Rui Pedro Marques1,2, Ana Rita Godinho3, Peter Heudtlass3, Helena Luna Pais4, António Quintela4, Ana Paula Martins5. 1. Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Lisbon, Avenida Professor Gama Pinto, 1649-003, Lisbon, Portugal. rui.p.marques@chln.min-saude.pt. 2. Hospital de Santa Maria, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Lisboa Norte (CHULN), Lisbon, Portugal. rui.p.marques@chln.min-saude.pt. 3. Centre for Health Evaluation & Research (CEFAR), Portuguese Pharmacy Association (ANF), Lisbon, Portugal. 4. Hospital de Santa Maria, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Lisboa Norte (CHULN), Lisbon, Portugal. 5. Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Lisbon, Avenida Professor Gama Pinto, 1649-003, Lisbon, Portugal.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Uncertainty exists regarding comparative effectiveness of cetuximab versus bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We conducted a retrospective head-to-head multi-cohort study comparing clinical outcomes from both antibodies METHODS: Cohorts were defined by treatment line and subgroups by (K)RAS status and tumour sidedness. Among other outcomes, we estimated and compared response rates, progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Between January 2010 and April 2018, 311 patients were included. Except for (K)RAS mutation status, baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment groups. In the full analysis of first and second-line cohorts, PFS (first-line: HR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.13; P = 0.26; second-line: HR = 1.16; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.83; P = 0.51) and OS (first-line: HR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.15; P = 0.26; second-line: HR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.38; P = 0.58) were similar between bevacizumab and cetuximab arms. In subgroup analyses of first-line therapy, we found a survival difference favouring bevacizumab in right-sided tumours (PFS: HR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.93; P = 0.025; OS: HR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.12; P = 0.11), but not in left-sided (HR = 1.04; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.46; P = 0.81; OS: HR = 0.94; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.36; P = 0.74), or (K)RAS wild-type tumours (PFS: HR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40; P = 0.67; OS: HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.25; P = 0.31). Response rates were similar across treatment groups, except for the subgroup of patients bearing right-sided primaries, where bevacizumab performed substantially better. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence suggesting bevacizumab and cetuximab lead to similar effectiveness outcomes in mCRC, except for right-sided tumours, where cetuximab seemed to show considerably poorer outcomes. Further research is needed to confirm these results.
PURPOSE: Uncertainty exists regarding comparative effectiveness of cetuximab versus bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We conducted a retrospective head-to-head multi-cohort study comparing clinical outcomes from both antibodies METHODS: Cohorts were defined by treatment line and subgroups by (K)RAS status and tumour sidedness. Among other outcomes, we estimated and compared response rates, progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Between January 2010 and April 2018, 311 patients were included. Except for (K)RAS mutation status, baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment groups. In the full analysis of first and second-line cohorts, PFS (first-line: HR = 0.85; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.13; P = 0.26; second-line: HR = 1.16; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.83; P = 0.51) and OS (first-line: HR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.15; P = 0.26; second-line: HR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.38; P = 0.58) were similar between bevacizumab and cetuximab arms. In subgroup analyses of first-line therapy, we found a survival difference favouring bevacizumab in right-sided tumours (PFS: HR = 0.52; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.93; P = 0.025; OS: HR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.12; P = 0.11), but not in left-sided (HR = 1.04; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.46; P = 0.81; OS: HR = 0.94; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.36; P = 0.74), or (K)RAS wild-type tumours (PFS: HR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40; P = 0.67; OS: HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.25; P = 0.31). Response rates were similar across treatment groups, except for the subgroup of patients bearing right-sided primaries, where bevacizumab performed substantially better. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence suggesting bevacizumab and cetuximab lead to similar effectiveness outcomes in mCRC, except for right-sided tumours, where cetuximab seemed to show considerably poorer outcomes. Further research is needed to confirm these results.
