scholarly journals First‐Line XELOX Plus Bevacizumab Followed by XELOX Plus Bevacizumab or Single‐Agent Bevacizumab as Maintenance Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The Phase III MACRO TTD Study

2012 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo Díaz‐Rubio ◽  
Auxiliadora Gómez‐España ◽  
Bartomeu Massutí ◽  
Javier Sastre ◽  
Albert Abad ◽  
...  
2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS3639-TPS3639
Author(s):  
Clemens Albrecht Giessen ◽  
Dominik Paul Modest ◽  
Sebastian Stintzing ◽  
Ludwig Fischer von Weikersthal ◽  
Ursula Vehling-Kaiser ◽  
...  

TPS3639 Background: Several randomized trials have indicated that combination chemotherapy applied in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) does not significantly improve overall survival when compared to the sequential use of cytotoxic agents (CAIRO, MRC Focus, FFCD 2000-05). The present study investigates the question in bevacizumab-based first-line treatment including escalation- and de-escalation strategies. Methods: The AIO KRK 0110/ML22011 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01249638) is a two-arm, multicenter, open-label randomized phase III trial comparing the efficacy and safety of Cape-Bev versus CAPIRI-Bev in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer, ECOG PS 0-1, will be assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either capecitabine 1250 mg/m2 bid for 14d (d1-14) plus bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (d1) q3w (Arm A) or capecitabine 800 mg/m2 BID for 14d (d1-14), irinotecan 200 mg/m2 (d1) and bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (d1) q3w (Arm B). Patients included into this trial are required to consent to the analysis of tumor tissue and blood for translational investigations. In Arm A, treatment escalation from Cape-Bev to CAPIRI-Bev is recommended in case of progressive disease (PD). In Arm B, de-escalation from CAPIRI-Bev to Cape-Bev is possible after 6 months of treatment or in case of irinotecan-associated toxicity. Re-escalation to CAPIRI-Bev after PD is possible. The primary endpoint is time to failure of strategy (TFS). Secondary endpoints are ORR, OS, PFS, safety and quality of life. Conclusion: The AIO KRK 0110 trial is designed for patients with disseminated, but asymptomatic mCRC who are not potential candidates for surgical resection of metastasis. Two bevacizumab-based strategies are compared: one starting as single-agent chemotherapy (Cape-Bev) allowing escalation to CAPIRI-Bev and another starting with CAPIRI-Bev and allowing de-escalation to Cape-Bev and subsequent re-escalation if necessary. By January 2012, 79 of planned 516 patients have been enrolled.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15032-e15032
Author(s):  
Yeohan Song ◽  
AMR Mohamed ◽  
Hibah Ismail ◽  
Nadine Abdallah ◽  
Malini Surapaneni ◽  
...  

e15032 Background: The majority of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) will ultimately experience disease progression following initial therapy. Although phase III clinical trials show that continued maintenance therapy improves progression free and overall survival in MCRC, the optimal maintenance regimen with an acceptable safety profile is still undetermined. This study aimed to assess outcomes of bevacizumab-containing maintenance therapy after first line chemotherapy for MCRC. Methods: One hundred thirteen patients (46 males, 67 females) with MCRC diagnosed between 2005 and 2014 who received chemotherapy at Karmanos Cancer Institute were included in this retrospective analysis. Induction treatment for most patients consisted of either 5-FU or capecitabine-based chemotherapy with either oxaliplatin or irinotecan and with or without bevacizumab. Eighty percent of patients who received bevacizumab with induction also received it as part of maintenance therapy. Results: After stratifying for age (dichotomized at 65 years) and induction therapy bevacizumab, there was no difference in PFS for induction regimens with or without bevacizumab (p = 0.67). For patients who received capecitabine as maintenance chemotherapy, the addition of bevacizumab resulted in non-significant larger hazard of a PFS event (HR = 1.46, p = 0.36). Among those who received 5-FU maintenance, the addition of bevacizumab resulted in non-significant smaller hazard of a PFS event (HR = 0.48, p = 0.11). There was no difference in observed toxicities between patients who received bevacizumab and those who did not (p = 0.38), with further sub-set analysis showing no increased toxicities among those who received 5-FU (p = 0.76) and those who received capecitabine (p = 0.16). Conclusions: In patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, there was no difference in efficacy or safety when adding bevacizumab to either 5-FU or capecitabine for maintenance after first line chemotherapy. Based on our results, tolerability and compliance with oral capecitabine ought to be a key factor in determining the choice of maintenance in patients with MCRC.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. LBA3500-LBA3500 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christophe Tournigand ◽  
Benoit Samson ◽  
Werner Scheithauer ◽  
Gérard Lledo ◽  
Frédéric Viret ◽  
...  

LBA3500^ Background: Therapy targeting VEGF or EGFR demonstrated clinical activity in combination with chemotherapy (CT) in mCRC but monoclonal antibodies cannot be associated. The DREAM trial compares a maintenance therapy (MT) with bev +/- EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib (E) after a first-line Bev-based induction therapy (IT) in pts with mCRC. Methods: Pts with previously untreated and unresectable mCRC were eligible. After a Bev-based IT with FOLFOX or XELOX or FOLFIRI, pts without disease progression were randomized to MT between Bev alone (Bev 7.5 mg/kg q3w; arm A) or Bev+E (B 7.5 mg/kg q3w, E 150 mg/day continuously; arm B). Pts were treated until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was PFS on MT. Results: The study enrolled 700 pts from 01/2007 to 11/2011 in 3 countries (France, Canada, Austria). 446 (63.7%) pts were randomized for MT (arm A, N=224; arm B, N=222). Among the 446 randomized pts, IT regimen was FOLFOX-Bev in 265 pts (59.4%), XELOX-Bev in 135 pts (30.3%), and FOLFIRI-Bev in 46 pts (10.3%). Baseline characteristics of randomized pts were (arm A/B): ECOG PS 0, 60% in both arms; normal LDH level 47%/49%; normal alkaline phosphatase level 48%/50%; synchronous metastasis 83%/82%. The median no of MT cycles was 6 in both arms. With a median follow-up of 31.0 months, 327 PFS events were observed. Median MT-PFS were 4.6 m in arm A vs 5.8 m in arm B (HR 0.73 [95%CI: 0.59-0.91], P=.005). Median PFS from inclusion were 9.2 m vs 10.2 m. During MT, in arm A vs arm B, grade 3-4 diarrhea (<1% vs 9%) and grade 3 skin toxicity (0% vs 19%) were the main differences in toxicity. Severe adverse events from randomization related to B or E were 6 in arm A and 7 in arm B. Overall survival is not mature. Conclusions: The addition of erlotinib to bevacizumab after induction therapy significantly improves the duration of maintenance PFS, following induction with first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document