| Literature DB >> 23667824 |
Roberta Grande1, Donatello Gemma, Isabella Sperduti, Alain Gelibter, Maria Anna Giampaolo, Giorgio Trombetta, Fabrizio Nelli, Teresa Gamucci.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Monoclonal antibodies bevacizumab and cetuximab both improve overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) when combined with irinotecan-containing regimens. The optimal sequence of these monoclonal antibodies in combination with chemotherapy is controversial. This study analysed the efficacy of cetuximab plus Folfiri after progression with the same regimen plus bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients are eligible if progressive disease (PD) after Folfiri-bevacizumab; ECOG PS 0-1. Primary endpoint is the disease control rate (DCR:ORR plus stable disease > 6 months); secondary endpoints: ORR, PFS, duration of response, OS and toxicity. ORR and DCR were reported with their confidence interval at 95%. Kaplan-Meier method was used for PFS and OS evaluation.Entities:
Keywords: Bevacizumab; Cetuximab; Chemotherapy; Metastatic colorectal cancer; Monoclonal antibody
Year: 2013 PMID: 23667824 PMCID: PMC3647091 DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-185
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Baseline patient’s characteristics
| Characteristics (N=54) | N° of patients (%) |
|---|---|
| Median age (range) | 65 (43–80) |
| Median follow-up from 1st line, months (range) | 26 (8–65) |
| Median follow-up from 2nd line, months (range) | 13 (3–51) |
| Sex Men | 31 (57) |
| Women | 23 (43) |
| ECOG performance status | |
| 0/1 | 36 (67)/18 (33) |
| Primary diagnosis | |
| Colon cancer | 42 (78) |
| Rectal cancer | 12 (22) |
| Metastasis Site | |
| Single | 41 (76) |
| Multiple | 13 (24) |
| KRAS status | |
| Wild type (%) | 31 (57) |
| Mutant Kras (%) | 2 (4) |
| Unknown | 21 (39) |
Figure 1DCR survival curve for second line treatment (Kaplan Maier Method).
Kaplan Maier estimate for overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR)
| Overall survival | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 months | 12 months | 24 months | Median (CI 95%) | p value | |
| ORR | 0.02 | ||||
| No | 78.6 | 49.7 | 11.8 | 12(9–15) | |
| Yes | 100 | 91.7 | 55.0 | 27(11–43) | |
| DCR | |||||
| No | 52.3 | 5.3 | - | 7(5–9) | <0.0001 |
| Yes | 100 | 88.2 | 33.8 | 20(15–24) | |
Overall response rate
| First line | Second line | |
|---|---|---|
| N. (%) | N. (%) | |
| Best Overall Response | 22 (44.5) | 12 (22.2)* |
| Complete Response | 5 (9.3) | 0 (0) |
| Partial Response | 19 (35.2) | 12 (22.2) |
| Stable Disease | 22(40.7) | 23 (46.2) |
| Progressive Disease | 8 (14.8) | 19 (35.2) |
| Disease Control Rate | 44 (81.5) | 35 (64.8)** |
| * CI 95% 11.1-33.3 | ||
| **CI 95% 52.1-77.5 |
Figure 2Responder survival curve for second line therapy (Kaplan Maier Method).
Main adverse events at first line chemotherapy
| Grading | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| Neutropenia | 25 | 11 | 6 | 9 | 3 |
| Anaemia | 41 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Skin toxicity | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Fatigue | 29 | 10 | 13 | 2 | 0 |
| Nausea/Vomiting | 40 | 13 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Hypertension | 43 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Bleeding | 41 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Proteinuria | 49 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Diarrhea | 29 | 12 | 11 | 2 | 0 |
| Stomatitis | 37 | 6 | 11 | 0 | 0 |
Main adverse events at second line chemotherapy
| Grading | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| Neutropenia | 39 | 7 | 6 | 2 | 0 |
| Anaemia | 40 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Skin toxicity | 16 | 17 | 17 | 4 | 0 |
| Fatigue | 37 | 8 | 8 | 1 | 0 |
| Nausea/vomiting | 46 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Hypertension | 54 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Bleeding | 54 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Proteinuria | 54 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Diarrhea | 28 | 14 | 11 | 1 | 0 |
| Stomatitis | 34 | 10 | 12 | 0 | 0 |