Randomised Phase III study of biweekly 24-h infusion of high-dose 5FU with folinic acid and oxaliplatin versus monthly plus 5-FU/folinic acid in first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer

Efficacy and Safety of Systemic Treatments Among Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Systemic treatments, namely, either monotherapy or combination therapy, are commonly administered to patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to provide the complete efficacy and safety profiles and ranking of systemic therapies for the treatment of unresectable advanced or metastatic CRC.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception until June 30, 2021, and also the bibliographies of relevant studies. Randomized controlled trials comparing two or more treatments, namely, at least capecitabine, 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, bevacizumab, cetuximab, oxaliplatin, or panitumumab were investigated. A network meta-analysis using the Bayesian approach was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of treatments. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was calculated for the probability of each treatment as the most effective. The overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events (AEs) grade ≥3, and serious adverse events (SAEs) were evaluated.

RESULTS

One hundred two publications with 36,147 participants were assigned to 39 different treatments. Among 11 treatments with full information on six outcomes, FOLFIRI/FOLFOX/FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab significantly improved both the ORR and DCR, compared to FOLFIRI. Although FOLFOX and FOLFIRI/FOLFOX + cetuximab significantly prolonged both OS and PFS, treatments were comparable in terms of AEs grade ≥3 and SAEs. The top highest SUCRA values were observed in the FOLFOXIRI + panitumumab group for ORR (96%) and DCR (99%), FOLFIRI + bevacizumab + panitumumab group for OS (62%) and PFS (54%), and FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab group for AEs grade ≥3 (59%) and SAEs (59%) outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest an available range of systemic treatment therapies with different efficacy and safety profiles with patients. Further investigations of the side effects and mutation status are required to confirm our findings.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42019127772.

First-line therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer: integrating clinical benefit with the costs of drugs

PURPOSE

In light of the relevant expenses of pharmacological interventions, it might be interesting to make a balance between the cost of the new drugs administered and the added value represented by the improvement in progression free survival (PFS) in first-line for metastatic colorectal cancer CRC (mCRC).

METHODS

Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared at least two first-line chemotherapy regimens for mCRC patients were evaluated. Differences in PFS between the different arms were compared with the pharmacological costs (at the pharmacy of our hospital). The European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) was applied to the above RCTs.

RESULTS

Overall 28 phase III RCTs, including 19,958 patients, were analyzed. The FOLFOX resulted the least expensive (56 € per month of PFS gained) while the addition of irinotecan to FOLFOX (FOLFOXIRI) increased only marginally the costs (90 € per month of PFS gained). Treatments including the monoclonal antibodies showed a cost per month of PFS gained of 2823 € (FOLFIRI with cetuximab in KRAS wild-type patients and liver-only metastases), of € 15,822 (FOLFOX with panitumumab in KRAS wild type), and of 13,383 € (FOLFOX with bevacizumab). According to the ESMO-MCBS, the treatments including an EGFR-inhibitor (cetuximab or panitumumab) were associated with a score of 4, while the inclusion of bevacizumab reached a score of 3.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data demonstrate a huge difference in cost per month of PFS gained in modern first-line treatments in mCRC.

Reporting of patient characteristics and stratification factors in phase 3 trials investigating first-line systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient characteristics and stratification factors are important factors influencing trial outcomes. Uniform reporting on these parameters would facilitate cross-study comparisons and extrapolation of trial results to clinical practice. In 2007, standardisation on patient characteristics reporting and stratification in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) trials was proposed. We investigated the reporting of prognostic factors and implementation of this proposal in mCRC trials published from 2005 to 2016.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase (January 2005 - June 2016) for first-line phase 3 mCRC trials. Patient characteristics reporting and use of stratification factors were extracted and analysed for adherence to the proposal from 2007.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven trials (35,315 patients) were identified, reporting 48 different patient characteristics (median: 9 [range: 5-18] per study). Age, gender, performance status (PS), primary tumour site and adjuvant chemotherapy were frequently reported (87%-100%), in contrast to laboratory values, such as alkaline phosphatase, lactate dehydrogenase and white blood cell count (10%-25%). We identified 29 different stratification factors (median: 3 [range: 1-9] per study). The most common strata were PS and treatment centre (>60%). A median of 8/12 (range: 4-11) of the proposed parameters was reported. Although the percentage of studies reporting each factor slightly increased over time, there was no significant correlation between publication year and adherence to the proposal from 2007.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed persistent heterogeneity in the reporting of patient characteristics and use of stratification factors in first-line mCRC trials. The proposal from 2007 has not led to increased uniformity of patient characteristics reporting and use of stratification over time. There is an urgent need to address this issue to improve the interpretation of trial results.

