Neal J Meropol1, Yang Feng2, Jean L Grem3, Mary F Mulcahy4, Paul J Catalano5, John S Kauh6, Michael J Hall7, Joel N Saltzman8, Thomas J George9, Jeffrey Zangmeister10, Elena G Chiorean11, Puneet S Cheema12, Peter J O'Dwyer13, Al B Benson4. 1. Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. 2. Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Hematology/Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Dana Farber Cancer Institute/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Department of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. 7. Clinical Genetics and Medical Oncology, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 8. Seidman Cancer Center, Lake Health University Hospitals, Mentor, Ohio. 9. Division of Hematology/Oncology University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida. 10. Hematology/Oncology, Mount Carmel Health Center West, Columbus, Ohio. 11. Hematology/Oncology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 12. Department of Medical Oncology, Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 13. Department of Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The authors hypothesized that patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who had tumors with low thymidylate synthase (TS-L) expression would have a higher response rate to combined 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) plus bevacizumab (FOLFOX/Bev) than those with high TS (TS-H) expression and that combined irinotecan and oxaliplatin (IROX) plus bevacizumab (IROX/Bev) would be more effective than FOLFOX/Bev in those with TS-H tumors. METHODS: TS protein expression was determined in mCRC tissue. Patients who had TS-L tumors received FOLFOX/Bev, and those who had TS-H tumors were randomly assigned to receive either FOLFOX/Bev or IROX/Bev. The primary endpoint was the response rate (complete plus partial responses). RESULTS: In total, 211 of 247 patients (70% TS-H) were registered to the treatment phase. Efficacy analyses included eligible patients who had started treatment (N = 186). The response rates for patients who received IROX/Bev (TS-H), FOLFOX/Bev (TS-H), and FOLFOX/Bev (TS-L) were 33%, 38%, and 49%, respectively (P = nonsignificant). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-12 months; 10 months in the IROX/Bev TS-H group, 9 months in the FOLFOX/Bev TS-H group, and 13 months in the FOLFOX/Bev TS-L group). The TS-L group had improved PFS compared with the TS-H group that received FOLFOX/Bev (hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0%-2.4%; P = .04; Cox regression). The median overall survival (OS) was 22 months (95% CI, 20 29 months; 18 months in the IROX/Bev TS-H group, 21 months in the FOLFOX/Bev TS-H group, and 32 months in the TS-L group). OS comparisons for the 2 TS-H arms and for the FOLFOX/Bev TS-H versus TS-L arms were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: TS expression was prognostic: Patients with TS-L tumors who received FOLFOX/Bev had a longer PFS than those with TS-H tumors, along with a trend toward longer OS. Patients with TS-H tumors did not benefit more from IROX/Bev than from FOLFOX/Bev. Cancer 2018;124:688-97.
BACKGROUND: The authors hypothesized that patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who had tumors with low thymidylate synthase (TS-L) expression would have a higher response rate to combined 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) plus bevacizumab (FOLFOX/Bev) than those with high TS (TS-H) expression and that combined irinotecan and oxaliplatin (IROX) plus bevacizumab (IROX/Bev) would be more effective than FOLFOX/Bev in those with TS-H tumors. METHODS: TS protein expression was determined in mCRC tissue. Patients who had TS-L tumors received FOLFOX/Bev, and those who had TS-H tumors were randomly assigned to receive either FOLFOX/Bev or IROX/Bev. The primary endpoint was the response rate (complete plus partial responses). RESULTS: In total, 211 of 247 patients (70% TS-H) were registered to the treatment phase. Efficacy analyses included eligible patients who had started treatment (N = 186). The response rates for patients who received IROX/Bev (TS-H), FOLFOX/Bev (TS-H), and FOLFOX/Bev (TS-L) were 33%, 38%, and 49%, respectively (P = nonsignificant). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9-12 months; 10 months in the IROX/Bev TS-H group, 9 months in the FOLFOX/Bev TS-H group, and 13 months in the FOLFOX/Bev TS-L group). The TS-L group had improved PFS compared with the TS-H group that received FOLFOX/Bev (hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0%-2.4%; P = .04; Cox regression). The median overall survival (OS) was 22 months (95% CI, 20 29 months; 18 months in the IROX/Bev TS-H group, 21 months in the FOLFOX/Bev TS-H group, and 32 months in the TS-L group). OS comparisons for the 2 TS-H arms and for the FOLFOX/Bev TS-H versus TS-L arms were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: TS expression was prognostic: Patients with TS-L tumors who received FOLFOX/Bev had a longer PFS than those with TS-H tumors, along with a trend toward longer OS. Patients with TS-H tumors did not benefit more from IROX/Bev than from FOLFOX/Bev. Cancer 2018;124:688-97.
Authors: M Kornmann; K H Link; H J Lenz; J Pillasch; R Metzger; U Butzer; G H Leder; M Weindel; F Safi; K D Danenberg; H G Beger; P V Danenberg Journal: Cancer Lett Date: 1997-09-16 Impact factor: 8.679
Authors: D Salonga; K D Danenberg; M Johnson; R Metzger; S Groshen; D D Tsao-Wei; H J Lenz; C G Leichman; L Leichman; R B Diasio; P V Danenberg Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Carmen J Allegra; Allyson L Parr; Lester E Wold; Michelle R Mahoney; Daniel J Sargent; Patrick Johnston; Pam Klein; Katie Behan; Michael J O'Connell; Ralph Levitt; John W Kugler; Maria Tria Tirona; Richard M Goldberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Herbert I Hurwitz; Louis Fehrenbacher; John D Hainsworth; William Heim; Jordan Berlin; Eric Holmgren; Julie Hambleton; William F Novotny; Fairooz Kabbinavar Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-05-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C Aschele; D Debernardis; S Casazza; G Antonelli; G Tunesi; C Baldo; R Lionetto; F Maley; A Sobrero Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Werner Scheithauer; Gabriela V Kornek; Markus Raderer; Herbert Ulrich-Pur; Wolfgang Fiebiger; Claudia Gedlicka; Birgit Schüll; Stefan Brugger; Bruno Schneeweiss; Fritz Lang; Alfred Lenauer; Dieter Depisch Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: C G Leichman; H J Lenz; L Leichman; K Danenberg; J Baranda; S Groshen; W Boswell; R Metzger; M Tan; P V Danenberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Leonard B Saltz; Stephen Clarke; Eduardo Díaz-Rubio; Werner Scheithauer; Arie Figer; Ralph Wong; Sheryl Koski; Mikhail Lichinitser; Tsai-Shen Yang; Fernando Rivera; Felix Couture; Florin Sirzén; Jim Cassidy Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Faris Alrumaihi; Masood Alam Khan; Ali Yousif Babiker; Mohammed Alsaweed; Faizul Azam; Khaled S Allemailem; Ahmad A Almatroudi; Syed Rizwan Ahamad; Naif AlSuhaymi; Mahdi H Alsugoor; Ahmed N Algefary; Arif Khan Journal: Pharmaceutics Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 6.321
Authors: Faris Alrumaihi; Masood Alam Khan; Ali Yousif Babiker; Mohammed Alsaweed; Faizul Azam; Khaled S Allemailem; Ahmad A Almatroudi; Syed Rizwan Ahamad; Mahdi H Alsugoor; Khloud Nawaf Alharbi; Nahlah Makki Almansour; Arif Khan Journal: Molecules Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 4.411