Retrospective Study of Regorafenib Versus TAS-102 Efficacy and Safety in Chemorefractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC) Patients: A Multi-institution Real Life Clinical Data.


Journal

Clinical colorectal cancer
ISSN: 1938-0674
Titre abrégé: Clin Colorectal Cancer
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101120693

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 2021
Historique:
received: 21 12 2020
revised: 18 05 2021
accepted: 03 06 2021
pubmed: 7 7 2021
medline: 14 1 2022
entrez: 6 7 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

There have been significant developments in colorectal cancer (CRC) research over the last few years, with the introduction of new agents that have been prolonged median overall survival of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). These therapies have improved patient outcomes; however, despite significant progress in strategies for cancer treatment, their use is limited by development of resistant mechanism. Almost 30% of patients with refractory mCRC will remain good candidates for further treatment. Regorafenib and TAS-102 are novel antitumor agents for patients with refractory mCRC. However, it is unclear which patients may derive a survival benefit from these drugs in real-life clinical practice. We performed a retrospective analysis evaluating safety and efficacy of TAS-102 and regorafenib in a cohort of refractory mCRC patients, in 3 different centers between January 1 2018 and May 31 2020, with the aim of assessing the optimal sequence treatment for these 2 drugs. One hundred and forty mCRC patients were included in the analysis. Of these patients, 64 received regorafenib and 76 received TAS-102 as first treatment. After progression, in the regorafenib 24 (37%) patients switched to secondary treatment with TAS-102, instead, in the TAS-102 group, among 76 patients, 29 (45%) patients switched to secondary treatment with regorafenib. Disease control was achieved in 8 (12.5%) of 64 patients in the regorafenib group and 17 (22.4%) of 76 patients in the TAS-102 group. In terms of efficacy, the PFS and OS were similar in both treatment groups for primary and secondary treatments. AEs reported in this analysis were mostly consistent with the known safety profiles of regorafenib and TAS-102 in previous clinical trials. The present study is the first one to compare the activity of the two agents in a large cohort of chemo-refractory mCRC patients providing more details about the best sequence, to be incorporated in clinical practice.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34226142
pii: S1533-0028(21)00052-9
doi: 10.1016/j.clcc.2021.06.002
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Drug Combinations 0
Phenylurea Compounds 0
Pyridines 0
Pyrrolidines 0
trifluridine tipiracil drug combination 0
regorafenib 24T2A1DOYB
Uracil 56HH86ZVCT
Thymine QR26YLT7LT
Trifluridine RMW9V5RW38

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

227-235

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Pasquale Vitale (P)

Medical Oncology, Department of Precision Medicine, Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", 80131, Naples, Italy.

Nicoletta Zanaletti (N)

Medical Oncology, Department of Precision Medicine, Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", 80131, Naples, Italy.

Vincenzo Famiglietti (V)

Medical Oncology, Department of Precision Medicine, Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", 80131, Naples, Italy.

Vincenzo De Falco (V)

Medical Oncology, Department of Precision Medicine, Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", 80131, Naples, Italy.

Andres Cervantes (A)

Department of Medical Oncology, INCLIVA Biomedical Research institute, University of Valencia, Valencia, Comunitat Valenciana, Spain.

Susanna Rosellò (S)

Department of Medical Oncology, INCLIVA Biomedical Research institute, University of Valencia, Valencia, Comunitat Valenciana, Spain.

Elisabetta Fenocchio (E)

Multidisciplinary Outpatient Oncology Clinic, Candiolo Cancer Institute, 10060 Candiolo (TO), Italy.

Michela Milanesio (M)

Department of Oncology, University of Turin Medical School, 10060 Candiolo (TO), Italy.

Pasquale Lombardi (P)

Department of Oncology, University of Turin Medical School, 10060 Candiolo (TO), Italy.

Davide Ciardiello (D)

Medical Oncology, Department of Precision Medicine, Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", 80131, Naples, Italy.

Giulia Martini (G)

Medical Oncology, Department of Precision Medicine, Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", 80131, Naples, Italy.

Erika Martinelli (E)

Medical Oncology, Department of Precision Medicine, Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", 80131, Naples, Italy.

Fortunato Ciardiello (F)

Medical Oncology, Department of Precision Medicine, Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", 80131, Naples, Italy.

Teresa Troiani (T)

Medical Oncology, Department of Precision Medicine, Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", 80131, Naples, Italy.

Stefania Napolitano (S)

Medical Oncology, Department of Precision Medicine, Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", 80131, Naples, Italy. Electronic address: stefania.napolitanoi@unicampania.it.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH