scholarly journals Management of a Patient with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer and Liver Metastases

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Wasif Saif
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Liver Metastases ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systemic Treatment ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Cortical Blindness ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Current Case ◽  
Transient Cortical Blindness

Liver metastases are commonly encountered in patients presenting with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC); resection is the treatment of choice. A number of systemic treatment options are currently available for such patients, including the use of 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapies and oxaliplatin (e.g., FOLFOX) in combination with biologic agents that target angiogenesis (e.g., bevacizumab). For patients with progression following first-line treatment, current second-line options include a change in chemotherapy with bevacizumab (for patients who did or did not receive prior bevacizumab) or FOLFIRI in combination with aflibercept, a more recently approved antiangiogenesis therapy. Neurotoxicity is a well-established adverse event of oxaliplatin-based therapy. The current case details an mCRC patient with liver metastases who was treated with a capecitabine and oxaliplatin regimen (XELOX), and experienced two episodes of transient cortical blindness possibly related to oxaliplatin. After disease progression, the patient was switched to a regimen of FOLFIRI and aflibercept and did well on this second-line regimen.

Efficacy and Toxicity of Addition of Bevacizumab to Chemotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 718-724 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wen-Cong Ruan ◽  
Yue-Ping Che ◽  
Li Ding ◽  
Hai-Feng Li
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Clinical Prognosis ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Pre-treated patients with first-line treatment can be offered a second treatment with the aim of improving their poor clinical prognosis. The therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who did not respond to first-line therapy has limited treatment options. Recently, many studies have paid much attention to the efficacy of bevacizumab as an adjuvant treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy compared with bevacizumab-naive based chemotherapy as second-line treatment in people with metastatic CRC. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for eligible studies updated to March 2018. Randomized-controlled trials comparing addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy without bevacizumab in MCRC patients were included, of which, the main interesting results were the efficacy and safety profiles of the addition of bevacizumab in patients with MCRC as second-line therapy. Result: Five trials were eligible in the meta-analysis. Patients who received the combined bevacizumab and chemotherapy treatment in MCRC as second-line therapy showed a longer overall survival (OS) (OR=0.80,95%CI=0.72-0.89, P<0.0001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (OR=0.69,95%CI=0.61-0.77, P<0.00001). In addition, there was no significant difference in objective response rate (ORR) (RR=1.36,95%CI=0.82-2.24, P=0.23) or severe adverse event (SAE) (RR=1.02,95%CI=0.88-1.19, P=0.78) between bevacizumab-based chemotherapy and bevacizumabnaive based chemotherapy. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the addition of bevacizumab to the chemotherapy therapy could be an efficient and safe treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer as second-line therapy and without increasing the risk of an adverse event.

scholarly journals Patient profiles as an aim to optimize selection in the second line setting: the role of aflibercept

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. González Astorga ◽  
F. Salvà Ballabrera ◽  
E. Aranda Aguilar ◽  
E. Élez Fernández ◽  
P. García-Alfonso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Effective Therapeutic Option ◽  
Line Setting ◽  
First Line Treatment

AbstractColorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. For metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients, it is recommended, as first-line treatment, chemotherapy (CT) based on doublet cytotoxic combinations of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) and fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX). In addition to CT, biological (targeted agents) are indicated in the first-line treatment, unless contraindicated. In this context, most of mCRC patients are likely to progress and to change from first line to second line treatment when they develop resistance to first-line treatment options. It is in this second line setting where Aflibercept offers an alternative and effective therapeutic option, thought its specific mechanism of action for different patient’s profile: RAS mutant, RAS wild-type (wt), BRAF mutant, potentially resectable and elderly patients. In this paper, a panel of experienced oncologists specialized in the management of mCRC experts have reviewed and selected scientific evidence focused on Aflibercept as an alternative treatment.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Second-Line Treatment in RAS Wild-Type/Mutated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the Precision Medicine Era

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (14) ◽  
pp. 7717
Author(s):  
Guido Giordano ◽  
Pietro Parcesepe ◽  
Giuseppina Bruno ◽  
Annamaria Piscazzi ◽  
Vincenzo Lizzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Mutational Status ◽  
First Line Treatment

Target-oriented agents improve metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) survival in combination with chemotherapy. However, the majority of patients experience disease progression after first-line treatment and are eligible for second-line approaches. In such a context, antiangiogenic and anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) agents as well as immune checkpoint inhibitors have been approved as second-line options, and RAS and BRAF mutations and microsatellite status represent the molecular drivers that guide therapeutic choices. Patients harboring K- and N-RAS mutations are not eligible for anti-EGFR treatments, and bevacizumab is the only antiangiogenic agent that improves survival in combination with chemotherapy in first-line, regardless of RAS mutational status. Thus, the choice of an appropriate therapy after the progression to a bevacizumab or an EGFR-based first-line treatment should be evaluated according to the patient and disease characteristics and treatment aims. The continuation of bevacizumab beyond progression or its substitution with another anti-angiogenic agents has been shown to increase survival, whereas anti-EGFR monoclonals represent an option in RAS wild-type patients. In addition, specific molecular subgroups, such as BRAF-mutated and Microsatellite Instability-High (MSI-H) mCRCs represent aggressive malignancies that are poorly responsive to standard therapies and deserve targeted approaches. This review provides a critical overview about the state of the art in mCRC second-line treatment and discusses sequential strategies according to key molecular biomarkers.

