Efficacy and Safety of Bevacizumab Plus Oxaliplatin- or Irinotecan-Based Doublet Backbone Chemotherapy as the First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The effective combination therapies with irinotecan for colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer is the third most common type of cancer worldwide and has become one of the major human disease burdens. In clinical practice, the treatment of colorectal cancer has been closely related to the use of irinotecan. Irinotecan combines with many other anticancer drugs and has a broader range of drug combinations. Combination therapy is one of the most important means of improving anti-tumor efficacy and overcoming drug resistance. Reasonable combination therapy can lead to better patient treatment options, and inappropriate combination therapy will increase patient risk. For the colorectal therapeutic field, the significance of combination therapy is to improve the efficacy, reduce the adverse effects, and improve the ease of treatment. Therefore, we explored the clinical advantages of its combination therapy based on mechanism or metabolism and reviewed the rationale basis and its limitations in conducting exploratory clinical trials on irinotecan combination therapy, including the results of clinical trials on the combination potentiation of cytotoxic drugs, targeted agents, and herbal medicine. We hope that these can evoke more efforts to conduct irinotecan in the laboratory for further studies and evaluations, as well as the possibility of more in-depth development in future clinical trials.

Efficacy of Bevacizumab and Gemcitabine in Combination with Cisplatin in the Treatment of Esophageal Cancer and the Effect on the Incidence of Adverse Reactions

Objective. To evaluate the efficacy of bevacizumab and gemcitabine in combination with cisplatin in the treatment of esophageal cancer and the effect on the incidence of adverse reactions. Methods. A total of 100 esophageal cancer patients admitted to our hospital from March 2019 to March 2021 were identified as research subjects and randomized into the control group and the study group, with 50 cases in each group. The control group was treated with gemcitabine combined with cisplatin, and the study group was treated with the triple therapy of bevacizumab, gemcitabine, and cisplatin. The treatment efficiency and the incidence of adverse reactions were compared between the two groups of patients. Results. The total treatment efficiency in the study group was 86%, which was significantly higher than that of 66% in the control group ( $P<0.05$ ). After treatment, the levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), Cyfra21-1, and C-met were reduced in both groups, with significantly lower levels in the study group than in the control group ( $P<0.05$ ). The incidence of all CTCAE, ototoxicity, and nephrotoxicity was comparable between the two groups ( $P>0.05$ ). The survival rates of patients in the study group were 88% and 54% at 1 and 2 years after treatment, which were significantly higher than that of 68% and 32% in the control group ( $P<0.05$ ). Conclusion. The clinical efficiency of bevacizumab and gemcitabine combined with cisplatin in the treatment of esophageal cancer is remarkable, which improves the survival of patients, and is worthy of clinical promotion and application.

Safety Profile of Monoclonal Antibody Compared With Traditional Anticancer Drugs: An Analysis of Henan Province Spontaneous Reporting System Database

Introduction: Monoclonal antibody (mAb) is an important treatment option for cancer patients and has received widespread attention in recent years. In this context, a comparative safety evaluation of mAbs and traditional anticancer drugs in real-world is warranted.

Methods: ADR reports submitted to Henan Adverse Drug Reaction Monitoring Center from 2016 to 2020 for individuals taking antineoplastic drugs were included. Data were analyzed with respect to demographic characteristics, disease types, polypharmacy, past history of ADRs, system organ class, name of suspected drugs per ADR report, severity, result, impact on the primary disease, and biosimilars.

Results: A total of 15,910 ADR reports related to antineoplastic drugs were collected, 575 (3.61%) cases were related to mAbs. Female had more reports of ADRs than male. The ADRs of non-mAbs mainly occurred in 1–3 days after injection (4,929, 32.15%), whereas those of mAbs mainly occurred on the same day (297, 51.65%). Serious ADRs accounted for 30.26% (n = 174) of mAb-related reports and 34.46% (n = 5,285; four death cases) of non-mAb-related reports, respectively. A total of 495 (86.08%) reports were related to the branded drugs of mAbs. In general, our findings indicate that the female, the population aged 60–79 years, people with a single disease, people who have no ADRs in the past and people who have received treatment regimens were less likely to be affected by the primary disease after receiving mAbs therapy. The signal mining method produced 14 signals, only Sintilimab-Hepatic failure was off-label ADR.

Conclusion: This study partly confirmed the safety profile of mAbs. It is unlikely to affect groups such as the female, the population aged 60-79 years, people with a single disease, people who have no ADRs in the past and people who have received treatment regimens. Combined drugs have little effect on the primary disease. By conducting signal mining method, 14 signals were produced, and only one of them was off-label ADR.

Comparison of irinotecan and oxaliplatin as the first-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Background

Irinotecan (IRI) and oxaliplatin (Ox) are standard therapeutic agents of the first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that treatment with Ox-based compared with IRI-based regimens was associated with better overall survival (OS). However, these reports did not include trials of molecular targeting agents and did not take methods for the administration of concomitant drugs, such as bolus or continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil, into account. A systematic literature review was performed to compare the efficacy and toxicity profiles between IRI- and Ox-based regimens as the first-line treatments for mCRC.

Methods

This meta-analysis used data from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and SCOPUS. The primary endpoint was OS, and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs).

Results

Nineteen trials involving 4571 patients were included in the analysis. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of OS, PFS, and ORR. There was no significant heterogeneity. Regarding ≥ grade 3 AEs, IRI-based regimens were associated with a high incidence of leukopenia, febrile neutropenia, and diarrhea. Moreover, there was a high incidence of thrombocytopenia and peripheral sensory neuropathy in patients who received Ox-based regimens. In a subgroup analysis, IRI combined with bevacizumab was correlated with a better PFS (HR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.82–0.98, P = 0.02), but not with OS (pooled HR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.80–1.03, P = 0.15).

Conclusion

Although the safety profiles of IRI- and Ox-based regimens varied, their efficacy did not significantly differ. The combination of anti-VEGF antibody and IRI was associated with better PFS compared with anti-VEGF antibody and Ox. Both regimens could be used as the first-line treatments for mCRC with consideration of the patients’ condition or toxicity profiles.