PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab and aflibercept in second-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in real-life clinical practice. METHODS: Retrospective observational study of patients treated with second-line bevacizumab (BFIR) and aflibercept (AFIR) in mCRC, associated with a FOLFIRI scheme, in the last 12 years (January 2009-January 2021) in a tertiary hospital. Patients with prior oxaliplatin-based treatment were included. VARIABLES MEASURED: previous chemotherapy, treatment time (TT), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS). To assess toxicity, adverse effects that caused delay in cycle administration were recorded. The lost cycles/month of treatment (CP/MT) were also calculated. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients [40 (47.6%) AFIR and 44 (52.4%) BFIR]. Average age: 60.2 ± 10.7 years. In 79.8% the previous scheme was FOLFOX type. Efficacy of AFIR vs BFIR: median HR of TT (95% CI) = 0.816 (0.527-1.266); p = 0.365, PFS HR (95% CI) = 0.674 (0.389-1.117); p = 0.159, OS HR (95% CI) = 0.566 (0.342-0.936); p = 0.026. The main reason for the delay in administration was neutropenia (28.7% AFIR vs 24.7% BFIR), and the greatest difference found was thrombopenia (13.9% AFIR vs 2.5% BFIR), without observing large differences between the rest of adverse reactions. Mean CP/MT: 0.49 ± 0.46 cycles with AFIR and 0.33 ± 0.27 with BFIR; p = 0.046. CONCLUSION: Although no statistically significant differences have been found in TT or PFS, it would be more advisable to use BFIR scheme due to its better results in OS and toxicity profile.
PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab and aflibercept in second-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in real-life clinical practice. METHODS: Retrospective observational study of patients treated with second-line bevacizumab (BFIR) and aflibercept (AFIR) in mCRC, associated with a FOLFIRI scheme, in the last 12 years (January 2009-January 2021) in a tertiary hospital. Patients with prior oxaliplatin-based treatment were included. VARIABLES MEASURED: previous chemotherapy, treatment time (TT), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS). To assess toxicity, adverse effects that caused delay in cycle administration were recorded. The lost cycles/month of treatment (CP/MT) were also calculated. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients [40 (47.6%) AFIR and 44 (52.4%) BFIR]. Average age: 60.2 ± 10.7 years. In 79.8% the previous scheme was FOLFOX type. Efficacy of AFIR vs BFIR: median HR of TT (95% CI) = 0.816 (0.527-1.266); p = 0.365, PFS HR (95% CI) = 0.674 (0.389-1.117); p = 0.159, OS HR (95% CI) = 0.566 (0.342-0.936); p = 0.026. The main reason for the delay in administration was neutropenia (28.7% AFIR vs 24.7% BFIR), and the greatest difference found was thrombopenia (13.9% AFIR vs 2.5% BFIR), without observing large differences between the rest of adverse reactions. Mean CP/MT: 0.49 ± 0.46 cycles with AFIR and 0.33 ± 0.27 with BFIR; p = 0.046. CONCLUSION: Although no statistically significant differences have been found in TT or PFS, it would be more advisable to use BFIR scheme due to its better results in OS and toxicity profile.