scholarly journals Protocol of the EFFORT study: a prospective study of FOLFIRI plus aflibercept as second-line treatment after progression on FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab or during maintenance treatment in patients with unresectable/metastatic colorectal cancer

BMC Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hironaga Satake ◽  
Koji Ando ◽  
Eiji Oki ◽  
Mototsugu Shimokawa ◽  
Akitaka Makiyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii Study ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy

Abstract Background FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab is used as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. However, there are no clear recommendations for second-line therapy after FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab combination. Here, we describe our planning for the EFFORT study to investigate whether FOLFIRI plus aflibercept has efficacy following FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab for mCRC. Methods EFFORT is an open-label, multicenter, single arm phase II study to evaluate whether a FOLFIRI plus aflibercept has efficacy following FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab for mCRC. Patients with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer who received FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as a first-line therapy will receive aflibercept and FOLFIRI (aflibercept 4 mg/kg, irinotecan 150 mg/m2 IV over 90 min, with levofolinate 200 mg/m2 IV over 2 h, followed by fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion over 46 h) every 2 weeks on day 1 of each cycle. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). To achieve 80% power to show a significant response benefit with a one-sided alpha level of 0.10, assuming a threshold progression-free survival of 3 months and an expected value of at least 5.4 months, we estimated that 32 patients are necessary. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, overall response rate, safety, and exploratory biomarker analysis for differentiating anti-VEGF drug in 2nd-line chemotherapy for unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. Discussion This is the first study to investigate whether FOLFIRI plus aflibercept has efficacy following FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab for unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer. Switching to a different type of anti-VEGF drug in second-line therapy after FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab appears to be an attractive treatment strategy when considering survival benefit. It is expected that this phase II study will prove the efficacy of this strategy and that a biomarker for drug selection will be discovered. Trial registration Japan Registry of Clinical Trials jRCTs071190003. Registered April 18, 2019.

Irinotecan in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: Clinical Overview

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 1501-1518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Udo Vanhoefer ◽  
Andreas Harstrick ◽  
Wolf Achterrath ◽  
Shousong Cao ◽  
Siegfried Seeber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Topoisomerase I ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

PURPOSE AND METHODS: For more than three decades, the therapeutic options for patients with advanced colorectal cancer have almost exclusively been based on fluoropyrimidines. With the recognition that topoisomerase-I (TOP-I) is an important therapeutic target in cancer therapy, irinotecan, a semisynthetic TOP-I–interactive camptothecin derivative, has been clinically established in the treatment of colorectal cancer. RESULTS: Irinotecan was investigated as second-line chemotherapy after prior treatment with fluorouracil (FU)-based regimens in two large randomized phase III trials comparing irinotecan with either best supportive care or an infusional FU/leucovorin (LV) regimen. The outcomes of these trials established irinotecan as the standard therapy in the second-line treatment of colorectal cancer. The therapeutic value of irinotecan in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer was investigated in two large randomized phase III trials comparing the combination of irinotecan and FU/LV with FU/LV alone. Both trials demonstrated significant superior efficacy for the combination of irinotecan and FU/LV in terms of response rate, median time to disease progression, and median survival time. Consequently, the combination of irinotecan and FU/LV has been approved as first-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and constitutes the reference therapy against which other treatment options must be tested in the future. CONCLUSION: In this review, the clinical rationale and update of the present clinical status of irinotecan in the treatment of colorectal cancer and future prospects of irinotecan-based combinations are discussed.

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treatment to progression or Not?

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 13511-13511
Author(s):  
B. Melosky ◽  
C. Lohrisch ◽  
C. Kollmansberger ◽  
S. Gill ◽  
H. Kennecke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Hazard Ratio ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Number Of Cycles ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

