Dataset Information

Pathological Evaluation of Resected Colorectal Liver Metastases: mFOLFOX6 Plus Bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 Plus Cetuximab in the Phase II ATOM Trial.

ABSTRACT: We compared the preplanned histopathological responses of resected liver metastases from patients who received modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab or modified FOLFOX6 plus cetuximab for liver-limited colorectal metastases in the ATOM trial. Fibrosis and viable tumor cells in tumor regression grade (TRG), infarct-like necrosis in modified TRG (mTRG), and dangerous halo (DH) were assessed. Fifty-five patients (28 and 27 patients in the bevacizumab and cetuximab arms, respectively) were divided into the low (viable tumor cells ≤ 50%) and high (>50%) TRG or mTRG groups. DH was characterized as absent/rare or focal/diffuse. Compared to the bevacizumab arm, the cetuximab arm was more effective, with respect to low TRG (13 vs. 23 patients) and absent/rare DH (14 vs. 19 patients), respectively. Low mTRG was similarly observed in both arms. Low TRG/mTRG and absent/rare DH showed better relapse-free survival (RFS) than high TRG/mTRG and focal/diffuse DH. In the bevacizumab arm, a significant difference in RFS existed between the low and high TRG groups, while in the cetuximab arm, for TRG, mTRG, and DH, the low and absent/rare groups demonstrated significantly longer RFS than the high and focal/diffuse groups, respectively. TRG could estimate RFS in patients who underwent liver metastasectomy after bevacizumab or cetuximab chemotherapy.

SUBMITTER: Takahashi T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9496839 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pathological Evaluation of Resected Colorectal Liver Metastases: mFOLFOX6 Plus Bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 Plus Cetuximab in the Phase II ATOM Trial.

Takahashi Takao T Ishida Kazuyuki K Emi Yasunori Y Sakamoto Michiie M Imura Johji J Aishima Shinichi S Muro Kei K Uetake Hiroyuki H Oki Eiji E Katayose Yu Y Yoshida Kazuhiro K Unno Michiaki M Hyodo Ichinosuke I Tomita Naohiro N Sugihara Kenichi K Maehara Yoshihiko Y

Cancers 20220909 18

We compared the preplanned histopathological responses of resected liver metastases from patients who received modified FOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab or modified FOLFOX6 plus cetuximab for liver-limited colorectal metastases in the ATOM trial. Fibrosis and viable tumor cells in tumor regression grade (TRG), infarct-like necrosis in modified TRG (mTRG), and dangerous halo (DH) were assessed. Fifty-five patients (28 and 27 patients in the bevacizumab and cetuximab arms, respectively) were divided into ...[more]

PMID: 36139557

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Many factors, including histopathologic parameters, seem to influence the prognosis of patients undergoing resection of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLM), although their relative weight is unclear. Histopathologic growth patterns (HGPs) of CRCLM may affect sensitivity to antiangiogenics. We aimed at evaluating differences in histopathologic parameters of response according to the use of bevacizumab or cetuximab as first-line targeted agents, and at exploring the prognostic and predictive role of HGPs. METHODS:We performed a comprehensive histopathologic characterisation of CRCLM from 159 patients who underwent secondary resection, after receiving triplets FOLFOXIRI (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) or COI (capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab (N = 103) vs cetuximab (N = 56) in five first-line no-profit clinical trials. RESULTS:Both major histopathologic response (tumour regression grade TRG1-2, 32 vs 14%, p = 0.013) and infarct-like necrosis (80 vs 64%, p = 0.035) were significantly higher in the bevacizumab than in the cetuximab group. Achieving major response positively affected relapse-free survival (RFS) (p = 0.012) and overall survival (OS) (p = 0.045), also in multivariable models (RFS, p = 0.008; OS, p = 0.033). In the desmoplastic HGP (N = 28), a higher percentage of major response was reported (57 vs 17% in pushing and 22% in replacement HGP, p < 0.001) and an unsignificant advantage from cetuximab vs bevacizumab was evident in RFS (p = 0.116). In the pushing HGP (N = 66), a significant benefit from bevacizumab vs cetuximab (p = 0.017) was observed. No difference was described in the replacement HGP (N = 65, p = 0.615). CONCLUSIONS:The histopathologic response is the only independent determinant of survival in patients resected after triplets plus a biologic. When associated with triplet chemotherapy, bevacizumab induces a higher histopathologic response rate than cetuximab. The assessment of HGPs should be further explored as a predictor of benefit from available targeted agents.

Project description:BackgroundCombination therapy with oral fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan has not yet been established as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We carried out a randomized, open-label, phase III trial to determine whether S-1 and irinotecan plus bevacizumab is noninferior to mFOLFOX6 or CapeOX plus bevacizumab in terms of progression-free survival (PFS).Patients and methodsPatients from 53 institutions who had previously untreated mCRC were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to receive either mFOLFOX6 or CapeOX plus bevacizumab (control group) or S-1 and irinotecan plus bevacizumab (experimental group; a 3-week regimen: intravenous infusions of irinotecan 150 mg/m2 and bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg on day 1, oral S-1 80 mg/m2 twice daily for 2 weeks, followed by a 1-week rest; or a 4-week regimen: irinotecan 100 mg/m2 and bevacizumab 5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15, S-1 80 mg/m2 twice daily for 2 weeks, followed by a 2-week rest). The primary end point was PFS. The noninferiority margin was 1.25; noninferiority would be established if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the hazard ratio (HR) of the control group versus the experimental group was less than this margin.ResultBetween June 2012 and September 2014, 487 patients underwent randomization. Two hundred and forty-three patients assigned to the control group and 241 assigned to the experimental group were included in the primary analysis. Median PFS was 10.8 months (95% CI 9.6-11.6) in the control group and 14.0 months (95% CI 12.4-15.5) in the experimental group (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.02; P < 0.0001 for noninferiority, P = 0.0815 for superiority). One hundred and fifty-seven patients (64.9%) in the control group and 140 (58.6%) in the experimental group had adverse events of grade 3 or higher.ConclusionS-1 and irinotecan plus bevacizumab is noninferior to mFOLFOX6 or CapeOX plus bevacizumab with respect to PFS as first-line treatment of mCRC and could be a new standard treatment.Clinical trials numberUMIN000007834.

Dataset Information

Pathological Evaluation of Resected Colorectal Liver Metastases: mFOLFOX6 Plus Bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 Plus Cetuximab in the Phase II ATOM Trial.

Publications

Pathological Evaluation of Resected Colorectal Liver Metastases: mFOLFOX6 Plus Bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 Plus Cetuximab in the Phase II ATOM Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets