ABSTRACT
Patients with brain metastases (BMETS) need information about the prognosis and potential value of treatment options to make informed therapeutic decisions, but tools to predict survival in contemporary practice are scarce. We propose an Updated Recursive Partitioning Analysis (U-RPA) instrument to predict survival and benefit from brain-directed treatment (BDT) of contemporary patients. This was a retrospective analysis of patients with BMETS treated between 2017 and 2019. With survival as the primary endpoint, we calculated the U-RPA and generated estimates using Kaplan-Meier curves and hazard ratios. Of 862 eligible patients, 752 received BDT and 110 received best supportive care (BSC). Median overall survival with BDT and BSC was 9.3 and 1.3 months, respectively. Patients in RPA class 1, 2A, 2B and 3 who underwent BDT had median survival of 28.1, 14.7, 7.6 and 3.3 months, respectively. The median survival for patients in RPA 3 who received BDT (n = 147), WBRT (n = 79) and SRS (n = 54) was 3.3, 2.9 and 4.1 months, respectively. The U-RPA defines prognosis estimates, independent of tumor type and treatment modality, which can assist to make value-based care treatment decisions. The prognosis for patients in U-RPA class 2B and 3 remains poor, with consideration for early palliative care involvement in these cases.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Combination irinotecan and cetuximab is approved for irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). It is unknown if adding bevacizumab improves outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, patients with irinotecan-refractory RAS-wildtype mCRC and no prior anti-EGFR therapy were randomized to cetuximab 500 mg/m2, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg, and irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (or previously tolerated dose) (CBI) versus cetuximab, irinotecan, and placebo (CI) every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The study closed early after the accrual of 36 out of a planned 120 patients due to changes in funding. Nineteen patients were randomized to CBI and 17 to CI. Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. Median PFS was 9.7 versus 5.5 months for CBI and CI, respectively (1-sided log-rank P = .38; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-1.66). Median OS was 19.7 versus 10.2 months for CBI and CI (1-sided log-rank P = .02; adjusted HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-1.09). ORR was 36.8% for CBI versus 11.8% for CI (P = .13). Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47% of patients receiving CBI versus 35% for CI (P = .46). CONCLUSION: In this prematurely discontinued trial, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of PFS between CBI and CI. There was a statistically significant improvement in OS in favor of CBI compared with CI. Further investigation of CBI for the treatment of irinotecan-refractory mCRC is warranted.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02292758.