Network meta-analysis of the efficacy of first-line chemotherapy regimens in patients with advanced colorectal cancer

This network meta-analysis compared the short-term and long-term efficacies of first-line chemotherapy regimens in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). The 10 regimens included folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + irinotecan (FOLFIRI), folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + gemcitabine (FFG), folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil + trimetrexate (FFT), folinic acid + 5-fluorouracil (FF), irinotecan + oxaliplatin (IROX), raltitrexed + oxaliplatin (TOMOX), folinic acid + tegafur-uracil (FTU), raltitrexed, and capecitabine. Electronic searches were performed in the Cochrane Library, PubMed and Embase databases from inception to June 2017. Network meta-analysis combined direct and indirect evidence to obtain odds ratios (ORs) and surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) of different chemotherapy regimens for advanced CRC. Fourteen randomized controlled trails (RCTs) covering 4,383 patients with advanced CRC were included. The results revealed that FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, IROX, and TOMOX all showed higher overall response rates (ORRs) than FF or raltitrexed. Compared with raltitrexed, the aforementioned four regimens also had higher 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates. In addition, FOLFOX and FOLFIRI exhibited higher disease control rates (DCRs) and 1-year PFS rates than FF or raltitrexed. Cluster analysis revealed that FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and TOMOX had better short-term and long-term efficacies. These findings suggest FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, and TOMOX are superior to other regimens for advanced CRC. These three regimens are therefore recommended for clinical treatment of advanced CRC.

Doublet chemotherapy vs. single-agent therapy with 5FU in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefit of first-line doublet chemotherapy (including oxaliplatin or irinotecan) compared to single-drug therapy (5FU) in elderly patients (>70 or >75 years old) with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) is controversial. Therefore, we undertook a meta-analysis of all published phase III studies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a PubMed search using keywords metastatic colorectal cancer, phase III studies, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, survival. We also screened Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) proceedings. Few studies have been published corresponding to our inclusion criteria. The efficacy outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Toxicity was also examined when available. Hazard ratios (HRs) with their 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were collected from the studies and pooled. By convention, HRs <1 corresponded to a better outcome for doublets. p values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. A fixed-effect model was used. We used Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software (Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA).

RESULTS

This meta-analysis (MA) included five original studies (Mitry and Venderbosch for CAIRO both assessing irinotecan, De Gramont and Seymour for FOCUS2 and Ducreux assessing oxaliplatin) and an already published MA (Folprecht) of four trials comparing FOLFIRI with 5FU (Saltz, Douillard, Köhne and Seymour). Our MA included 1225 patients (70 % men). For age, we chose a cut-off of 70 years for oxaliplatin and a cut-off of 75 years for irinotecan. The performance status (PS) score was 0-1 in about 90 % of patients except for the studies by Mitry and Seymour FOCUS2 which both included 30 % of PS2 patients. Overall, doublet chemotherapy, compared to 5FU alone, did not improve OS (HR = 1.00; CI: 0.89-1.13) but significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.82; CI: 0.72-0.93). When assessed separately, FOLFIRI and FOLFOX both significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.83; 0.68-1.00 and HR = 0.81; 0.68-0.97, respectively). The main grade 3-4 toxicities for FOLFIRI were diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting and neutropenia, which occurred significantly more often than with 5FU alone.

CONCLUSION

Addition of oxaliplatin or irinotecan to 5FU in metastatic CRC significantly improved PFS in elderly patients more than 70 years old but was associated with an increased risk of toxicity as shown for irinotecan.

Cost-utility analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III colon cancer in Thailand

BACKGROUND

In Thailand, there has been no economic evaluation study of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer patients after resection.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the cost-utility of all chemotherapy regimens currently used in Thailand compared with the adjuvant 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) plus capecitabine as the first-line therapy for metastatic disease in patients with stage III colon cancer after resection.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was performed to estimate the relevant lifetime costs and health outcomes of chemotherapy regimens based on a societal perspective using a Markov model.

RESULTS

The results suggested that the adjuvant 5-FU/LV plus capecitabine as the first-line therapy for metastatic disease would be the most cost-effective chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The adjuvant FOLFOX and FOLFIRI as the first-line treatment for metastatic disease would be cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 299,365 Thai baht per QALY gained based on a societal perspective if both prices of FOLFOX and FOLFIRI were decreased by 40%.

Seeing the forest through the trees: a systematic review of the safety and efficacy of combination chemotherapies used in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

Combinations of fluoropyrimidines with oxaliplatin or irinotecan plus a biologic agent are standard treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Recent approvals of first-line cetuximab, second-line ziv-aflibercept, and regorafenib as salvage therapy have increased the complexity of the treatment armamentarium. To define optimal regimens, we systematically reviewed combination chemotherapy trials (N=83). Descriptive analyses focusing on fluoropyrimidine formulation, oxaliplatin vs irinotecan combinations, and compatibility with biologics indicated the following: infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) yielded better efficacy and safety than bolus 5-FU. Capecitabine had similar outcomes and better safety than 5-FU with oxaliplatin but not irinotecan. First-line oxaliplatin and irinotecan appeared equivalent. Antiangiogenics, such as bevacizumab and ziv-aflibercept, and epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted monoclonal antibodies cetuximab and panitumumab further improved efficacy. The treatment landscape for mCRC has become complex, and we are approaching individualized therapy based on predictive factors, including KRAS mutational status. Appropriate administration of chemotherapy/biologic combinations is critical.

The impact of personalized medicine on survival: comparisons of results in metastatic breast, colorectal and non-small-cell lung cancers

Breast, colorectal and lung cancers represent the three most incident forms of cancer worldwide. Among these three "big killers", lung cancer is considered the one with the worst prognosis due to its high mortality even in early stages. Due to their more favorable prognosis, breast and colorectal cancers might appear to have benefited from major advances. Most oncologists who are faced with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) find the reported results very frustrating when compared with those for metastatic breast (MBC) and colorectal cancers (MCRC). The aim of this analysis was to quantify and compare the relative magnitude of overall survival (OS) improvements in the first-line approaches in metastatic NSCLC, MBC and MCRC through the analysis of the main landmark meta-analyses and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of commercially available drugs. Five items were considered and analyzed for each cancer. Moreover we evaluated the real clinical impact of the results reported by each item on the entire population; for each "big killer" an overall hazard ratio (HR) was estimated: 0.88 (95%(+) CI: 0.72-1.07) for MBC, 0.94 (95%(+) CI: 0.82-1.07) for MCRC, and about 0.80 (95%(+) CI: 0.73-0.90) for advanced NSCLC. We showed that, in the last decades, these three tumors had important and constant OS improvements reached step by step. The relative magnitude of OS improvement seems higher in metastatic NSCLC than MBC and MCRC.

Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for median overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: literature-based analysis from 50 randomized first-line trials

PURPOSE

To evaluate progression-free survival (PFS) as a potential surrogate endpoint (SEP) for overall survival (OS) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with a focus on applicability to trials containing targeted therapy with anti-VEGF- or anti-EGF receptor (EGFR)-directed monoclonal antibodies.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

A systematic literature search of randomized trials of first-line chemotherapy for mCRC reported from January 2000 to January 2012 was conducted. Adjusted weighted linear regression was used to calculate correlations within PFS and OS (endpoints; R(EP)) and between treatment effects on PFS and on OS (treatment effects; R(TE)).

