Efficacy and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab and trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib monotherapy for chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective study.
chemotherapy
colorectal cancer
prognosis
regorafenib
trifluridine/tipiracil hydrochloride
Journal
Therapeutic advances in medical oncology
ISSN: 1758-8340
Titre abrégé: Ther Adv Med Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101510808
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
16
01
2021
accepted:
22
03
2021
entrez:
7
5
2021
pubmed:
8
5
2021
medline:
8
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The C-TASK-FORCE phase I/II and Danish randomized phase II trials reported the promising efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102) plus bevacizumab (BEV) in patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, there had been no direct comparative phase III trial to compare the efficacy between TAS102 plus BEV and standard therapy with either TAS102 or regorafenib monotherapy. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with mCRC who received TAS102 plus BEV, TAS102 monotherapy, or regorafenib monotherapy after standard chemotherapies during 2013-2019. Patients received TAS102 plus BEV ( Our study shows that OS and PFS are longer in patients treated with TAS102 plus BEV than in those treated with TAS102 or regorafenib monotherapy.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The C-TASK-FORCE phase I/II and Danish randomized phase II trials reported the promising efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil (TAS102) plus bevacizumab (BEV) in patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, there had been no direct comparative phase III trial to compare the efficacy between TAS102 plus BEV and standard therapy with either TAS102 or regorafenib monotherapy.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with mCRC who received TAS102 plus BEV, TAS102 monotherapy, or regorafenib monotherapy after standard chemotherapies during 2013-2019.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Patients received TAS102 plus BEV (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our study shows that OS and PFS are longer in patients treated with TAS102 plus BEV than in those treated with TAS102 or regorafenib monotherapy.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33959196
doi: 10.1177/17588359211009143
pii: 10.1177_17588359211009143
pmc: PMC8064512
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
17588359211009143Informations de copyright
© The Author(s), 2021.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest statement: Daisuke Kotani received honoraria from Takeda, Chugai, Lilly, Merck Serono, Taiho, Ono, and Sysmex. Yoshiaki Nakamura received research grants from Taiho, Chugai, and Genomedia Inc. Akihito Kawazoe received honoraria from Taiho and research grants from Ono, Sumitomo Dainippon, and MSD. Yasutoshi Kuboki received honoraria from Taiho, Sanofi, Bayer, and Ono and research grants from Taiho, Boehringer, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, and Genmab K.K. Kohei Shitara received honoraria from Novartis, AbbVie, and Yakult and research grants from Astellas, Lilly, Ono, Sumoitomo Dainippon, Daiichi Sankyo, Taiho, Chugai, MSD, and Medi Science. Takashi Kojima received research grants from Ono, MSD, Astellas, BMS, and Merck (H), Ono, MSD, Astellas Amgen, Taiho, and Shionogi. Hiroya Taniguchi received honoraria from Bayer, Sanofi, Takeda, Chugai, Taiho, Lilly, Merck, Yakult Honsha, MBL, Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Mitsubishi Tanabe, and Nippon Kayaku and research grants from Dainippon Sumitomo, Array BioPharma, MSD, Ono, Daiichi Sankyo, Sysmex, Novartis, and Takeda. Takayuki Yoshino received honoraria from Taiho, Chugai, Lilly, Bayer, and Merck Biopharma and research grants from Taiho, Ono, Amgen, Parexel International, MSD, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Sumitomo Dainippon, and Sanofi. All other authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.
Références
Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2017 Jun;16(2):e15-e22
pubmed: 27670892
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Sep;15(10):1065-75
pubmed: 25088940
Lancet. 2013 Jan 26;381(9863):303-12
pubmed: 23177514
Lancet Oncol. 2015 May;16(5):499-508
pubmed: 25877855
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 1;38(1):1-10
pubmed: 31682550
Oncologist. 2018 Oct;23(10):1178-1187
pubmed: 29739893
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Sep;18(9):1172-1181
pubmed: 28760399
Ann Oncol. 2020 Jan;31(1):15-16
pubmed: 31912790
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Jul 20;32(21):2240-7
pubmed: 24687833
EBioMedicine. 2015 Feb 14;2(4):317-23
pubmed: 26137573
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
Neoplasia. 2018 Dec;20(12):1219-1226
pubmed: 30412858
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Apr 20;26(12):2013-9
pubmed: 18421054
N Engl J Med. 2015 May 14;372(20):1909-19
pubmed: 25970050
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Feb 1;36(4):350-358
pubmed: 29215955
J Clin Oncol. 2000 Aug;18(16):2938-47
pubmed: 10944126
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Mar;21(3):412-420
pubmed: 31999946
Lancet. 2000 Mar 25;355(9209):1041-7
pubmed: 10744089
Ann Oncol. 2020 Jan;31(1):88-95
pubmed: 31912801
BMC Cancer. 2015 Apr 11;15:258
pubmed: 25886136
BMC Cancer. 2016 Jul 13;16:467
pubmed: 27412464
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Jan 1;38(1):11-19
pubmed: 31725351
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Jun;16(6):619-29
pubmed: 25981818
N Engl J Med. 2018 Feb 22;378(8):731-739
pubmed: 29466156
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Oct 1;30(28):3499-506
pubmed: 22949147
Oncologist. 2018 Jan;23(1):7-15
pubmed: 28894015