论文部分内容阅读
AIM:To investigate the safety and efficacy of adding bevacizumab to first-line chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with peritoneal disease.METHODS:We compared rates of gastrointestinal perforation in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and peritoneal disease receiving first-line chemotherapy with and without bevacizumab in three distinct cohorts:(1) the AGITG MAX trial(Phase Ⅲ randomised clinical trial comparing capecitabine vs capecitabine and bevacizumab vs capecitabine,bevacizumab and mitomycin C);(2) the prospective Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer(TRACC) registry(any first-line regimen ± bevacizumab);and(3) two cancer centres in New South Wales,Australia [Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre and Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre(NSWCC) from January 2005 to Decenber 2012,(any first-line regimen ± bevacizumab).For the AGITG MAX trial capecitabine was compared to the other two arms(capecitabine/bevacizumab and capecitabine/bevacizumab/mitomycin C).In the AGITG MAX trial and the TRACC registry rates of gastrointestinal perforation were also collected in patients who did not have peritoneal metastases.Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival,chemotherapy duration,and overall survival.Time-toevent outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test.RESULTS:Eighty-four MAX,179 TRACC and 69 NSWCC patients had peritoneal disease.There were no gastrointestinal perforations recorded in either the MAX subgroup or the NSWCC cohorts.Of the patients without peritoneal disease in the MAX trial,4/300(1.3%) in the bevacizumab arms had gastrointestinal perforations compared to 1/123(0.8%) in the capecitabine alone arm.In the TRACC registry 3/126(2.4%) patients who had received bevacizumab had a gastrointestinal perforation compared to 1/53(1.9%) in the chemotherapy alone arm.In a further analysis of patients without peritoneal metastases in the TRACC registry,the rate of gastrointestinal perforations was 9/369(2.4%) in the chemotherapy/bevacizumab group and 5/177(2.8%) in the chemotherapy alone group.The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy was associated with improved progression-free survival in all three cohorts:MAX 6.9 m vs 4.9 m,HR = 0.64(95%CI:0.42-1.02);P = 0.063;TRACC 9.1 m vs 5.5 m,HR = 0.61(95%CI:0.37-0.86);P = 0.009;NSWCC 8.7 m vs 6.8 m,HR = 0.75(95%CI:0.43-1.32);P = 0.32.Chemotherapy duration was similar across the groups.CONCLUSION:Patients with peritoneal disease do not appear to have an increased risk of gastrointestinal perforations when receiving first-line therapy with bevacizumab compared to systemic therapy alone.
AIM: To investigate the safety and efficacy of adding bevacizumab to first-line chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with peritoneal disease. METHODS: We compared rates of gastrointestinal perforation in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and peritoneal disease receiving first-line chemotherapy with and without bevacizumab in three distinct cohorts: (1) the AGITG MAX trial (Phase III randomized clinical trial comparing capecitabine vs capecitabine and bevacizumab vs capecitabine, bevacizumab and mitomycin C); (2) the prospective treatment of recurrent and advanced colorectal cancer (TRACC) registry (3) two cancer centers in New South Wales, Australia [Macarthur Cancer Therapy Center and Liverpool Cancer Therapy Center (NSWCC) from January 2005 to Decenber 2012, (any first-line regimen ± bevacizumab). For the AGITG MAX trial capecitabine was compared to the other two arms (capecitabine / bevacizumab and capecitabine / bevacizumab / mitomy In the AGITG MAX trial and the TRACC registry rates of gastrointestinal perforation were also collected in patients who did not have peritoneal metastases. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, chemotherapy duration, and overall survival.Time-toevent outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparing using the log-rank test .RESULTS: Eighty-four MAX, 179 TRACC and 69 NSWCC patients had peritoneal disease. There were no gastrointestinal perforations recorded in either the MAX subgroup or the NSWCC cohorts.Of the patients without peritoneal disease in the MAX trial, 4/300 (1.3%) in the bevacizumab arms had gastrointestinal perforations compared to 1/123 (0.8%) in the capecitabine alone arm. the TRACC registry 3/126 (2.4%) patients who had received bevacizumab had a gastrointestinal perforation compared to 1/53 (1.9%) in the chemotherapy alone arm. In a further analysis of patients without peritoneal metastases in the TRACC registry, the rate of gastrointestin al perforations was 9/369 (2.4%) in the chemotherapy / bevacizumab group and 5/177 (2.8%) in the chemotherapy alone group. The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy was associated with improved progression-free survival in all three cohorts: MAX 6.9 m = 4.9; HR = 0.64 (95% CI: 0.42-1.02); P = 0.063; TRACC 9.1 m vs 5.5 m, HR = 0.61 (95% CI: 0.37-0.86); P = 6.8 m, HR = 0.75 (95% CI: 0.43-1.32); P = 0.32. Chemotherapy duration was similar across the groups. CONCLUSION: Patients with peritoneal disease do not appear to have an increased risk of gastrointestinal perforations when receiving first-line therapy with bevacizumab compared to systemic therapy alone.