infiltrated legitimate supply chains, exposing patients to risk. Oncologists may also be affected detrimentally, since resolving access issues can be time-consuming and demoralizing. The imminent expiry of patents protecting bevacizumab provides other manufacturers with the opportunity to produce highly similar versions known as biosimilars. High-quality, safe, and effective biosimilars have the potential to expand access to bevacizumab. Most of the bevacizumab biosimilars currently in development are in clinical trials in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, and future authorization for mCRC indications will, therefore, be based on extrapolation. This article reviews the current role of bevacizumab in the management of mCRC, the possible barriers associated with diminished access to bevacizumab, and the potential bevacizumab biosimilars in development. How biosimilars may impact the treatment of mCRC is also discussed.

Tumoral cavitation in colorectal cancer patients with unresectable lung metastasis treated with bevacizumab and chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Efficacy and the frequency of tumor cavitation have not been investigated in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and lung metastases (LMs) treated with chemotherapy in combination with bevacizumab. This study was aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab for unresectable mCRC with LM and to determine the frequency of tumor cavitation, and its correlation with clinical outcomes in patients receiving bevacizumab plus chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with mCRC and LMs treated with bevacizumab as first- or second-line therapy at West China Hospital, Sichuan University Cancer Center from September 2010 to November 2016 were included in this retrospective study. Data on clinicopathological characteristic were collected and overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were determined.

RESULTS

Among 60 patients included in the study, response rate (RR), stable disease (SD), and DCR were 43.6% (17/39), 51.3% (20/39) and 94.9% (37/39) in patients receiving bevacizumab as first-line treatment. Median OS and PFS of the first-line treatment group were 32.4 and 15.5 months, respectively. Among 60, 12 patients (20%) developed cavitation after bevacizumab therapy initiation. Median OS was longer in patients with cavitation than those without cavitation (42.1 vs 30.8 months; p = 0.042) in the first-line treatment group.

CONCLUSION

Bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy exhibited promising efficacy in mCRC patients LMs. Moreover, our findings reveal that OS might be affected by new tumor cavitation during antiangiogenic agent treatment.

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.

A network meta-analysis on the efficacy of sixteen targeted drugs in combination with chemotherapy for treatment of advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

A network meta-analysis was conducted comparing the short-term efficacies of 16 targeted drugs in combination with chemotherapy for treatment of advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC).

RESULTS

Twenty-seven RCTs were ultimately incorporated into this network meta-analysis. Compared with chemotherapy alone, bevacizumab + chemotherapy, panitumumab + chemotherapy and conatumumab + chemotherapy had higher PR rate. Bevacizumab + chemotherapy, cetuximab + chemotherapy, panitumumab + chemotherapy, trebananib + chemotherapy and conatumumab + chemotherapy had higher ORR rate in comparison to chemotherapy alone. Furthermore, bevacizumab + chemotherapy had higher DCR rate than chemotherapy alone. The results of our cluster analysis showed that chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab, cetuximab, panitumumab, conatumumab, ganitumab, or brivanib + cetuximab had better efficacies for the treatment of advanced/metastatic CRC in comparison to chemotherapy alone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases were comprehensively searched for potential and related randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Direct and indirect evidence were incorporated for evaluation of stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), disease control rate (DCR) and overall response ratio (ORR) by calculating odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA).

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicated that bevacizumab + chemotherapy, panitumumab + chemotherapy, conatumumab + chemotherapy and brivanib + cetuximab + chemotherapy may have better efficacies for the treatment of advanced/metastatic CRC.

