Dataset Information

Preference criteria for regorafenib in treating refractory metastatic colorectal cancer are the small tumor burden, slow growth and poor/scanty spread.

ABSTRACT: Given the unclear preference criteria for regorafenib in treating refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), this study aimed to construct an algorithm in selecting right patients for regorafenib. This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Patients with pathology confirmed mCRC and administered with regorafenib for > 3 weeks were enrolled. Patients with good response were defined to have progression-free survival (PFS) of ≥ 4 months. The Kaplan-Meier plot was used to analyze survival. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to analyze univariate and multivariate prognostic factors and was visualized using forest plot. A clustering heatmap was used to classify patients according to responses. The decision tree and nomogram were used to construct the approaching algorithm. A total of 613 patients was analyzed. The median PFS and overall survival (OS) were 2.7 and 10.6 months, respectively. The partial response and stable disease rate are 2.4% and 36.4%. The interval between metastasis (M1) and regorafenib, metastatic status (number, liver, and brain), and CEA level were independent prognostics factors of PFS that classifies patients into three groups: good, bad and modest-1/modest-2 group with PFS > = 4 months rates of 51%, 20%, 39% and 30%, respectively. Results were used to develop the decision tree and nomogram for approaching patients indicated with regorafenib. The preference criteria for regorafenib in treating patients with refractory mCRC are small tumor burden (CEA), slow growth (interval between metastasis and regorafenib) and poor/scanty spread (metastatic status: number and sites of metastasis): The 3S rules.TRIAL registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03829852; Date of first registration (February 11, 2019).

SUBMITTER: Hsu HC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8319410 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Preference criteria for regorafenib in treating refractory metastatic colorectal cancer are the small tumor burden, slow growth and poor/scanty spread.

Hsu Hung-Chih HC Huang Kuo-Cheng KC Chen Wei-Shone WS Jiang Jeng-Kai JK Yang Shung-Haur SH Wang Huann-Sheng HS Chang Shih-Ching SC Lan Yuan-Tzu YT Lin Chun-Chi CC Lin Hung-Hsin HH Huang Sheng-Chieh SC Cheng Hou-Hsuan HH Yang Tsai-Sheng TS Chen Chien-Chih CC Chao Yee Y Teng Hao-Wei HW

Scientific reports 20210728 1

Given the unclear preference criteria for regorafenib in treating refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), this study aimed to construct an algorithm in selecting right patients for regorafenib. This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Patients with pathology confirmed mCRC and administered with regorafenib for > 3 weeks were enrolled. Patients with good response were defined to have progression-free survival (PFS) of ≥ 4 months. The Kaplan-Meier plot was used to analyze surviva ...[more]

PMID: 34321583

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRegorafenib improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Here, we report the treatment patterns of regorafenib in the third- or late-line setting for mCRC in four centers in China.Patients and methodsPatients with refractory mCRC in four centers in China administered regorafenib from February 1, 2018 to June 31, 2021 were enrolled. Patients were grouped into 3 cohorts, namely, the monotherapy (regorafenib alone), chemo (regorafenib plus chemotherapy), and immune [regorafenib plus anti-PD1 (programmed cell death 1) antibodies] groups. Demographic, clinical, survival and safety data were retrospectively analyzed.ResultsA total of 177 patients were included in this study. Of them, 116 (65.5%) were treated with regorafenib alone, while 28 (15.9%) and 33 (18.6%) were administered regorafenib plus chemotherapy and anti-PD1 antibodies, respectively. The median followed-up time was 9.2 months. The disease control rate (DCR) was 40.7%. The median PFS (mPFS) was 2.43 months and the median OS (mOS) was 12.2 months. The immune group had longer median PFS (3.5 m vs. 2.2 m, p = 0.043) compared with the monotherapy group. Patients administered regorafenib plus chemotherapy had longer median OS (15.9 m vs. 8.4 m, p = 0.032) compared with the monotherapy group. Patients who began regorafenib treatment at 120 mg had longer median PFS and OS compared with those who began at 80 mg (PFS: 3.7 m vs. 2.0 m; p <0.001; OS: 13.4 m vs. 10.2 m; p = 0.005). Patients with a final dose of 120 mg had longer median PFS and OS compared with the 80 mg or less group (PFS: 5.0 m vs. 2.3 m; p = 0.045; OS: UR (unreach) vs. 10.9 m; p = 0.003). There were 87.0% (154/177) patients who experienced AEs. Three groups had similar rates of AEs (86.2% vs. 89.3% vs. 87.9%; p = 0.89).ConclusionPatients administered regorafenib alone or regorafenib in combination with other agents were relieved to some extent, with a disease control rate of 40.7%. Regorafenib plus anti-PD1 antibodies showed better PFS, while regorafenib plus chemotherapy had the most benefit in OS. There was no significant difference among three groups in terms of AEs.

Project description:BackgroundThe Janus kinase/signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) signaling pathway plays a key role in the systemic inflammatory response in many cancers, including colorectal cancer (CRC). This study evaluated the addition of ruxolitinib, a potent JAK1/2 inhibitor, to regorafenib in patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic CRC.MethodsIn this two-part, multicenter, phase 2 study, eligible adult patients had metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2; received fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy (if no contraindication); and if KRAS wild-type (and no contraindication), an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy; and progressed following the last administration of approved therapy. Patients who received previous treatment with regorafenib, had an established cardiac or gastrointestinal disease, or had an active infection requiring treatment were excluded. The study was conducted in 95 sites in North America, European Union, Asia Pacific, and Israel. After an open-label, safety run-in phase (part 1; ruxolitinib 20 mg twice daily [BID] plus regorafenib 160 mg once daily [QD]), the double-blind, randomized phase (part 2) was conducted wherein patients were randomized 1:1 to receive ruxolitinib 15 mg BID plus regorafenib 160 mg QD [ruxolitinib group] or placebo plus regorafenib 160 mg QD [placebo group]. Part 2 included substudy 1 (patients with high systemic inflammation, ie, C-reactive protein [CRP] >10 mg/L) and substudy 2 (patients with low systemic inflammation, ie, CRP ≤10 mg/L); the primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).ResultsThe study was terminated early; substudy 1 was terminated for futility at interim analysis and substudy 2 was terminated per sponsor decision. Ruxolitinib 20 mg BID was well tolerated in the safety run-in (n = 11). Overall, 396 patients were randomized (substudy 1: n = 175 [ruxolitinib group, n = 87; placebo group, n = 88]; substudy 2: n = 221 [ruxolitinib group, n = 110; placebo group, n = 111]). There was no significant difference in OS or progression-free survival (PFS) between treatments in substudy 1 (OS: hazard ratio [HR] = 1.040 [95% confidence interval: 0.725-1.492]; PFS: HR = 1.004 [0.724-1.391]) and substudy 2 (OS: HR = 0.767 [0.478-1.231]; PFS: HR = 0.787 [0.576-1.074]). The most common hematologic adverse event was anemia. No new safety signals with ruxolitinib were identified.ConclusionsAlthough addition of ruxolitinib to regorafenib did not show increased safety concerns in patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic CRC, this combination did not improve OS/PFS vs. regorafenib plus placebo.

