Chunlong Huang1, Xiaoyuan Gu2, Xianshang Zeng3, Baomin Chen1, Weiguang Yu4, Meiji Chen5. 1. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, No. 58, Zhongshan 2nd Road, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou, 510080, China. 2. Department of Oncology, Shibei Hospital of Shanghai, No. 4500, Goughexin Road, Jing' an District, Shanghai, 200443, China. 3. Department of Orthopaedics, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, No. 58, Zhongshan 2nd Road, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou, 510080, China. 4. Department of Orthopaedics, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, No. 58, Zhongshan 2nd Road, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou, 510080, China. 10211270007@fudan.edu.cn. 5. Department of Pediatrics, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, No. 58, Zhongshan 2nd Road, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou, 510080, China. chenmeiji_2016@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An upgraded understanding of factors (sex/estrogen) associated with survival benefit in advanced colorectal carcinoma (CRC) could improve personalised management and provide innovative insights into anti-tumour mechanisms. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of cetuximab (CET) versus bevacizumab (BEV) following prior 12 cycles of fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) plus BEV in postmenopausal women with advanced KRAS and BRAF wild-type (wt) CRC. METHODS: Prospectively maintained databases were reviewed from 2013 to 2017 to assess postmenopausal women with advanced KRAS and BRAF wt CRC who received up to 12 cycles of FOLFOXIRI plus BEV inductive treatment, followed by CET or BEV maintenance treatment. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate. The secondary endpoint was the rate of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 27.0 months (IQR 25.1-29.2), significant difference was detected in median OS (17.7 months [95% confidence interval [CI], 16.2-18.6] for CET vs. 11.7 months [95% CI, 10.4-12.8] for BEV; hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.89; p=0.007); Median PFS was 10.7 months (95% CI, 9.8-11.3) for CET vs. 8.4 months (95% CI, 7.2-9.6) for BEV (HR, 0.67; 95% CI 0.47-0.94; p=0.02). Dose reduction due to intolerable AEs occurred in 29 cases (24 [24.0%] for CET vs. 5 [4.8%] for BEV; p< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: CET tends to be superior survival benefit when compared with BEV, with tolerated AEs.
BACKGROUND: An upgraded understanding of factors (sex/estrogen) associated with survival benefit in advanced colorectal carcinoma (CRC) could improve personalised management and provide innovative insights into anti-tumour mechanisms. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of cetuximab (CET) versus bevacizumab (BEV) following prior 12 cycles of fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) plus BEV in postmenopausal women with advanced KRAS and BRAF wild-type (wt) CRC. METHODS: Prospectively maintained databases were reviewed from 2013 to 2017 to assess postmenopausal women with advanced KRAS and BRAF wt CRC who received up to 12 cycles of FOLFOXIRI plus BEV inductive treatment, followed by CET or BEV maintenance treatment. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate. The secondary endpoint was the rate of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 27.0 months (IQR 25.1-29.2), significant difference was detected in median OS (17.7 months [95% confidence interval [CI], 16.2-18.6] for CET vs. 11.7 months [95% CI, 10.4-12.8] for BEV; hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.89; p=0.007); Median PFS was 10.7 months (95% CI, 9.8-11.3) for CET vs. 8.4 months (95% CI, 7.2-9.6) for BEV (HR, 0.67; 95% CI 0.47-0.94; p=0.02). Dose reduction due to intolerable AEs occurred in 29 cases (24 [24.0%] for CET vs. 5 [4.8%] for BEV; p< 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:CET tends to be superior survival benefit when compared with BEV, with tolerated AEs.
Authors: Alan P Venook; Donna Niedzwiecki; Heinz-Josef Lenz; Federico Innocenti; Briant Fruth; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Deborah Schrag; Claire Greene; Bert H O'Neil; James Norman Atkins; Scott Berry; Blase N Polite; Eileen M O'Reilly; Richard M Goldberg; Howard S Hochster; Richard L Schilsky; Monica M Bertagnolli; Anthony B El-Khoueiry; Peter Watson; Al B Benson; Daniel L Mulkerin; Robert J Mayer; Charles Blanke Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-06-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: S Y Brulé; D J Jonker; C S Karapetis; C J O'Callaghan; M J Moore; R Wong; N C Tebbutt; Cr Underhill; D Yip; J R Zalcberg; D Tu; R A Goodwin Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2015-05-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Sebastian Stintzing; Dominik P Modest; Lisa Rossius; Markus M Lerch; 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; Swantje Held; Clemens Giessen-Jung; Markus Moehler; Andreas Jagenburg; Thomas Kirchner; Andreas Jung; Volker Heinemann Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-08-27 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Song-Yi Park; Lynne R Wilkens; Laurence N Kolonel; Brian E Henderson; Loïc Le Marchand Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2016-05-14 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Jolien Tol; Miriam Koopman; Annemieke Cats; Cees J Rodenburg; Geert J M Creemers; Jolanda G Schrama; Frans L G Erdkamp; Allert H Vos; Cees J van Groeningen; Harm A M Sinnige; Dirk J Richel; Emile E Voest; Jeroen R Dijkstra; Marianne E Vink-Börger; Ninja F Antonini; Linda Mol; Johan H J M van Krieken; Otilia Dalesio; Cornelis J A Punt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-02-05 Impact factor: 91.245