Bevacizumab and wound-healing complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the risk of wound-healing complications in patients who treated with neoadjuvant-adjuvant bevacizumab in various oncological indications. We searched PUBMED, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library through June 2016 to identify randomized controlled trials of bevacizumab and wound-healing complications. Seven RCTs studies involving 5,147 participants were included in the analysis. Compared with routine therapy, bevacizumab increased the incidence of wound-healing complications for various cancers. The pooled estimate of odds ratio (OR) was 2.32, and the 95 % confidence intervals (CI) was 1.43 to 3.75. (P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses revealed the similar result in colon carcinoma patients. In conclusion, bevacizumab increases the incidence of wound-healing complications for cancers especially for colon neoplasms patients. However, the adverse effect is not appeared in breast cancer, metastatic renal cell carcinoma, non-small-cell lung cancer and gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Due to the findings relying chiefly on data from single or two studies, hence, further research is required to assess the wound-healing complications risk of bevacizumab in each oncological indication.

Famitinib versus placebo in the treatment of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase II clinical trial

Background

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with progressive disease after all available standard therapies need new medication for further treatment. Famitinib is a small-molecule multikinase inhibitor, with promising anticancer activities. This multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase II clinical trial was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of famitinib in mCRC.

Methods

Famitinib or placebo was administered orally once daily. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), quality-of-life (QoL), and safety.

Results

Between July 18, 2012 and Jan 22, 2014, a total of 167 patients were screened, and 154 patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either famitinib (n = 99) or placebo (n = 55). The median PFS was 2.8 and 1.5 months in the famitinib and placebo groups (hazard ratio = 0.60, 95% confidence interval = 0.41–0.86, P = 0.004). The DCR was 59.8% and 31.4% (P = 0.002) and the ORR was 2.2% and 0.0% (P = 0.540) in the famitinib and placebo groups, respectively. The most frequent grade 3–4 adverse events were hypertension (11.1%), hand-foot syndrome (10.1%), thrombocytopenia (10.1%), and neutropenia (9.1%). Serious adverse events occurred in 11 (11.1%) patients in the famitinib group and 5 (9.1%) in the placebo group (P = 0.788). The median OS of the famitinib and placebo groups was 7.4 and 7.2 months (P = 0.657).

Conclusion

Famitinib prolonged PFS in refractory mCRC patients with acceptable tolerability.

Trial registration This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01762293) and was orally presented in the 2015 ASCO-Gastrointestinal Symposium

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.

KRAS mutation and primary tumor location do not affect efficacy of bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy in stagae IV colorectal cancer patients

This study aims to investigate the efficacy of bevacizumab-combined chemotherapy (BCC) in Chinese stage IV colorectal cancer (CRC), and analyze the relationship between clinicopathological features with survival. Patients with stage IV CRC treated with BCC were analyzed retrospectively. 217 metastatic CRC (mCRC) patients were collected, out of which79 were right-sided CRCs and 138 were left-sided ones. Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤2, single agent chemotherapy, poor/mucous/signet ring cell component, second-and further-line of bevacizumab administration, multiple metastasis sites had comparatively worse survival. Among 141 patients with known KRAS status, 55 patients harbored KRAS mutation and 86 had wild type KRAS. The ORR and DCR were 41.9% and 78.9%, respectively, in patients with wild type KRAS, while ORR and DCR was 38.7% and 77.9%, respectively, in patients with KRAS mutation. The median PFS of patients with wild type and mutant KRAS were 8.38, and9.59 months, respectively; whereas the OS was 23.00 and 21.26 months, respectively for mCRC patients with wild-type and mutant KRAS. Cumulatively, our study indicated that BCC was effective and beneficial for Chinese stage IV CRC patients. KRAS mutation status and tumor location were not a prognostic factor for survival.

