Factors That Influence Conversion to Resectability and Survival After Resection of Metastases in RAS WT Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC): Analysis of FIRE-3- AIOKRK0306.
Aged
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ administration & dosage
Bevacizumab
/ administration & dosage
Camptothecin
/ administration & dosage
Cetuximab
/ administration & dosage
Colorectal Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Female
Fluorouracil
/ administration & dosage
Humans
Leucovorin
/ administration & dosage
Male
Middle Aged
Retrospective Studies
Survival Rate
Treatment Outcome
ras Proteins
/ genetics
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2020
Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
27
09
2019
pubmed:
17
3
2020
medline:
12
3
2021
entrez:
16
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Tumor assessments after first-line therapy of RAS wild-type mCRC with cetuximab (cet) versus bevacizumab (bev) in combination with FOLFIRI were evaluated for factors influencing resectability, conversion to resectability, and survival after best response. Conversion to resectability was defined as conversion of initially unresectable to resectable disease at best response as determined by retrospective assessment. Univariate and multivariate logistic models were fitted with resectability at best response as response variable. A Cox model comparing the survival from best response was used to measure the influence of treatment, resectability at best response, and resection. Interaction of resection and treatment arm on survival was tested by likelihood ratio test. Overall, 270 patients were evaluable (127 cet-arm, 143 bev-arm). Lung metastases (odds ratio [OR] 0.35, 95% confidence response [CI] 0.19-0.63), BRAF mutation (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12-0.82), and elevated alkaline phosphatase (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.9) before randomization were associated with less chance of successful conversion and were integrated into a nomogram. Early tumor shrinkage (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.06-3.3; p 0.034) and depth of response (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03; p < 0.001) were associated with successful conversion therapy. Resection of metastases improved post-best-response survival (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.97; p = 0.039), predominantely in cet-treated patients (interaction test, p = 0.02). Conversion to resectability is significantly associated with baseline characteristics that can be used in a nomogram to predict conversion. Moreover, early efficacy parameters (ETS and DpR) are associated with successful conversion therapy. In FIRE-3, resection of metastases was associated with improved post-best response survival, this effect originated predominantly from the cetuximab-based study arm.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Tumor assessments after first-line therapy of RAS wild-type mCRC with cetuximab (cet) versus bevacizumab (bev) in combination with FOLFIRI were evaluated for factors influencing resectability, conversion to resectability, and survival after best response.
METHODS
METHODS
Conversion to resectability was defined as conversion of initially unresectable to resectable disease at best response as determined by retrospective assessment. Univariate and multivariate logistic models were fitted with resectability at best response as response variable. A Cox model comparing the survival from best response was used to measure the influence of treatment, resectability at best response, and resection. Interaction of resection and treatment arm on survival was tested by likelihood ratio test.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall, 270 patients were evaluable (127 cet-arm, 143 bev-arm). Lung metastases (odds ratio [OR] 0.35, 95% confidence response [CI] 0.19-0.63), BRAF mutation (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12-0.82), and elevated alkaline phosphatase (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.9) before randomization were associated with less chance of successful conversion and were integrated into a nomogram. Early tumor shrinkage (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.06-3.3; p 0.034) and depth of response (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01-1.03; p < 0.001) were associated with successful conversion therapy. Resection of metastases improved post-best-response survival (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.97; p = 0.039), predominantely in cet-treated patients (interaction test, p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Conversion to resectability is significantly associated with baseline characteristics that can be used in a nomogram to predict conversion. Moreover, early efficacy parameters (ETS and DpR) are associated with successful conversion therapy. In FIRE-3, resection of metastases was associated with improved post-best response survival, this effect originated predominantly from the cetuximab-based study arm.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32172334
doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-08219-w
pii: 10.1245/s10434-020-08219-w
pmc: PMC7311511
doi:
Substances chimiques
Bevacizumab
2S9ZZM9Q9V
ras Proteins
EC 3.6.5.2
Cetuximab
PQX0D8J21J
Leucovorin
Q573I9DVLP
Fluorouracil
U3P01618RT
Camptothecin
XT3Z54Z28A
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2389-2401Références
Ann Oncol. 2002 Feb;13(2):308-17
pubmed: 11886010
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Sep;15(10):1065-75
pubmed: 25088940
Eur J Cancer. 2018 Jan;88:77-86
pubmed: 29195117
Ann Oncol. 2005 Aug;16(8):1311-9
pubmed: 15870084
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Nov 10;33(32):3718-26
pubmed: 26261259
Ann Oncol. 2014 May;25(5):1018-25
pubmed: 24585720
Lancet Oncol. 2010 Jan;11(1):38-47
pubmed: 19942479
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Aug 1;27(22):3677-83
pubmed: 19470929
Eur J Cancer. 2014 Jan;50(1):57-63
pubmed: 24138831
Ann Oncol. 2016 Sep;27(9):1746-53
pubmed: 27358379
Eur J Cancer. 2017 Jan;70:87-98
pubmed: 27907852
Lancet Oncol. 2014 May;15(6):601-11
pubmed: 24717919
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Dec;17(12):1709-1719
pubmed: 27743922
JAMA. 2017 Jun 20;317(23):2392-2401
pubmed: 28632865
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Oct;17(10):1426-1434
pubmed: 27575024
Lancet. 2015 May 9;385(9980):1843-52
pubmed: 25862517
Z Gastroenterol. 2017 Dec;55(12):1344-1498
pubmed: 29212104
Ann Oncol. 2017 Mar 1;28(3):562-568
pubmed: 27993800
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Feb;23(2):375-81
pubmed: 26561404
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016 Oct;42(10):1540-7
pubmed: 27575968
Ann Oncol. 2016 Aug;27(8):1386-422
pubmed: 27380959
Ann Oncol. 2017 Aug 1;28(8):1713-1729
pubmed: 28407110
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Oct;16(13):1355-69
pubmed: 26361971
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017 Sep 1;109(9):
pubmed: 28376151