13511 Background: Treatment until progression or planned interruption of first line chemotherapy is common in the therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer and are upon the discretion of the oncologist. A retrospective analysis was performed to determine the impact of these differing therapeutic strategies on overall survival. Methods: Eligible patients were treated between 2002 to 2004 in British Columbia. All patients received chemotherapy with both FOLFOX and FOLFIRI, either first or second line. Records were retrospectively reviewed for treatment interruption, efficacy and toxicity. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. Results: 101 patients were identified. Twenty-three patients who progressed before receiving 8 cycles of chemotherapy and 9 patients who stopped their chemotherapy due to toxicity were excluded. The remaining patients were analyzed for survival. Twenty-three patients were treated to progression of whom 6 received first line FOLFIRI and 17 received first line FOLFOX. The mean number of cycles of first line therapy was was 11.5. Forty six patients received a planned break. Of these, 21pateints received first line FOLFIRI and 25 patients received first line FOLFOX. Mean number of cycles of first line therapy was 9.7. Median survival of patients treated to progression was 16 months compared to 22 months for patients with planned break of therapy (p=0.003). The Hazard ratio was 2.3 (p=0.01) in favor of patients who had a planned break. Uni-variate and multivariate analysis showed no significance of sex, age, site (colon versus rectal), sequence and ECOG status as predictive factors. Conclusion: In this study, patients who were treated until progression with first line chemotherapy with either FOLFOX or FOLFIRI had an inferior survival. Possible explanations for the detrimental hazard ratio for patients treated to progression are decreasing reserve for second line therapy when first line therapy is prolonged and increasing resistance to 5-FU based therapy with prolonged exposure. As this is a retrospective, observational study, other variables not captured by the modeled covariates that may have influenced results. This data suggests that treating to best response and then allowing a break does not detrimentally affect survival. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Coagulo-fibrinolytic activity as a predictor of efficacy in bevacizumab-combined chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 533-533
Author(s):  
M. Suenaga ◽  
S. Matsusaka ◽  
T. Watanabe ◽  
K. Takagi ◽  
Y. Kuboki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Fibrinolytic Activity ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Predictors Of Outcome ◽  
First Line ◽  
Overall Response ◽  
D Dimer ◽  
First Line Treatment

533 Background: The combination of bevacizumab (BV) and chemotherapy in the first-line and second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been shown to improve survival. Bevacizumab is a recombinant, humanized monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor. However, the relationship between coagulo-fibrinolytic activity factors and treatment efficacy remains to be clarified. The aim of this study was to determine potential coagulo-fibrinolytic activity markers impacting survival. Methods: Among 119 consecutive patients included in the study, 85 received first-line FOLFOX4 plus BV 5 mg/kg and 34 received second-line FOLFIRI plus BV 5 mg/kg until progression of disease or unmanageable toxicity occurred. Coagulo-fibrinolytic activity factors, including D-dimer, thrombin antithrombin complex (TAT) and carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) encoded by the MUC16 mucin gene were evaluated as candidate predictors of outcome. Results: In first-line treatment, overall response, median progression-free survival (PFS) and two-year survival rate were 61.9%, 518 days and 67.3%, respectively. In second-line treatment, overall response, median PFS and median overall survival (OS) were 23.5%, 248 days and 651 days, respectively. The outcomes of the univariate analysis were as follows: normal D-dimer and CA125 levels at baseline were associated with better PFS and OS in first-line treatment; normal TAT and CA125 levels at baseline were associated with better PFS and OS in second-line treatment. According to the results of the multivariate analysis, normal D-dimer level was associated with longer PFS in first-line treatment, and only CA125 level at baseline was an independent predictor of both PFS and OS in second-line treatment. Conclusions: The results suggest that coagulo-fibrinolytic activity factors such as TAT, D-dimer or CA125 may be useful predictors of outcome in mCRC patients receiving BV in combination with chemotherapy. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Retrospective cohort study on the safety and efficacy of bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer patients: The HGCSG0801 study—Analysis of bevacizumab beyond progression (BBP).

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 684-684
Author(s):  
Hiraku Fukushima ◽  
Satoshi Yuki ◽  
Yoshimitsu Kobayashi ◽  
Kazuteru Hatanaka ◽  
Takaya Kusumi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Study ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Line Chemotherapy

684 Background: Bevacizumab (BV) is widely used in first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in Japan, but the use of beyond bevacizumab first progression (BBP) has been controversial yet. Methods: Of patients treated with first-line BV in our retrospective cohort study (HGCSG0801), patients treated with BBP (n=22) and those without BBP ( n=19) in second-line setting were analyzed. The National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 3.0 was used to assess adverse events. The Response Evaluation in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria version 1.0 was used to assess tumor response. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to determine PFS and OS. Log-rank test was used to compare each group in terms of PFS and OS. All statistical tests were performed using SPSS. Results: PS (0/1/2) before second line chemotherapy was 18/3/1 in BBP and 10/8/1 in NBBP, respectively. In the safety analysis, five patients in BBP showed a worsening/newer hypertension, which wasn’t a clinical problem. In the efficacy analysis, the response rate was 22.8% in BBP and 0% in NBBP. The median PFS was better in BBP (6.7 months in BBP and 2.7 months in NBBP), but there was no significant difference in median OS from first BV administration between two groups (27.3 months in BBP and 22.2 months in NBBP). Conclusions: We analyzed BBP in daily practice in Japan. Adverse events were well tolerated, but survival advantage of BBP was not suggested. About the efficacy of BBP, we are waiting the results of ongoing Phase III trials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document