Authors: Rona Yaeger; Walid K Chatila; Marla D Lipsyc; Jaclyn F Hechtman; Andrea Cercek; Francisco Sanchez-Vega; Gowtham Jayakumaran; Sumit Middha; Ahmet Zehir; Mark T A Donoghue; Daoqi You; Agnes Viale; Nancy Kemeny; Neil H Segal; Zsofia K Stadler; Anna M Varghese; Ritika Kundra; Jianjiong Gao; Aijazuddin Syed; David M Hyman; Efsevia Vakiani; Neal Rosen; Barry S Taylor; Marc Ladanyi; Michael F Berger; David B Solit; Jinru Shia; Leonard Saltz; Nikolaus Schultz Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2018-01-08 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Stacey A Fedewa; Dennis J Ahnen; Reinier G S Meester; Afsaneh Barzi; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Julian Walter Holch; Ingrid Ricard; Sebastian Stintzing; Dominik Paul Modest; Volker Heinemann Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Antonia R Sepulveda; Stanley R Hamilton; Carmen J Allegra; Wayne Grody; Allison M Cushman-Vokoun; William K Funkhouser; Scott E Kopetz; Christopher Lieu; Noralane M Lindor; Bruce D Minsky; Federico A Monzon; Daniel J Sargent; Veena M Singh; Joseph Willis; Jennifer Clark; Carol Colasacco; R Bryan Rumble; Robyn Temple-Smolkin; Christina B Ventura; Jan A Nowak Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Volker Heinemann; Ludwig Fischer von Weikersthal; Thomas Decker; Alexander Kiani; Ursula Vehling-Kaiser; Salah-Eddin Al-Batran; Tobias Heintges; Christian Lerchenmüller; Christoph Kahl; Gernot Seipelt; Frank Kullmann; Martina Stauch; Werner Scheithauer; Jörg Hielscher; Michael Scholz; Sebastian Müller; Hartmut Link; Norbert Niederle; Andreas Rost; Heinz-Gert Höffkes; Markus Moehler; Reinhard U Lindig; Dominik P Modest; Lisa Rossius; Thomas Kirchner; Andreas Jung; Sebastian Stintzing Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-07-31 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: E Van Cutsem; A Cervantes; R Adam; A Sobrero; J H Van Krieken; D Aderka; E Aranda Aguilar; A Bardelli; A Benson; G Bodoky; F Ciardiello; A D'Hoore; E Diaz-Rubio; J-Y Douillard; M Ducreux; A Falcone; A Grothey; T Gruenberger; K Haustermans; V Heinemann; P Hoff; C-H Köhne; R Labianca; P Laurent-Puig; B Ma; T Maughan; K Muro; N Normanno; P Österlund; W J G Oyen; D Papamichael; G Pentheroudakis; P Pfeiffer; T J Price; C Punt; J Ricke; A Roth; R Salazar; W Scheithauer; H J Schmoll; J Tabernero; J Taïeb; S Tejpar; H Wasan; T Yoshino; A Zaanan; D Arnold Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Heinz-Josef Lenz; Fang-Shu Ou; Alan P Venook; Howard S Hochster; Donna Niedzwiecki; Richard M Goldberg; Robert J Mayer; Monica M Bertagnolli; Charles D Blanke; Tyler Zemla; Xueping Qu; Pratyaksha Wirapati; Sabine Tejpar; Federico Innocenti; Omar Kabbarah Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Justin Guinney; Rodrigo Dienstmann; Xin Wang; Aurélien de Reyniès; Andreas Schlicker; Charlotte Soneson; Laetitia Marisa; Paul Roepman; Gift Nyamundanda; Paolo Angelino; Brian M Bot; Jeffrey S Morris; Iris M Simon; Sarah Gerster; Evelyn Fessler; Felipe De Sousa E Melo; Edoardo Missiaglia; Hena Ramay; David Barras; Krisztian Homicsko; Dipen Maru; Ganiraju C Manyam; Bradley Broom; Valerie Boige; Beatriz Perez-Villamil; Ted Laderas; Ramon Salazar; Joe W Gray; Douglas Hanahan; Josep Tabernero; Rene Bernards; Stephen H Friend; Pierre Laurent-Puig; Jan Paul Medema; Anguraj Sadanandam; Lodewyk Wessels; Mauro Delorenzi; Scott Kopetz; Louis Vermeulen; Sabine Tejpar Journal: Nat Med Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 53.440