Addition of bevacizumab to bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer: results of a randomized phase II trial.

PURPOSE: Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor, increases survival when combined with irinotecan-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). This randomized, phase II trial compared bevacizumab plus fluorouracil and leucovorin (FU/LV) versus placebo plus FU/LV as first-line therapy in patients considered nonoptimal candidates for first-line irinotecan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had metastatic CRC and one of the following characteristics: age > or = 65 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1 or 2, serum albumin < or = 3.5 g/dL, or prior abdominal/pelvic radiotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned to FU/LV/placebo (n = 105) or FU/LV/bevacizumab (n = 104). The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points were progression-free survival, response rate, response duration, and quality of life. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: Median survival was 16.6 months for the FU/LV/bevacizumab group and 12.9 months for the FU/LV/placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; P = .16). Median progression-free survival was 9.2 months (FU/LV/bevacizumab) and 5.5 months (FU/LV/placebo); hazard ratio was 0.50; P = .0002. Response rates were 26.0% (FU/LV/bevacizumab) and 15.2% (FU/LV/placebo) (P = .055); duration of response was 9.2 months (FU/LV/bevacizumab) and 6.8 months (FU/LV/placebo); hazard ratio was 0.42; P = .088. Grade 3 hypertension was more common with bevacizumab treatment (16% v 3%) but was controlled with oral medication and did not cause study drug discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Addition of bevacizumab to FU/LV as first-line therapy in CRC patients who were not considered optimal candidates for first-line irinotecan treatment provided clinically significant patient benefit, including statistically significant improvement in progression-free survival.     

Tissue physiology and the response to heat.

The most important physiological parameter influencing tissue response to heat is blood flow. At mild hyperthermia temperatures blood perfusion increases in many tumours and this effect is heating time-, temperature- and tumour-dependent. These flow increases can improve tumour oxygenation. When heating is terminated, perfusion and oxygenation commonly recover, although how quickly this occurs appears to be tumour-specific. While these effects are unlikely to have any anti-tumour activity they can be exploited to improve the combination of heat with other therapies. However, since similar physiological effects should occur in normal tissues, such combination therapies must be carefully applied. Heating tumours to higher temperatures typically causes a transient increase in perfusion during heating, followed by vascular collapse which if sufficient will increase tumour necrosis. The speed and degree of vascular collapse is dependent on heating time, temperature and tumour model used. Such vascular collapse generally occurs at temperatures that cause a substantial blood flow increase in certain normal tissues, thus preferential anti-tumour effects can be achieved. The tumour vascular supply can also be exploited to improve the response to heat. Decreasing blood flow, using transient physiological modifiers or longer acting vascular disrupting agents prior to the initiation of heating, can both increase the accumulation of physical heat in the tumour, as well as increase heat sensitivity by changing the tumour micro-environmental parameters, primarily an increase in tumour acidity. Such changes are generally not seen in normal tissues, thus resulting in a therapeutic benefit.