Search

Background: Right-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients have poor prognosis and achieve limited benefit from first-line doublets plus a targeted agent. In this unplanned analysis of the TRIBE study, we investigated the prognostic and predictive impact of primary tumor sidedness in mCRC patients and the differential impact of the intensification of the chemotherapy in subgroups defined according to both primary tumor sidedness and RAS and BRAF mutational status., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized to receive upfront 5-fluoruracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus bevacizumab or 5-fluoruracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) plus bevacizumab. Tumors were defined as right- or left-sided if they originated from the caecum to the transverse colon or within the splenic flexure and beyond, respectively. Patients with available information about both primary sidedness and RAS and BRAF status were included in the present analysis. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and RECIST response rate were assessed according to tumor location and RAS and BRAF mutational status., Results: Information about primary sidedness and RAS and BRAF status was available for 358 (70.5%) out of 508 randomized patients. Patients with right-sided tumors (N = 173) presented shorter OS [23.7 versus 31.0 months, HR = 1.42 (95% CI 1.09-1.84), P = 0.010] and a trend toward shorter PFS [10.2 versus 11.5 months, HR = 1.24 (95% CI: 0.98-1.56), P = 0.083] than those with left-sided tumors (N = 185), but these associations were no longer evident when adjusting for RAS and BRAF status. Patients with right-sided tumors achieved more relative benefit from the intensification of the chemotherapy backbone in terms of both PFS (HR = 0.59 versus 0.89, P for interaction = 0.099) and OS (HR = 0.56 versus 0.99, P for interaction = 0.030) and this advantage was independent of their RAS and BRAF status., Conclusions: FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab may be regarded as a preferred first-line treatment option for clinically selected patients with right-sided metastatic colorectal cancer irrespective of their RAS and BRAF mutational status. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00719797.

Background: FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab is a valid option as upfront treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. While several trials investigated the effect of combining bevacizumab with different chemotherapy regimens, including fluoropyrimidines monotherapy and oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-containing doublets, no randomized comparison assessing the impact of the addition of bevacizumab to FOLFOXIRI is available., Patients and Methods: A total of 122 mCRC patients received first-line FOLFOXIRI in the phase III trial by the GONO (FOLFOXIRI group) and 252 patients received first-line FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab in the TRIBE trial (FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab group). A propensity score-adjusted method was adopted to provide an estimation of the benefit from the addition of bevacizumab to FOLFOXIRI in terms of survival and activity parameters., Results: Patients in the FOLFOXIRI group had more frequently Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of one or two, high Köhne score, metachronous and liver-limited disease, had previously received adjuvant treatments and had their primary tumors resected. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.3 months in the FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab group compared with 10.0 months in the FOLFOXIRI group {propensity score-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59-0.94], P = 0.013}. This association was significant also in the multivariable model (P = 0.024). The median OS was 29.8 months in the FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab group compared with 23.6 months in the FOLFOXIRI group [propensity score-adjusted HR: 0.72 (95% CI 0.56-0.93), P = 0.014]. At the multivariable model, the addition of bevacizumab was still associated with significantly longer OS (P = 0.030). No significant differences in RECIST response rate (RR) [65.1% versus 55.7%; propensity score-adjusted odds ratio (OR): 1.29 (95% CI 0.81-2.05), P = 0.280], early RR [62.7% versus 57.8%; OR: 1.14 (95% CI 0.68-1.93), P = 0.619] and median depth of response (42.2% versus 53.8%, P = 0.259) were reported., Conclusions: Though in the absence of a randomized comparison, the addition of bevacizumab to FOLFOXIRI provides significant benefit in PFS and OS, thus supporting the use of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as upfront treatment for mCRC patients., Trials' Numbers: NCT01219920 and NCT00719797., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DoR) predict overall survival (OS) in first-line trials of chemotherapy ± anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). These associations and the predictive accuracy of