首页> 外文期刊>European journal of cancer: official journal for European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) [and] European Association for Cancer Research (EACR) >Treatment sequence with either irinotecan/cetuximab followed by FOLFOX-4 or the reverse strategy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients progressing after first-line FOLFIRI/bevacizumab: An Italian Group for the Study of Gastrointestinal Cancer phase III, randomised trial comparing two sequences of therapy in colorectal metastatic patients
【24h】

Treatment sequence with either irinotecan/cetuximab followed by FOLFOX-4 or the reverse strategy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients progressing after first-line FOLFIRI/bevacizumab: An Italian Group for the Study of Gastrointestinal Cancer phase III, randomised trial comparing two sequences of therapy in colorectal metastatic patients

机译:用伊立替康/西替昔单抗的治疗序列,然后进行Folfox-4或转移性结肠直肠癌患者的反向策略,在第一线Folfiri / Bevacizumab后进展:用于研究胃肠癌期III的意大利组,随机试验比较两种治疗序列 结肠直肠转移性患者

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract Introduction The optimal treatment strategy for RAS wild type (WT) mCRC is controversial. Our phase III study investigated the effect of introducing earlier (second-line) or later (third-line) cetuximab in patients progressed after FOLFIRI/bevacizumab first-line. Patients and methods mCRC patients progressing after FOLFIRI/bevacizumab first-line were randomised to receive second-line irinotecan/cetuximab followed by third-line FOLFOX-4 (arm A) or the reverse sequence (arm B). Primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results About 54 and 56 patients were randomised in arm A and in arm B, respectively. After a median follow-up of 37.5 months, 100 PFS events were recorded. Median PFS was 9.9 months in arm A and 11.3 months in arm B (Hazard ratio [HR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69–1.56, p?=?0.854), while median overall survival was 12.3 months in arm A and 18.6 months in arm B (HR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.55–1.28; p?=?0.411). No overall difference in side-effects were observed between the two treatment arms. Conclusions This trial did not meet the primary end-point (PFS). Like other preclinical and clinical evidences, our study seems to suggest a reduced activity of cetuximab after a first-line bevacizumab-based therapy. Highlights ? The effect of introducing in second or third-line cetuximab after a progression to FOLFIRI/bevacizumab. ? No difference in progression-free survival among the two sequences. ? A trend for a better overall survival for cetuximab third-line. ? An observed reduced activity of cetuximab after a first-line bevacizumab-based therapy. ? This reduced activity may have relevant therapeutic consequences in patients with left tumours.
机译:摘要引言RAS野生型(WT)MCRC的最佳处理策略是有争议的。我们的III期研究调查了在Folfiri / Bevacizumab第一线之后介绍患者的前期(二线)或后期(第三线)甲磺酸的效果。患者和方法MCRC患者在Folfiri / Bevacizumab第一线后进展,随机接收第二线氨基烷/西丁蛋白,然后接下来是第三线Folfox-4(ARM A)或反向序列(ARM B)。主要终点是无进展的存活率(PFS)。结果分别为54和56名患者分别在ARM A和ARM B中随机化。在37.5个月的中位随访后,记录了100个PFS事件。中位数PFS在ARM A和11.3个月内为9.9个月(危险比[HR] 1.04,95%置信区间[CI]:0.69-1.56,P?= 0.854),而中位数总生存率在ARM中为12.3个月ARM B中的18.6个月(HR 0.84,95%CI:0.55-1.28; p?= 0.411)。两种治疗臂之间没有观察到副作用的总体差异。结论该试验不符合主要终点(PFS)。与其他临床前和临床证据一样,我们的研究似乎表明,在一线基于贝伐单抗的疗法后,西妥昔单抗的活性降低。强调 ?在进展到Folfiri / Bevacizumab后在第二次或第三线Cetuximab中引入的效果。还两种序列中无进展生存率没有差异。还一种趋势,用于更好的西妥昔单抗第三行的生存。还在基于一线贝伐自制疗法后,甲磺替昔单抗的减少活性。还这种减少的活性可能对左肿瘤的患者具有相关的治疗后果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号