The addition of bevacizumab in the first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: an updated meta-analysis of randomized trials

Bevacizumab has shown survival benefits when added to chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colon cancer (mCRC). However, the efficacy of bevacizumab may depend on the accompanying chemotherapeutic regimen. We performed this meta-analysis to examine the impact of the choice of chemotherapy regimen on the survival benefits of bevacizumab in the first-line treatment for patients with mCRC. Electric databases were searched for eligible randomized trials. From 9 studies, 3,710 patients with mCRC were included in the meta-analysis of hazard ratios (HRs) for progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). Compared with chemotherapy alone, the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy significantly prolonged PFS (HR = 0.66 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.55-0.77], P < 0.0001) and OS (HR = 0.84 [95% CI, 0.77-0.92], P = 0.0001). In the subgroup analysis according to the chemotherapeutic regimens, bevacizumab showed both PFS (HR = 0.57 [95% CI, 0.41-0.77], P = 0.0004) and OS (HR = 0.79 [95% CI, 0.67-0.93], P = 0.004) advantages only in combination with irinotecan-based regimen. In conclusion, this meta-analysis confirms that the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy significantly prolongs PFS and OS in the first-line treatment for mCRC. The subgroup analyses suggest that irinotecan-based regimen may be a better partner of bevacizumab in terms of both PFS and OS.

Inclusion of elderly or frail patients in randomized controlled trials of targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review

Treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been modified since the launching of targeted therapies. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is common in elderly patients; their representation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is thus crucial. This study aimed to evaluate and quantify the inclusion of elderly/frail patients in RCTs of targeted therapies in mCRC. A systematic review using Medline, Scopus, Cochrane Database and ISI Web of Science was performed to identify all phase II/III RCTs of bevacizumab, cetuximab, panitumumab, regorafenib and aflibercept in mCRC until January 2015. Two reviewers independently performed studies selection, and data extraction. The protocol was registered in Prospero (CRD42015016163). Among 1,369, identified publications, 54 RCTs were selected. Nine RCTs (17%) excluded elderly patients; median age of the included population was <65years old in 50 RCTs (93%). Twenty RCTs (37%) excluded frail patients, and many RCTs excluded patients with uncontrolled hypertension or heart failure, patients treated with specific drugs (mainly anticoagulants), and patients with inadequate creatinine clearance. Elderly/frail patients are underrepresented in RCTs studying targeted therapies in mCRC, and those elderly patients included in RCTs do not reflect well the general elderly population with mCRC because of the exclusion criteria. RCTs results concerning targeted therapies can be inferred only to relatively healthy elderly subjects.

Cardiovascular Adverse Events in Patients With Cancer Treated With Bevacizumab: A Meta-Analysis of More Than 20 000 Patients

Background

The monoclonal antibody bevacizumab effectively inhibits angiogenesis in several types of cancers by blocking vascular endothelial growth factor. However, life‐threatening cardiovascular adverse effects could limit its use and may warrant specific follow‐up strategies.

Methods and Results

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials published until November 2016 that assessed patients with cancer treated with or without bevacizumab in addition to standard chemotherapy. A total of 20 050 patients with a broad range of cancer types from 22 studies were included in this analysis (10 394 in the bevacizumab group and 9656 in the control group). The risks of arterial and venous adverse events were higher in the bevacizumab groups (relative risk [RR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.10–1.70 [P=0.004] and RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12–1.47 [P<0.001], respectively), and more arterial adverse events occurred in patients taking high‐dose bevacizumab regimens. Bevacizumab treatment was associated with the highest risk of cardiac and cerebral ischemia in the high‐dose bevacizumab groups (RR, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.59–12.70 [P=0.004] and RR, 6.67; 95% CI, 2.17–20.66 [P=0.001], respectively). In addition, the risk of bleeding and arterial hypertension were higher in the bevacizumab groups (RR, 2.74; 95% CI, 2.38–3.15 [P<0.001] and RR, 4.73; 95% CI, 4.15–5.39 [P<0.00001], respectively), with higher values for patiens taking high‐dose regimens.

Conclusions

Treatment with bevacizumab increases the risk of arterial adverse events, particularly cardiac and cerebral ischemia, venous adverse events, bleeding, and arterial hypertension. This risk is additionally increased with high doses of bevacizumab. Further studies should determine the appropriate options for cardio‐oncology management.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk. Unique identifier: PROSPERO(CRD42016054305).

Bevacizumab significantly increases the risks of hypertension and proteinuria in cancer patients: A systematic review and comprehensive meta-analysis

Published data regarding the overall risks and incidence of hypertension and proteinuria associated with bevacizumab were still unclear. To quantify the precise risks and incidence, we performed this comprehensive meta-analysis of 72 published clinical trials including 21902 cases and 20608 controls. The overall incidence, risk ratios (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using a fixed or random-effect model based on the heterogeneity. The incidence of all-grade and high-grade hypertension were 25.3% (95% CI: 21.5%−29.5%) and 8.2% (95% CI: 7%−9.8%) for patients treated with bevacizumab. And the incidence of all-grade and high-grade proteinuria were 18% (95% CI: 11.7%−26.6%) and 2.4% (95% CI: 1.8%−3.2%), respectively. Compared with controls, bevacizumab significantly increased the risks of all-grade (RR: 3.595, 95% CI: 2.952−4.378) and high-grade hypertension (RR: 5.173, 95% CI: 4.188−6.390). Obviously increased risks of all-grade (RR: 3.369, 95% CI: 2.492−4.556) and high-grade proteinuria (RR: 5.494, 95% CI: 3.991−7.564) were also observed. In the subgroup analysis, the risks of hypertension and proteinuria may significantly vary with bevacizumab dosage, cancer types and concomitant drugs. Whereas, no obvious difference were discovered when stratified based on phase of trials, age of patients, treatment line and duration. So, close monitor and effective management were highly recommended for the safe use of bevacizumab.

RAS testing and cetuximab treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting with limited health resources

PURPOSE

To test the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRI) as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) from a Chinese medical insurance perspective.

RESULTS

Baseline analysis showed that the addition of cetuximab increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) by 0.63, an increase of $17,086 relative to FOLFIRI chemotherapy, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $27,145/QALY. When the patient assistance program (PAP) was available, the ICER decreased to $14,049/QALY, which indicated that the cetuximab is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of China ($22,200/QALY). One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the median overall survival time for the cetuximab was the most influential parameter.

METHODS

A Markov model by incorporating clinical, utility and cost data was developed to evaluate the economic outcome of cetuximab in mCRC. The lifetime horizon was used, and sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the robustness of the model results. The impact of PAP was also evaluated in scenario analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

RAS testing with cetuximab treatment is likely to be cost-effective for patients with mCRC when PAP is available in China.

Cardiovascular toxicity of angiogenesis inhibitors in treatment of malignancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The cardiovascular risk of angiogenesis inhibitors is not well-quantified. We hypothesized that, compared to direct vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors (anti-VEGF antibodies or decoy receptors), small molecule agents have higher risk due to their less specific mechanism.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for phase III randomised controlled trials comparing angiogenesis inhibitor-based therapy to other systemic therapy. Outcomes evaluated were hypertension, severe hypertension, cardiac dysfunction, congestive heart failure, cardiac ischemia, arterial thromboembolism, venous thromboembolism, and fatal cardiovascular events. Data were pooled using Mantel-Haenszel random effects method to generate odds ratios (OR).

RESULTS

We identified 77 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Compared to routine care, angiogenesis inhibitors were associated with a higher risk of hypertension (OR 5.28 [4.53-6.15], number needed to harm [NNH] 6), severe hypertension (OR 5.59 [4.67-6.69], NNH 17), cardiac ischemia (OR 2.83 [1.72-4.65], NNH 85) and cardiac dysfunction (OR 1.35 [1.06-1.70], NNH 139). VEGF inhibitors were associated with an increased risk of arterial thromboembolism (OR 1.52 [1.17-1.98], NNH 141). No significant interaction was observed between the two drug subgroups for any outcomes. We identified no significant increase in the risk of the other outcomes evaluated.

CONCLUSION

Angiogenesis inhibitors increase the risk of hypertension, arterial thromboembolism, cardiac ischemia and cardiac dysfunction. There was no significant difference in cardiovascular risk between direct VEGF inhibitors and small molecule agents.

Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab versus chemotherapy plus cetuximab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Results of a registry-based cohort analysis

The present observational cohort study was designed to elucidate the efficacy and safety profile of bevacizumab or cetuximab with chemotherapy as the first-line treatment in Chinese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Clinical data were collected from a single-center registry study where mCRC patients received first-line fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy combined with either bevacizumab (188 patients with KRAS wild-type or mutated tumors) or cetuximab (101 patients with KRAS wild-type tumors) between January 2009 and December 2013. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis. Cox proportional hazards model was used for estimating the prognostic and predictive values of clinicopathological characteristics. No statistically significant difference was observed between the bevacizumab and cetuximab groups in terms of median progression-free survival (PFS) (10.6 vs 8.7 months, P = 0.317), median overall survival (OS) (27.7 vs 28.3 months, P = 0.525), or overall response rate (43.1% vs 53.5%, P = 0.108). For the subset of patients with peritoneal dissemination, bevacizumab-based triplet appears to be superior to cetuximab-based triplet as measured by PFS (9.6 vs 6.1 months) and OS (26.3 vs 12.7 months), but not for patients without peritoneal dissemination (PFS, 10.6 vs 9.1 months; OS, 27.9 vs 30.7 months) (all unadjusted and adjusted interaction P < 0.05). Our study suggests that bevacizumab- or cetuximab-based regimens have similar effectiveness as first-line treatment of mCRC in Chinese population. Patients with peritoneal dissemination were likely to gain more benefit from bevacizumab than cetuximab treatment. Future prospective studies are required to further confirm these results.

The impact of bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer with an intact primary tumor: Results from a large prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Debate continues regarding the benefits versus risks of initial resection of the primary tumor in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with an asymptomatic primary tumor. Although the benefit of the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent bevacizumab alongside first-line chemotherapy in mCRC is established, the impact of bevacizumab on the intact primary tumor (IPT) is less well understood.

METHODS

Data from an Australian mCRC registry were used to assess the impact of bevacizumab-based regimens in the presence of an IPT, to see if this differs from effects in resected primary tumor (RPT) patients and to understand the safety profile of bevacizumab in patients with IPT. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety endpoints were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 1204 mCRC patients, 826 (69%) were eligible for inclusion. Bevacizumab use was similar in both arms (IPT (64%) versus RPT (70%)); compared with chemotherapy alone, bevacizumab use was associated with significantly longer PFS (IPT: 8.5 months vs 4.7 months, P = 0.017; RPT: 10.8 months vs 5.8 months, P < 0.001) and OS (IPT: 20 months vs 14.8 months, P = 0.005; RPT: 24.4 months vs 17.3 months, P = 0.004)).¹ Bevacizumab use in an IPT was associated with more GI perforations (4.5% vs 1.8%, P = 0.210) but less frequent bleeding (1.5% vs 5.3%, P = 0.050) and thrombosis (1.5% vs 2.7%, P = 0.470), versus chemotherapy alone. Median survival was equivalent between patients that did or did not experience bevacizumab-related adverse events - 20.0 months versus 19.9 months, hazard ratio = 0.98, P = 0.623.¹ CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bevacizumab significantly improved survival outcomes in mCRC with an IPT. The occurrence of bevacizumab-related adverse events did not significantly impact survival outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of addition of bevacizumab to FOLFIRI or irinotecan/bolus 5-FU/LV (IFL) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis

Recent studies have paid much attention on the safety of bevacizumab as adjuvant chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. The aim of this meta-analysis was to study the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in combination with irinotecan, bolus followed by infusional 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRI) and, irinotecan, bolus fluorouracil, leucovorin (IFL) for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).An electronic search of related trials was conducted from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library databases. Risk ratio (RRs) and its 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated by using either DerSimonian-Laird method or Mantel-Haenszel method according to the heterogeneity of included articles. The risk of mortality, therapeutic efficacy, and adverse effect were meta-analyzed.In total, 6 RCTs including 2165 participants (1109 in the treatment group, 1056 in the control group) were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with FOLFIRI-panitumumab/cetuximab, the bevacizumab addition significantly reduced the complete response (CR) rate (RR [95%CI] = 0.31[0.11, 0.89], P = 0.03) and the risk of grade 3/4 adverse event (RR [95%CI] = 0.89[0.80, 0.98], P = 0.01). Compared with FOLFIRI and IFL alone, the addition of bevacizumb significantly increased the partial response (PR) and objective response (OR) rates. Compared with IFL alone, the addition of bevacizumb significantly reduced the mortality risk of PFS (RR [95%CI] = 0.53[0.42, 0.66], P < 0.00001) and OS (RR[95%CI] = 0.70[0.60, 0.82], P < 0.00001), but increased the risk of adverse events (RR[95%CI] = 1.14[1.06, 1.21], P = 0.0002).Combination chemotherapy of bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI or IFL had a relative high efficacy and acceptable safety for treatment of mCRC.

The Efficacy of Bevacizumab in Different Line Chemotherapy for Chinese Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Objective: To evaluate the effect of bevacizumab in different lines for Chinese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Methods: Patients of mCRC treated with bevacizumab or not at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center from 2007 to 2013 were recruited as study and control group. Endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Corresponding survival rates of first- and second-line in study and control group were compared.

Results: 1. Median OS of study and control group were 44.8 (95% CI: 37.1~52.4) months, 36.1 (95% CI: 32.8~39.5) months respectively, which were significantly different (P=0.004). 2. In the first line treatment, median OS of study and control group were 49.9(95% CI: 40.1~59.8) months and 36.1 (95% CI: 32.7~39.4) months (P=0.002), respectively. And median PFS were 10.1(95% CI: 8.7~11.5) months and 6.2 (95% CI: 5.5~6.8) months (P<0.001), respectively. 3. In the second line treatment, median OS of study and control group were 34.8 (95% CI: 26.3~43.3) months and 24.6 (95% CI: 22.2~27.0) months (P=0.022), respectively. And the mPFS were 6.3 (95% CI: 4.7~7.8) months and 3.1 (95% CI: 2.5~3.6) months (P<0.001), respectively. 4. Median OS of first- and second-line treatment of the study groups were 49.9(95% CI: 40.1~59.8) months and 34.8 (95% CI: 26.3~43.3) months (P=0.189), respectively.

Conclusion: The combination of bevacizumab and chemotherapy had a promising efficacy in Chinese mCRC patients. However, their OS were statistically insignificant between first- and second-line of bevacizumab groups.

Bevacizumab Combined with Chemotherapy Improves Survival for Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Evidence from Meta Analysis

Background

Colorectal cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer deaths in both sexes in the world. Improvement of existing therapy modalities and implementing new ones in order to improve survival of patients with colorectal cancer represents a great challenge for medicine. The aim of this paper was to assess the impact that adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy has on survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, compared to the use of chemotherapy alone.

Methods

Hazard ratios (HRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined from the studies and pooled. Two-sided p values were reported and considered to indicate statistical significance if less than 0.05.

Results

A total of 12 studies that meet the inclusion criteria were identified in the literature search, 3 phase II studies and 9 phase III studies. Based on the random effects meta-analysis, a statistically significant improvement was identified for both overall survival (HR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.74–0.94; p = 0.003) and progression free survival (HR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.55–0.73; p<0.00001) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when bevacizumab was added to chemotherapy, compared to chemotherapy treatment alone.

Conclusion

The findings of this meta analysis confirm the benefit of adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy in terms of survival and progression free survival, but the magnitude of this effect is not consistent throughout the included studies. This suggests the need for further research of interaction of bevacizumab with chemotherapeutic agents as well as recognition of patients’ characteristics important for the treatment selection criteria.