Project description:BackgroundRegorafenib confers an overall survival benefit in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer; however, the adverse event profile of regorafenib has limited its use. Despite no supportive evidence, various dosing schedules are used clinically to alleviate toxicities. This study evaluated the safety and activity of two regorafenib dosing schedules.MethodsIn this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study done in 39 outpatient cancer centres in the USA, adults aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum that was refractory to previous standard therapy, including EGFR inhibitors if KRAS wild-type, were enrolled. Eligible patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 and had no previous treatment with regorafenib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) into four groups with two distinct regorafenib dosing strategies and two clobetasol usage plans, stratified by hospital. Regorafenib dosing strategies were a dose-escalation strategy (starting dose 80 mg/day orally with weekly escalation, per 40 mg increment, to 160 mg/day regorafenib) if no significant drug-related adverse events occurred and a standard-dose strategy (160 mg/day orally) for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Clobetasol usage plans (0·05% clobetasol cream twice daily applied to palms and soles) were either pre-emptive or reactive. After randomisation to the four preplanned groups, using the Pocock and Simon dynamic allocation procedures stratified by the treating hospitals, we formally tested the interaction between the two interventions, dosing strategy and clobetasol usage. Given the absence of a significant interaction (p=0·74), we decided to pool the data for the pre-emptive and reactive treatment with clobetasol and compared the two dosing strategies (dose escalation vs standard dose). The primary endpoint was the proportion of evaluable patients (defined as those who were eligible, consented, and received any protocol treatment) initiating cycle 3 and was analysed per protocol. Superiority for dose escalation was declared if the one-sided p value with Fisher's exact test was less than 0·2. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02368886. This study is fully accrued but remains active.FindingsBetween June 2, 2015, and June 22, 2017, 123 patients were randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 116 (94%) were evaluable. The per-protocol population consisted of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group and 62 in the standard-dose group. At data cutoff on July 24, 2018, median follow-up was 1·18 years (IQR 0·98-1·57). The primary endpoint was met: 23 (43%, 95% CI 29-56) of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group initiated cycle 3 versus 16 (26%, 15-37) of 62 patients in the standard-dose group (one-sided p=0·043). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (seven [13%] patients in the dose-escalation group vs 11 [18%] in the standard-dose group), hand-foot skin reaction (eight [15%] patients vs ten [16%] patients), abdominal pain (nine [17%] patients vs four [6%] patients), and hypertension (four [7%] patients vs nine [15%] patients). 14 patients had at least one drug-related serious adverse event: six patients in the dose-escalation group and eight patients in the standard-dose group. There was one probable treatment-related death in the standard-dose group (myocardial infarction).InterpretationThe dose-escalation dosing strategy represents an alternative approach for optimising regorafenib dosing with comparable activity and lower incidence of adverse events and could be implemented in clinical practice on the basis of these data.FundingBayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Biliary tract cancers are rare, aggressive neoplasms. Most patients present with advanced/unresectable or metastatic disease at diagnosis, and no second-line regimen has demonstrated clinical benefit. This was a phase 2 study evaluating the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in patients who had advanced/unresectable or metastatic disease after receiving standard therapy. METHODS:In this single arm-study, patients with advanced/unresectable or metastatic biliary tract cancer who failed at least 1 line of systemic chemotherapy received regorafenib once daily on a schedule of 21-days on/7-days off in a 28-day cycle. Patients initially received a standard 160 mg dose. After toxicity assessments in the first 3 patients, the dose was reduced to 120 mg for subsequent patients, as preplanned. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), the objective response rate, and the disease control rate. RESULTS:Forty-three patients received at least 1 dose of regorafenib, and 34 patients who received at least 1 cycle of treatment were evaluable for tumor response. The median PFS was 15.6 weeks (90% confidence interval, 12.9-24.7 weeks), and the median OS was 31.8 weeks (90% confidence interval, 13.3-74.3 weeks), with survival rates 40% at 12 months and 32% at 18 months. A partial response was achieved in 5 patients (11%), and 19 had stable disease (44%), for a disease control rate of 56%. The toxicity profile was as expected, with grade 3 and 4 adverse events reported in 40% of patients. The most common toxicities were hypophosphatemia (40%), hyperbilirubinemia (26%), hypertension (23%), and hand-foot skin reaction (7%). CONCLUSIONS:The current results suggest promising efficacy of regorafenib in patients with chemotherapy-refractory, advanced/metastatic biliary tract cancer, warranting further studies to confirm its clinical efficacy. There is a clear unmet need for effective therapies in patients who have advanced and metastatic biliary tract cancer.

Dataset Information

Preference criteria for regorafenib in treating refractory metastatic colorectal cancer are the small tumor burden, slow growth and poor/scanty spread.

Publications

Preference criteria for regorafenib in treating refractory metastatic colorectal cancer are the small tumor burden, slow growth and poor/scanty spread.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets