Dataset Information

Chemotherapy re-use versus anti-angiogenic monotherapy as the third-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There are various recommendations for third-line treatment in mCRC, however, there is no consensus on who is more suitable for particular strategy. Chemotherapy re-use in third-line setting is a common option in clinical practice. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of third-line chemotherapy re-use by the comparison with that of anti-angiogenic monotherapy, and further find the population more suitable for third-line chemotherapy.

Methods

Using electronic medical records of patients with mCRC, a retrospective cohort study was conducted. A total of 143 patients receiving chemotherapy and 40 patients receiving anti-angiogenic monotherapy in third-line setting as control group were retrospectively collected. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using the χ² test or the Fisher's exact test. ROC curve and surv_cutpoint function of 'survminer' package in R software were used to calculate the cut-off value. Survival curves were plotted with the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared using the log-rank test. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to analyze the potential risk factors.

Results

A total of 143 patients receiving chemotherapy and 40 patients receiving anti-angiogenic monotherapy in third-line setting were retrospectively collected. Chemotherapy rechallenge was recorded in 93 patients (93/143, 65.0%), and the remaining patients chose new chemotherapeutic drugs that had not been previously used, including irinotecan-based (22/50), oxaliplatin-based (9/50), raltitrexed (9/50), gemcitabine (5/50) and other agents (5/50). The ORR and DCR of third-line chemotherapy reached 8.8%, 61.3%, respectively (anti-angiogenic monotherapy group: ORR 2.6%, DCR 47.4%). The mPFS and mOS of patients receiving chemotherapy were 4.9 and 12.0 m, respectively (anti-angiogenic monotherapy group: mPFS 2.7 m, mOS 5.2 m). Subgroup analyses found that patients with RAS/RAF mutation, longer PFS (greater than 10.6 m) in front-line treatment or larger tumor burden had better prognosis with third-line chemotherapy rather than anti-angiogenic monotherapy.

Conclusions

Third-line chemotherapy re-use was effective in mCRC. Those with more aggressive characteristics (RAS/RAF mutant, larger tumor burden) or better efficacy of previous chemotherapy (longer PFS) were more appropriate for third-line chemotherapy, rather than anti-angiogenic monotherapy.

SUBMITTER: Duan J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10916076 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Chemotherapy re-use versus anti-angiogenic monotherapy as the third-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world cohort study.

Duan Jingjing J Zhu Lila L Shi Yinghui Y Wang Weixue W Wang Tongtong T Ning Tao T Zhang Le L Bai Ming M Li Hongli H Liu Rui R Ge Shaohua S Wang Xia X Yang Yuchong Y Ji Zhi Z Wang Feixue F Sun Yansha Y Ba Yi Y Deng Ting T

BMC cancer 20240305 1

<h4>Background</h4>There are various recommendations for third-line treatment in mCRC, however, there is no consensus on who is more suitable for particular strategy. Chemotherapy re-use in third-line setting is a common option in clinical practice. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of third-line chemotherapy re-use by the comparison with that of anti-angiogenic monotherapy, and further find the population more suitable for third-line chemotherapy.<h4>Methods</h4>Using electronic medi ...[more]

PMID: 38443891

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer is one of the tumors with the highest morbidity and mortality rates in China and the world. Regorafenib is a targeted drug for standard third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Regorafenib monotherapy has shown certain efficacy in the elderly population, but more robust evidence is needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the dosing characteristics, prognosis, and safety of regorafenib monotherapy in elderly Chinese patients with mCRC.MethodsThis retrospective study comprised elderly patients (aged ≥60 years) with mCRC who received regorafenib monotherapy as a third-line or above treatment in 10 hospitals from August 2017 to June 2020. We analyzed the association between different dosing regimens and prognosis. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and other endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AEs).ResultsIn total, 203 patients were included in the analysis. The median PFS was 3.88 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.48-5.65], and the median OS was 10.1 months (95% CI: 8.94-12.1). There was no significant difference in the survival curves between the different dosage groups. The multivariate Cox analysis showed a significant benefit in OS in the high final daily dose group (120-160 mg/day) [hazard ratio (HR): 0.45, 95% CI: 0.25-0.84, P=0.01], which was further confirmed by the propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis. No significant association was found between the initial daily dose and prognosis. Nor was any significant association found between PFS and drug dosage. Subsequently, an age subgroup analysis was conducted using 70 years as the cut-off value. In those aged <70 years, the application of higher final doses (120-160 mg/day) was significantly associated with the prolongation of OS compared to a final dose of 80 mg/day [HR (95% CI): 0.38 (0.16-0.91), P=0.03], and the prolongation of OS was predominantly observed in the 120 mg/day dose group [HR (95% CI): 0.24 (0.09-0.67), P=0.006]. Besides, we observed a statistically insignificant increase in the incidence of AEs in the higher dose group compared to the lower dose group.ConclusionsRegorafenib monotherapy was shown to be efficacious in the elderly population, but further evidence is needed for guidance. Based on our multicenter real-world investigation, the final daily dose was significantly associated with OS. For those aged <70 years, maintaining the final dose at 120 mg/day may have prognostic advantages. The suggested medication protocol requires validation through comprehensive clinical trials.