RESULTS

Fifty trials reflecting 22,736 patients met the inclusion criteria. Correlation between treatment effects on PFS and OS and between the endpoints PFS and OS was high across all studies (R(TE) = 0.87, R(EP) = 0.86). This was also observed in chemotherapy-only trials (R(TE) = 0.93, R(EP) = 0.81) but less so for trials containing monoclonal antibodies (R(TE) = 0.47; R(EP) = 0.52). Limiting the analysis to bevacizumab-based studies (11 trials, 3,310 patients) again yielded high correlations between treatment effects on PFS and on OS (R(TE) = 0.84), whereas correlation within PFS and OS was low (R(EP) = 0.45). In 7 trials (1,335 patients) investigating cetuximab- or panitumumab-based studies, contrasting correlations with very wide confidence intervals were observed (R(TE) = 0.28; R(EP) = 0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

PFS showed consistently high correlation with OS of an order that would justify its use as an SEP in chemotherapy regimens. For validation of surrogacy in anti-VEGF and anti-EGFR-directed therapies, further research and a larger set of trials is needed.

Correlation of progression-free and post-progression survival with overall survival in advanced colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Polychemotherapy and biological drugs have increased therapeutic options and outcomes of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). We examined the relation between progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival (PPS) and overall survival (OS) in trials of modern (oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based) chemotherapy alone or with targeted therapies for advanced CRC. We also evaluated surrogacy of PFS and OS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A PubMed search identified 34 randomized trials. We split the OS, PFS and PPS and evaluated the correlation between OS and either PFS or PPS.

RESULTS

The median PPS and PFS were 10.75 and 8.4 months, respectively. For all trials, PPS was strongly associated with OS [regression coefficient (R2)=0.8; Spearman's rank correlation coefficient (r)=0.88], whereas PFS was moderately associated with OS (R2)=0.43; r=0.64). In trials with targeted therapies, the correlation of PPS with OS was 0.88. However, across all trials, correlation between differences in median PFS (ΔPFS) and median OS (ΔOS) is 0.59 (P=0.0007), confirming PFS/OS surrogacy.

CONCLUSION

Our findings indicate that in recent first-line, phase III, trials, OS becomes more associated with PPS than PFS. However, improvements in PFS are strongly associated with improvements in OS. In this setting so, PFS may be an appropriate surrogate for OS.

Treatment in advanced colorectal cancer: what, when and how?

Treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) increasingly requires a multidisciplinary approach and multiple treatment options add to the complexity of clinical decision-making. Recently novel targeted therapy against angiogenesis and epidermal growth factor receptor completed a plethora of phase III studies. The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy improved the efficacy over chemotherapy alone in both first and second line settings, although the magnitude of benefit may not be as great when a more optimal chemotherapy platform is used. Studies performed thus far did not address conclusively whether bevacizumab should be continued in subsequent lines of treatment. Anti-angiogenesis tyrosine kinase inhibitors have not shown any additional benefit over chemotherapy alone so far. Although some benefits were seen with cetuximab in all settings of treating advanced CRC, K-ras mutation status provides an important determinant of who would not benefit from such a treatment. Caution should be exercised in combining anti-angiogenesis with anti-EGFR strategy until further randomised data become available. In this review, we have focused on the implications of these trial results on the everyday management decisions of treating advanced CRC.

Two different first-line 5-fluorouracil regimens with or without oxaliplatin in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), and leucovorin (LV) are standard first-line treatments for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The aim of this multicentre, open-label, phase IIIb study was to assess the addition of oxaliplatin to two different 5-FU regimens.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with previously untreated mCRC were randomised to arm A [two-weekly oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) + either continuous intravenous infusion (CIV) of 5-FU without LV or two-weekly bolus and CIV 5-FU + LV (LV5FU2)] or arm B (5-FU CIV or LV5FU2 alone). Irinotecan monotherapy was planned on progression.

