Search

Background: No treatment option was available for patients with RAS-mutated (RASmt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who progress after standard combined chemotherapies at the time of the study. After promising results in phase II, the aim of the present NEXIRI-2/PRODIGE 27 trial was to assess the 2-month non-progression rate for sorafenib (NEX) plus irinotecan (IRI), that is, NEXIRI, treatment., Methods: Patients with RASmt mCRC after failure of oxaliplatin, IRI, fluoropyrimidines, and bevacizumab were randomized between NEXIRI (IRI 120-180 mg/m 2 intravenous, D1 = D15 plus oral NEX 400 mg twice a day) versus IRI (180 mg/m 2 ) versus NEX. Primary endpoint was the 2-month non-progression rate. Secondary endpoints included progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS), safety, and germline cyclin D1 (CCND1) rs9344 polymorphisms analyses., Results: A total of 173 patients were included, 59 in NEXIRI, 57 in IRI, and 57 in NEX arms. The 2-month non-progression rate was 52.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 39%-66%), 21.4% (10%-33%), and 19.3% (9%-30%) for NEXIRI, IRI, and NEX. Median PFS was 3.6 (95% CI: 2-4.2), 1.7 (1.7-1.8), and 2 (1.8-2.3) months and the median OS was 7.2 (5.8-9.4), 6.3 (4.8-8), and 5.6 (3.9-7.7) months for NEXIRI, IRI, and NEX, respectively. For NEXIRI rs9344CCND1 A/A genotype patients, OS was 19.6 months (95% CI: 4.8-not reached). Main grade 3 toxicities included neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, and hypertension., Conclusions: In patients with RASmt mCRC who progressed after standard combined chemotherapies, the results of 2-month non-progression rate and median PFS in the NEXIRI arm were in favor of an increase of the time before progression., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) is a treatment used for liver metastases (LM) of colorectal cancer (CRC). Because of its technical conditions, it has been used in only a few experienced centers in France. Our aim was to evaluate its feasibility, efficacy and tolerance in 4 centers., Methods: Clinical, biological, and radiological data of patients treated with HAIC for unresectable LM from CRC in 4 institutions from October 2011 to January 2016 were retrospectively analyzed., Results: Sixty-one patients with unresectable LM from CRC were included. Patients had previously received systemic chemotherapy in 95% of patients and 82.8% had previous oxaliplatin treatment. Oxaliplatin was administered using an intra-arterial route combined with intravenous (I.V.) Five-fluorouracil (5-FU) with leucovorin alone in 43.3% of patients, or combined with other I.V. chemotherapies or monoclonal antibodies in 56.7% of patients. Grade 3 to 4 clinical toxicities were reported in 16% of patients, including 9.8% of neurotoxicity, and Grade 3 to 4 biological toxicities were reported in 24.6% of patients including 22.2% with neutropenia. Catheter-related complications were observed in 31.1%. Tumor response rate in first- and second-line was 26.5% and third- and fourth-line was 11%. Median overall survival (OS) in first- and second-line was 13.5 months and third- and fourth-line was 8.3 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-1.12; P = .1729). Median progression-free survival (PFS) in first- and second-line was 9 months and third- and fourth-line were 6 months (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.18-0.659; P = .0037). A secondary R0 resection was possible in 10 cases (16.4%) allowing a 2-year survival of 80%., Conclusion: These data confirm that in centers that recently developed HAIC using oxaliplatin, this treatment is feasible and has acceptable tolerance. The results, in terms of hepatic PFS, PFS, OS, and the rate of secondary resections of LM, are in the range of published data, and they confirm the interest of HAIC in patients in progression after multiple I.V., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: There is no predictive factor of response to bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer. Nevertheless, preclinical studies demonstrated an interaction between primary tumor and metastatic sites for the neoangiogenesis regulation. The primary objective of our study was to identify an effect of up-front primary tumor resection (UPTR) on bevacizumab efficacy., Patients and Methods: Between 2008 and 2010, we retrospectively analyzed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of 316 patients with synchronous and metachronous metastatic colorectal cancer according to bevacizumab addition to first-line chemotherapy and UPTR., Results: Among 206 patients with UPTR, the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy significantly improved OS compared to chemotherapy alone (29.8 vs. 23.9 months respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40-0.83; P = .003). This effect was confirmed in multivariate analysis. There was also a nonsignificant trend toward improved PFS (9.7 vs. 8.4 months respectively; HR 0.71; 95% CI, 0.50-1.02; P = .062). Conversely, among 110 patients without UPTR, the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy had no effect on OS compared to chemotherapy alone (18.2 vs. 19.3 months respectively; HR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.65-1.42; P = .853). Bevacizumab significantly improved PFS (8.1 vs. 5.7 months respectively; HR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.45-0.96; P = .032) without confirmation in multivariate analysis., Conclusion: In this retrospective study, bevacizumab seems to improve OS only in patients with UPTR, which could suggest a complementarity of both therapeutic modalities for antiangiogenic effect., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: This prospective phase II study assessed the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy regimens commonly used in the second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)., Methods: Patients with mCRC who progressed or relapsed after first-line oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based treatment received bevacizumab 2.5 mg/kg/week plus chemotherapy until disease progression. The primary endpoint was disease-control rate (DCR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety., Results: Fifty-three patients (66% men; median age, 62 years old) received second-line bevacizumab plus folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI; 57%), folinic acid, fluorouracil, oxaliplatin (FOLFOX; 26%), irinotecan (15%), or capecitabine plus irinotecan (XELIRI; 2%). The DCR was 87% (95% CI, 77%-97%); ORR was 32% (95% CI, 19%-46%). Median PFS was 6.5 months (95% CI, 5.8-7.8 months) and median OS 19.3 months, (95% CI, 14.2-25.1 months).The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events included neutropenia (21%), diarrhea (15%), asthenia, and vomiting (9% each). Five patients (9%) had grade 3/4 targeted toxicities: grade 3 hypertension (n = 2), grade 3 venous thromboembolism (n = 2), and grade 4 arterial thromboembolism (n = 1). None of these events led to death during the study., Conclusion: Bevacizumab plus standard second-line chemotherapy is highly active in patients with mCRC and has an acceptable safety profile., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Continuous-infusion 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV) and oxaliplatin is a frequently used regimen in metastatic colorectal cancer. Continuous-infusion 5-FU imposes constraints on patients and institutions. Oral fluoropyrimidines that mimic continuous-infusion 5-FU are now available and can be combined with oxaliplatin. In addition, it has been shown in small randomized trials that oral fluoropyrimidines are preferred by patients. Several randomized trials have compared continuous-infusion 5-FU/oxaliplatin with the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine plus oxaliplatin. In all of these trials, noninferiority was demonstrated for the use of oral fluoropyrimidines on the predefined endpoints such as progression-free survival, overall survival, or response rate. In all trials, however, the hazard ratios were always in favor of the use of continuous-infusion 5-FU/LV even though noninferiority was demonstrated. This could question the need to use oral fluoropyrimidines instead of continuous-infusion 5-FU. Patient preference, quality of life, and cost of treatment could also be considered in this setting, wherein most of the patients are not in a curative situation.