Project description:BackgroundThere are currently no standard therapy regimens for the third-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) patients. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy and safety of different third-line therapy regimens for mPC in the real-world.MethodsThis study retrospectively analyzed mPC patients admitted to Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital between June 2013 and January 2023. All patients' diagnoses were pathologically confirmed and their treatment was continued after the second-line therapy failed. The primary study endpoints included median overall survival (mOS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), and disease control rate (DCR).ResultsA total of 72 patients were enrolled in the study. Of these, 36 patients received chemotherapy alone, 16 received chemotherapy combined with targeted therapy or immunotherapy, 14 received chemotherapy-free antitumor therapy, and six received palliative care. The mPFS value for these groups was 4.40 months, 5.20 months, 2.33 months, and 0.80 months, respectively. The mOS value was 6.90 months, 5.90 months, 3.33 months, and 0.80 months, respectively. The DCR was 33.4%, 31.3%, 21.4%, and 0.0%, respectively. Overall, there were significant differences in prognosis between the palliative care group and the other treatment groups (mOS, P < 0.001; mPFS P < 0.001; DCR, P < 0.001). The differences among the mPFS, mOS, and DCR for different antitumor therapy regimens were not statistically significant. Compared to the chemotherapy alone group, the chemotherapy combined with targeted therapy or immunotherapy group experienced more adverse events (100% vs. 75.0%; P = 0.002). Chemotherapy combined with targeted therapy or immunotherapy was associated with a higher risk of grade 3/4 hyperaminotransferemia compared to chemotherapy alone (31.3% vs. 0.0%; P = 0.020) and chemotherapy-free antitumor therapy (31.3% vs. 0.0%; P = 0.020).ConclusionsThird-line antitumor therapy can prolong the survival time of patients with mPC. Targeted therapy or immunotherapy failed to further improve survival benefits based on chemotherapy results. Patients who underwent the third-line treatment with good physical status and family history of cancer were independent prognostic factors for longer mOS. The sequencing of fluorouracil and gemcitabine in the front-line therapy did not affect third-line mOS.

