BACKGROUND: Three vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors, Bevacizumab (BEV), ramucirumab (RAM), and aflibercept (AFL), are widely used for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients who are treated with second-line chemotherapy. The difference in outcome between the three drugs has not been evaluated. In contrast to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, VEGF inhibitors have few candidate predictors of efficacy. METHODS: Consecutive mCRC patients who were treated with second-line chemotherapy were retrospectively enrolled. Overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety were assessed. Subgroup analyses of prognostic and predictive efficacy markers were performed. RESULTS: A total of 119 (41.2%), 107 (37.0%), and 63 patients (21.8%) were treated with FOLFIRI +BEV, RAM, or AFL, respectively. ORR, PFS, and OS showed no significant differences between three groups. However, the frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) in the FOLFIRI +AFL group was significantly higher than that in the other groups (p < 0.001). Patients with grade 3 or 4 AEs, especially hypertension and neutropenia within the first four cycles of treatment had significantly longer PFS and OS than those without AEs, irrespective of treatment with VEGF inhibitors (p < 0.001). PFS in patients without prior BEV exposure was also significantly longer than that in patients with prior BEV exposure (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapeutic efficacy did not differ between the groups. Grade 3 or 4 AEs within the first four cycles of treatment and prior BEV exposure may be an effective predictor of treatment efficacy in mCRC patients administered VEGF inhibitors as second-line chemotherapy.
BACKGROUND: Three vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors, Bevacizumab (BEV), ramucirumab (RAM), and aflibercept (AFL), are widely used for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients who are treated with second-line chemotherapy. The difference in outcome between the three drugs has not been evaluated. In contrast to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, VEGF inhibitors have few candidate predictors of efficacy. METHODS: Consecutive mCRC patients who were treated with second-line chemotherapy were retrospectively enrolled. Overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety were assessed. Subgroup analyses of prognostic and predictive efficacy markers were performed. RESULTS: A total of 119 (41.2%), 107 (37.0%), and 63 patients (21.8%) were treated with FOLFIRI +BEV, RAM, or AFL, respectively. ORR, PFS, and OS showed no significant differences between three groups. However, the frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) in the FOLFIRI +AFL group was significantly higher than that in the other groups (p < 0.001). Patients with grade 3 or 4 AEs, especially hypertension and neutropenia within the first four cycles of treatment had significantly longer PFS and OS than those without AEs, irrespective of treatment with VEGF inhibitors (p < 0.001). PFS in patients without prior BEV exposure was also significantly longer than that in patients with prior BEV exposure (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapeutic efficacy did not differ between the groups. Grade 3 or 4 AEs within the first four cycles of treatment and prior BEV exposure may be an effective predictor of treatment efficacy in mCRC patients administered VEGF inhibitors as second-line chemotherapy.
Authors: Josep Tabernero; Takayuki Yoshino; Allen Lee Cohn; Radka Obermannova; Gyorgy Bodoky; Rocio Garcia-Carbonero; Tudor-Eliade Ciuleanu; David C Portnoy; Eric Van Cutsem; Axel Grothey; Jana Prausová; Pilar Garcia-Alfonso; Kentaro Yamazaki; Philip R Clingan; Sara Lonardi; Tae Won Kim; Lorinda Simms; Shao-Chun Chang; Federico Nasroulah Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-04-12 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: P Canal; C Gay; A Dezeuze; J Y Douillard; R Bugat; R Brunet; A Adenis; P Herait; F Lokiec; A Mathieu-Boue Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1996-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eugene S Kim; Anna Serur; Jianzhong Huang; Christina A Manley; Kimberly W McCrudden; Jason S Frischer; Samuel Z Soffer; Laurence Ring; Tamara New; Stephanie Zabski; John S Rudge; Jocelyn Holash; George D Yancopoulos; Jessica J Kandel; Darrell J Yamashiro Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2002-08-12 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jennifer L Spratlin; Roger B Cohen; Matthew Eadens; Lia Gore; D Ross Camidge; Sami Diab; Stephen Leong; Cindy O'Bryant; Laura Q M Chow; Natalie J Serkova; Neal J Meropol; Nancy L Lewis; E Gabriela Chiorean; Floyd Fox; Hagop Youssoufian; Eric K Rowinsky; S Gail Eckhardt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eric Van Cutsem; Josep Tabernero; Radek Lakomy; Hans Prenen; Jana Prausová; Teresa Macarulla; Paul Ruff; Guy A van Hazel; Vladimir Moiseyenko; David Ferry; Joe McKendrick; Jonathan Polikoff; Alexia Tellier; Rémi Castan; Carmen Allegra Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-09-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: W Ichikawa; K Uehara; K Minamimura; C Tanaka; Y Takii; H Miyauchi; S Sadahiro; K Fujita; T Moriwaki; M Nakamura; T Takahashi; A Tsuji; K Shinozaki; S Morita; Y Ando; Y Okutani; M Sugihara; T Sugiyama; Y Ohashi; Y Sakata Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: J Tabernero; R R Hozak; T Yoshino; A L Cohn; R Obermannova; G Bodoky; R Garcia-Carbonero; T-E Ciuleanu; D C Portnoy; J Prausová; K Muro; R W Siegel; R J Konrad; H Ouyang; S A Melemed; D Ferry; F Nasroulah; E Van Cutsem Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Nieves Martínez-Lago; Soledad Cameselle García; Beatriz Alonso de Castro; Martín I Gómez-Randulfe Rodríguez; Marta Carmona Campos; Paula González Villarroel; Mercedes Salgado Fernández; Juan C De la Cámara Gómez; Carlos Romero Reinoso; Antía Cousillas Castiñeiras; José Carlos Méndez Méndez; Yolanda Vidal Insua; Ana Fernández-Montes Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-06-03 Impact factor: 3.752