RESULTS

A total of 725 patients were enrolled. After a fixed follow-up of 2 years for each patient, 2-year survival rates were 27.3% and 24.8% in arms A and B, respectively (hazard ratio 0.93; 95% confidence interval 0.78-1.10). The addition of oxaliplatin significantly improved response rates (54.1 versus 29.8%; P < 0.0001) and median progression-free survival (7.9 versus 5.9 months; P < 0.0001). The most common grade 3-4 toxic effects were neutropenia (arm A, 33%; arm B, 5%), diarrhoea (arm A, 14%; arm B, 8%), and fatigue (arm A, 9%; arm B, 8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite improved rates of tumour control, these results failed to demonstrate a survival benefit from the addition of oxaliplatin to infused 5-FU and lend further support to the use of sequential monotherapy in some patients with mCRC.

Survival and disease-progression benefits with treatment regimens for advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many randomised trials have compared different systemic treatment regimens in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. While survival advances have apparently been achieved, the magnitude of these incremental benefits across diverse regimens is less clear. The aim of our study was to estimate the magnitude of survival and disease progression benefits with the use of different regimens in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed randomised trials comparing systemic treatment regimens in advanced colorectal cancer. Treatment was categorised by use of or no use of fluorouracil-based regimens, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, bevacizumab, and cetuximab. We used multiple-treatment meta-analysis methodology to combine information from direct comparisons (ie, treatments compared within a randomised trial) and indirect comparisons (ie, treatments compared between trials by combining results on how effective they are against a common comparator treatment) of different chemotherapy regimens. The primary endpoint was death and the secondary endpoint was disease progression. Monte Carlo simulations were used to establish which regimen offered the most benefit for these endpoints. We did analyses of all trials and analysed separately trials that studied first-line treatments and non-first-line treatments.

FINDINGS

242 trials published in 1967-2007 (N=56 677 patients) involved 137 different chemotherapy regimens. 37 of these trials were eligible for the multiple-treatment meta-analysis, according to our categorisation, including 47 comparisons of data on death (N=13 875 patients) and 48 comparisons of data on disease progression (N=15 158 patients). Compared with fluorouracil plus leucovorin alone, the risk of death was most decreased with the addition of irinotecan plus bevacizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 0.60, 95% credibility intervals (CrI) 0.44-0.84) and considerable benefits were also noted with addition of irinotecan plus oxaliplatin (HR 0.72 [95% CrI 0.54-0.97]); oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab (HR 0.72 [0.57-0.90]); bevacizumab alone (HR 0.78 [0.60-1.03]); and oxaliplatin alone (HR 0.87 [0.78-0.98]). The disease progression benefits were even more prominent for the addition of irinotecan plus bevacizumab (HR 0.41 [0.28-0.60]); irinotecan plus oxaliplatin (0.53 [0.38-0.73]); oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab (0.46 [0.34-0.61]); bevacizumab alone (0.56 [0.41-0.76]); oxaliplatin alone (0.64 [0.56-0.73]); irinotecan plus cetuximab (HR 0.62 [0.42-0.92]); and irinotecan alone (HR 0.73 [0.65-0.82]). Findings were similar for first-line and non-first-line treatment analyses although data were sparse for non-first-line treatment analyses. Compared with a patient with an anticipated 1-year survival who is treated with fluorouracil and leucovorin, the absolute survival benefit is estimated at 8 months' prolongation with addition of irinotecan plus bevacizumab, 4.7 months' prolongation with addition of oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab or irinotecan plus oxaliplatin, and 1-1.8 months' prolongation with addition of irinotecan alone or oxaliplatin alone.

INTERPRETATION

Distinct incremental benefits are noted for diverse chemotherapy regimens in patients with advanced colorectal cancer, with more prominent effects on disease progression than on death. More data are needed at least for the newest drugs to estimate more accurately the magnitude of the benefit derived from their use.