共查询到4条相似文献，搜索用时 0 毫秒
1.
Aparna R Parikh Elena Gonzalez-Gugel Natalia Smolyakova Min-Hua Jen Nikki Toms Yong Lin Jong Seok Kim Scott Kopetz 《The oncologist》2022,27(5):371
BackgroundCetuximab 500 mg/m2 biweekly (Q2W) plus chemotherapy is commonly used and recommended by NCCN guidelines. This meta-analysis compares efficacy and safety between Q2W versus weekly (Q1W) cetuximab dosing.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed on Pubmed and RightFind (2007-2017) for patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC who received Q2W or Q1W cetuximab and other treatments. Observational studies and case reports were excluded. Randomized trials comparing Q2W and Q1W dosing, and single-arm trials with only Q2W schedule were included. CRYSTAL, a phase 3 randomized study with Q1W cetuximab dosing was paired with each single-arm study with a Q2W schedule and reweighted to achieve similar demographic/baseline characteristics. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) with hazard ratios (HR), overall response rate (ORR) with odds ratios, and risk difference of adverse events of special interest (AESI) between Q2W versus Q1W cetuximab were analyzed.ResultsFive phase 2 studies with cetuximab Q2W/Q1W dosing schedules were identified: CECOG (phase 2; Q2W, n = 77; Q1W, n = 75), NORDIC 7.5 (phase 2; Q2W, n = 152) and NORDIC 7 (arm C of phase 3; Q1W, n = 109), CELINE (n = 60), OPTIMIX (n = 99), and APEC (n = 289) all phase 2, Q2W, single-arm studies paired with CRYSTAL Q1W dosing (n = 303). Efficacy was similar between Q2W versus Q1W administration; OS HR = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.89, 1.04]; PFS HR = 0.96, 95% CI [0.87, 1.05]; ORR odds ratio 1.16, 95% CI [0.96, 1.41]. Mean differences (Q2W-Q1W) across AESI rates were not clinically meaningful with no obvious directionality.ConclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrated no significant differences in efficacy and safety between Q2W versus Q1W cetuximab administration in mCRC patients. 相似文献
2.
Jeremy D. Shapiro Subotheni Thavaneswaran Craig R. Underhill Kristy P. Robledo Christos S. Karapetis Fiona L. Day Louise M. Nott Michael Jefford Lorraine A. Chantrill Nick Pavlakis Niall C. Tebbutt Timothy. J. Price Mustafa Khasraw Guy A. Van Hazel Paul M. Waring Sabine Tejpar John Simes Val J. Gebski Eva Segelov 《Clinical colorectal cancer》2018,17(4):313-319
Background
The Irinotecan Cetuximab Evaluation and Cetuximab Response Evaluation (ICECREAM) study assessed the efficacy of cetuximab monotherapy compared with cetuximab combined with chemotherapy for quadruple wild-type (KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, or P13KCA exon 20) metastatic colorectal cancer.Patients and Methods
Patients were enrolled in an open-label, multicenter, phase II trial and randomly assigned to cetuximab 400 mg/m2, then 250 mg/m2 cetuximab weekly, with or without irinotecan 180 mg/m2 every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival; secondary endpoints were response rate, overall survival, toxicity, and quality of life.Results
From 2012 to 2016, 48 patients were recruited. Two were ineligible, and 2 were not evaluable for response. Characteristics were balanced, except gender (male, 62% vs. 72%) and primary sidedness (left, 95% vs. 68%). For cetuximab compared with cetuximab-irinotecan, progression-free survival was 14% versus 41% (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.78; P = .008); response rate was 10% (2 partial responses) versus 38% (1 complete, 8 partial); P = .04. Grade 3 to 4 toxicities were less with cetuximab monotherapy (23% vs. 50%); global and specific quality of life scores did not differ.Conclusion
In comparison with cetuximab alone, cetuximab plus irinotecan increases the response rate and delays progression in irinotecan-resistant RAS wild-type colorectal cancer. This echoes data from molecularly unselected patients. 相似文献3.