Project description:ObjectivesALK inhibitors (ALKi) are the standard-of-care treatment for metastatic ALK-rearranged non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the first- and second-line setting. We conducted a real-world multi-institutional analysis, aiming to compare the efficacy of third-line ALKi versus chemotherapy in these patients.MethodsConsecutive ALK-positive metastatic NSCLC patients treated with at least one ALKi were identified in the working databases of 7 Israeli oncology centers (the full cohort). Demographic and clinical data were collected. Patients receiving any systemic treatment beyond 2 ALKi comprised the third-line cohort, whether a third ALKi (group A) or chemotherapy (group B). Groups A and B were compared in terms of overall survival (OS) and time-to-next-treatment line (TNT).ResultsAt a median follow-up of 41 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 32-55), 80 (47.1%) have died. Median OS (mOS) in the full cohort (n = 170) was 52 months (95% CI: 32-65). Number of ALKi (hazard ratio [HR] 0.765; 95% CI: 0.61-0.95; P = .024) and age (HR 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01-1.04, P = .009) significantly associated with OS in the full cohort. The third-line cohort included 40 patients, of which 27 were treated with third ALKi (group A) and 13 treated with chemotherapy (group B). mOS from third-line initiation was 27 months in group A (95% CI: 13-NR) and 13 months for group B (95% CI: 3-NR); the difference was not significant (NS; P = .12). Chemotherapy as first line (HR 0.17, 95% CI: 0.05-0.52, P = .002) and a higher number of ALKi (HR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.20-0.86, P = .011) associated significantly with longer OS of the third-line cohort. TNT was 10 months for group A (95% CI: 5-19) and 3 months for group B (95% CI: 0-NR); the difference was NS (P = .079).ConclusionWe report mature real-world data of more than 4-year mOS in ALK-positive patients. The number of ALKi given was associated with a better outcome. OS and TNT demonstrated a statistically nonsignificant trend for a better outcome in patients receiving a third-line ALKi.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of regorafenib monotherapy or in combination with immune-checkpoint inhibitor while treating Chinese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): a real-world study.MethodsThe data of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who received regorafenib-containing regimen as the third or later line treatment at ten Chinese hospitals from Aug 2017 to Jun 2020 were retrospectively analyzed, including dosing details, survival data as well as adverse events. Survival analysis was further performed for patients administrated with regorafenib monotherapy and combined with an immune-checkpoint inhibitor based on Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods. The primary endpoint was overall survival.ResultsA total of 537 patients were included with a median age of 61, among whom 376 received regorafenib monotherapy and 245 received regorafenib combined with immune-checkpoint inhibitors. The clinicopathological characteristics of the two groups at baseline were mainly balanced. No significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS) was observed in patients receiving regorafenib monotherapy or combination therapy (3.8 vs. 5.5 months, p = 0.170). In contrast, patients receiving combination therapy had a more prolonged overall survival (OS) than those receiving regorafenib monotherapy (13.5 vs. 10.0 months, p = 0.001). The treatment regimen and regorafenib dosage were significant prognostic factors in the multivariate analysis. Significant benefits in PFS and OS were achieved in KRAS mutant and anti-angiogenesis treatment-naïve subgroups receiving combination therapy compared to monotherapy. No apparent increase was recorded in treatment-related adverse events in patients receiving combination therapy.ConclusionRegorafenib plus an immune-checkpoint inhibitor has already been a widely adopted strategy in the later-line treatment for mCRC in the real world. The combination therapy yielded a significantly prolonged overall survival than regorafenib alone, with a manageable safety profile in Chinese patients, and warrants further investigation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04835324. Registered 6th April 2021.

Project description:BackgroundCetuximab and panitumumab, two anti-EGFR therapies, are widely used for third-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with wild-type KRAS, but there remains uncertainty around their cost effectiveness. The objective of this analysis was to conduct a real-world cost-effectiveness analysis of the policy change introducing KRAS testing and third-line anti-EGFR therapy mCRC in British Columbia (BC), Canada.MethodsWe conducted secondary analysis of administrative data for a cohort of mCRC patients treated in BC in 2006-2015. Patients potentially eligible for KRAS testing and third-line therapy after the policy change (July 2009) were matched 2:1 to pre-policy patients using genetic matching on propensity score and baseline covariates. Costs and survival time were calculated over an 8-year time horizon, with bootstrapping to characterize uncertainty around endpoints. Cost effectiveness was expressed using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and the probability of cost effectiveness at a range of thresholds.ResultsThe cohort included 1757 mCRC patients (n = 456 pre-policy and n = 1304 post-policy; of those, n = 420 received cetuximab or panitumumab). There was a significant increase in survival and cost following the policy change. Adoption of KRAS testing and anti-EGFR therapy had an ICER of CA$73,759 per life-year gained (LYG) (95% CI 46,133-186,446). In scenario analysis, a reduction in cetuximab and panitumumab cost of at least 50% was required to make the policy change cost effective at a threshold of CA$50,000/LYG.ConclusionA policy of third-line anti-EGFR therapy informed by KRAS testing may be considered cost effective at thresholds above CA$70,000/LYG. Reduction in drug costs, through price discounts or potential future biosimilars, would make anti-EGFR therapy considerably more cost effective. By using real-world data for a large cohort with long follow-up we can assess the value of a policy of KRAS testing and anti-EGFR therapy achieved in practice.

Dataset Information

Chemotherapy re-use versus anti-angiogenic monotherapy as the third-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world cohort study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Chemotherapy re-use versus anti-angiogenic monotherapy as the third-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets