Is aflibercept an optimal treatment for wt RAS mCRC patients after progression to first line containing anti-EGFR?

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy and safety data of aflibercept + FOLFIRI in wt RAS mCRC patients after progression to standard chemotherapy + anti-EGFR treatment. METHODS: Retrospective, observational study in real life conducted in wt RAS mCRC patients treated with FOLFIRI-aflibercept after progression to standard first line chemotherapy + anti-EGFR treatment. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients from 12 Spanish hospitals were enrolled. Median age is 60 years (62.5%/37.5%male/female). Primary tumor site is 24.1%/75.9% right/left-side colon, and 40.8% of patients had a prior resection. All patients had wild-type RAS tumors including 5% of patients with BRAF mutations and received anti-EGFR treatment. At the time aflibercept was initiated, ECOG PS is 0/1 in 96% of patients. Median number of FOLFIRI-aflibercept cycles is 12. Efficacy results: Overall response rate is 33%; progression-free survival (PFS) is 6.9 months (95%CI: 6.1-7.8). Primary tumor resection was the only significant variable related to PFS in the multivariate analysis. Median overall survival (OS) is 14.5 months (95%CI: 9.7-19.3). ECOG and number of metastatic sites were related to OS in multivariate analysis. About 54.1% of patients received a third-line therapy including TAS-102 (23%), regorafenib (18.5%), and capecitabine (9.2%). TOXICITY: Grade 3-4 toxicities were observed in 37.5% of the patients (hematologic 16.6%, hypertension 7.5%, asthenia 5.9%, and perforation 2.5%). Aflibercept dose was reduced in 18.3% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that patients with wt RAS mCRC who received an anti-EGFR as part of the first-line treatment achieved similar RR, PFS, OS, and toxicities to those reported in VELOUR trial. These results suggest that FOLFIRI-aflibercept after first-line treatment with anti-EGFR is an appropriated option for RAS wt mCRC.

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.

PURPOSE: The aim of this phase III trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab alone with those of bevacizumab and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) as maintenance treatment following induction chemotherapy with XELOX plus bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of bevacizumab, capecitabine, and oxaliplatin every 3 weeks followed by XELOX plus bevacizumab or bevacizumab alone until progression. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) interval; secondary endpoints were the overall survival (OS) time, objective response rate (RR), time to response, duration of response, and safety. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population comprised 480 patients (XELOX plus bevacizumab, n = 239; bevacizumab, n = 241); there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. The median follow-up was 29.0 months (range, 0-53.2 months). There were no statistically significant differences in the median PFS or OS times or in the RR between the two arms. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities in the XELOX plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab arms were diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, and neuropathy. CONCLUSION: Although the noninferiority of bevacizumab versus XELOX plus bevacizumab cannot be confirmed, we can reliably exclude a median PFS detriment >3 weeks. This study suggests that maintenance therapy with single-agent bevacizumab may be an appropriate option following induction XELOX plus bevacizumab in mCRC patients.

Correlation of hypertension and proteinuria with outcome in elderly bevacizumab-treated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest a relationship between hypertension and outcome in bevacizumab-treated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We performed a retrospective analysis of two phase II studies (BECA and BECOX) to determine if hypertension and proteinuria predict outcome in elderly patients with mCRC treated with bevacizumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients ≥ 70 years of age received either capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) bid days 1-14 + bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg day 1 every 21 days (BECA study) or capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) bid days 1-14 with bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) day 1 (BECOX study). The primary objective was to correlate hypertension and proteinuria with overall response rate (ORR), time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives included identification of risk factors associated with the development of hypertension and proteinuria and determining whether development of hypertension or proteinuria in the first 2 cycles was related to ORR, disease-control rate (DCR), TTP or OS. RESULTS: In total, 127 patients (median age 75.5 years) were included in the study. Hypertension correlated with DCR and OS; proteinuria correlated with ORR and DCR. Proteinuria or hypertension in the first 2 cycles did not correlate with efficacy. Risk factors for hypertension were female gender (odds ratio [OR] 0.241; P = 0.011) and more bevacizumab cycles (OR 1.112; P = 0.002); risk factors for proteinuria were diabetes (OR 3.869; P = 0.006) and more bevacizumab cycles (OR 1.181; P<0.0001). Multivariate analysis identified as having prognostic value: baseline lactate dehydrogenase, haemoglobin, number of metastatic lesions and DCR. CONCLUSION: This analysis of two phase II studies suggests that hypertension is significantly correlated with OS but not with ORR and TTP, whereas proteinuria is correlated with ORR but not with OS and TTP. Both hypertension and proteinuria are associated with the duration of bevacizumab treatment and do not represent an independent prognostic factor.