response measurements for survival parameters were investigated in the phase III TRIBE trial of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab (bev) versus FOLFIRI plus bev., Patients and Methods: A landmark approach was adopted to define the assessable population. The distribution of RECIST response rate, ETS and DoR was compared in the two arms. Associations between response measurements and progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival (PPS) and OS were tested by univariate and multivariate Cox models. Prediction performance of each factor was estimated by C-index., Results: A significantly higher percentage of patients in the FOLFOXIRI plus bev arm achieved ETS ≥20%, when compared with the control arm (62.7% versus 51.9%, P = 0.025). Also the DoR was significantly higher in the triplet plus bev arm (43.4% versus 37.8%, P = 0.003). Both ETS and DoR were associated with PFS, PPS and OS at the univariate analyses and in the multivariate models stratified for other prognostic variables. Both ETS and DoR were able to predict survival as accurately as RECIST response., Conclusion: FOLFOXIRI plus bev improves ETS and DoR when compared with FOLFIRI plus bev. Achieving rapid and deep tumor shrinkage consistently delays tumor progression and prolongs survival in patients treated with first-line chemotherapy plus bev. ETS is a promising and valuable end point for clinical trials' design deserving further investigation., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The combination of bevacizumab with fluorouracil-based chemotherapy is a standard first-line treatment option in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We studied the efficacy of continuing or reintroducing bevacizumab in combination with second-line chemotherapy after progression to bevacizumab-based first-line therapy., Patients and Methods: In this phase III study, patients with mCRC treated with fluoropyrimidine-based first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab were randomized to receive in second-line mFOLFOX-6 or FOLFIRI (depending on first-line regimen) with or without bevacizumab. The primary end point was progression-free survival. To detect a hazard ratio (HR) for progression of 0.70 with an α and β error of 0.05 and 0.20, respectively, 262 patients were required., Results: In consideration of the results of the ML18147 trial, the study was prematurely stopped. Between April 2008 and May 2012, a total of 185 patients were randomized. Bevacizumab-free interval was longer than 3 months in 43% of patients in chemotherapy alone arm and in 50% of patients in the bevacizumab arm. At a median follow-up of 45.3 months, the median progression-free survival was 5.0 months in the chemotherapy group and 6.8 months in the bevacizumab group [adjusted HR = 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-0.95; stratified log-rank P = 0.010]. Subgroup analyses showed a consistent benefit in all subgroups analyzed and in particular in patients who had continued or reintroduced bevacizumab. An improved overall survival was also observed in the bevacizumab arm (adjusted HR = 0.77; 95% CI 0.56-1.06; stratified log-rank P = 0.043). Responses (RECIST 1.0) were similar in the chemotherapy and bevacizumab groups (17% and 21%; P = 0.573). Toxicity profile was consistent with previously reported data., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the continuation or the reintroduction of bevacizumab with second-line chemotherapy beyond first progression improves the outcome and supports the use of this strategy in the treatment of mCRC. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00720512., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Surveys carried out in Mediterranean countries demonstrated very low rates of awareness of both diagnosis and prognosis among cancer patients. In our institution, a long-term training program aimed at improving communication skills among all physicians interacting with cancer patients was conducted. We report here the results of an extensive assessment of patients' awareness conducted after the first training period., Patients and Methods: In a 2-year period, after every first visit of patients with a histological diagnosis of cancer, oncologists elicited perception of the patients and completed a structured questionnaire focusing on the understanding of the diagnosis and prognosis. Our data are thus a photograph of the results of the informative process conducted during the diagnostic phase., Results: Among the enrolled 649 patients, 79.3% were aware of their diagnosis; factors significantly associated with higher levels of awareness were age younger than 70 and referral from surgery (versus internal medicine). Knowledge about the palliative or curative aims of future treatments (a surrogate sign of prognostic consciousness) was evident in 55.2%., Conclusions: Compared with historical data, our results show a high level of comprehension of the diagnosis of malignancy, probably due to the extensive training effort together with the method chosen for assessment.