Kohei Akiyoshi Tetsuya Hamaguchi Kenichi Yoshimura Naoki Takahashi Yoshitaka Honma Satoru Iwasa Atsuo Takashima Ken Kato Yasuhide Yamada Hisashi Onodera Shigeyuki Takeshita Hisateru Yasui Gen Sakai Sotaro Akatsuka Kohei Ogawa Yosuke Horita Yushi Nagai Yasuhiro Shimada 《Clinical colorectal cancer》2018,17(1):e83-e89
Background
In some recently updated clinical guidelines, the fully humanized monoclonal antibody panitumumab, combined with irinotecan, has been recommended as an optional third-line chemotherapy for KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The present prospective, multicenter phase II study evaluated the effectiveness and safety of short 15-minute panitumumab infusions.Patients and Methods
From January 2011 to December 2011, patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC were enrolled at 8 centers. The key eligibility criteria were age ≥ 20 years and resistance or intolerance to irinotecan, fluoropyrimidine, and oxaliplatin. All patients received 6 mg/kg of panitumumab and 150 mg/m2 or the previous tolerated dose of irinotecan, biweekly, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The initial panitumumab infusion was 60 minutes, followed by a 30-minute infusion and then 15-minute infusions. The primary endpoint was the confirmed response rate using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors, version 1.0. The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, overall survival, and toxicity. The trial is registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN no. 000004647).Results
Of the 43 patients, the median age was 62 years (range, 32-75 years), 58% were male, and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 0 to 1. The total response rate was 37.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.0-53.3), and the confirmed response rate was 18.6% (95% CI, 8.4-33.4). The median progression-free and overall survival were 5.8 months (95% CI, 3.3-8.4 months) and 13.6 months (95% CI, 10.8-16.5 months), respectively. The most frequent grade 3/4 toxicities were anorexia (12%), leukopenia (9%), and neutropenia (9%). Nine patients did not reach the 15-minute infusion, primarily because of disease progression. No infusion-related reactions were observed.Conclusion
The short 15-minute panitumumab infusion regimen was well tolerated, without compromising safety or efficacy in patients with KRAS wild-type, oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-refractory mCRC. 相似文献4.
《Clinical colorectal cancer》2022,21(2):e49-e61
Background and ObjectivesWe have previously showed that for patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) progressing after bevacizumab plus chemotherapy, bevacizumab continuation plus a switch of chemotherapy is the most appropriate option (PRODIGE 18 phase II study). Here we aimed to determine treatment impact in patient's Health-Related Quality Of Life (HRQoL) in PRODIGE18 study.MethodsHRQoL was evaluated in 2 arms bevacizumab or cetuximab—combined with chemotherapy (modified FOLFOX6 [mFOLFOX6] or FOLFIRI) using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 at baseline, first and third tumor evaluation and at the end of the study. The temporal evolution of quality of life scores was investigated using longitudinal linear mixed models of variance. The time until definitive deterioration (TUDD) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the long-rank test. A univariate Cox model was used to calculate HR with 95% CI. A multivariate Cox model was applied to determine association of TUDD with age and gender. Safety was assessed by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.ResultsHRQoL QLQ-C30 questionnaire compliance was high at baseline (>90%) and declined over time (∼70% in tumor evaluation 1 and ∼ 60% in tumor evaluation 3), but remained similar in both treatment arms. Patient reported mean diarrhea QLQ-C30 score is significantly higher in bevacizumab treatment arm. Clinician reported mild diarrhea was more frequently declared in bevacizumab treatment arm. Cox multivariate analyses showed no statistically significant differences in TUDD for all QLQ-C30 scales between treatments. TUDD of appetite loss was significantly associated to age.ConclusionsOur study shows that no relevant impairment of patients HRQoL between the 2 treatment arms. So, the analysis of the HRQoL with equal effectiveness does not make it possible to favor one treatment over another. 相似文献