Bone metastases are associated with worse prognosis in patients affected by metastatic colorectal cancer treated with doublet or triplet chemotherapy plus bevacizumab: a subanalysis of the TRIBE and TRIBE2 trials.
bone metastases
colorectal cancer
prognosis
triplet chemotherapy
Journal
ESMO open
ISSN: 2059-7029
Titre abrégé: ESMO Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101690685
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2022
12 2022
Historique:
received:
28
03
2022
revised:
21
09
2022
accepted:
23
09
2022
pubmed:
4
11
2022
medline:
28
12
2022
entrez:
3
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers; ∼20% of patients have metastases at diagnosis, and 50%-60% subsequently develop metachronous metastases. Bone involvement, despite being rare, is usually associated with higher disease burden, worse prognosis, impaired quality of life, and significant health-related cost. In the last few years, following the positive results of the TRIBE and TRIBE2 trials, the association of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab has become the new standard of care for metastatic CRC. Despite being highly efficacious in all subgroups, little is known about the activity of this regimen in patients with bone metastases. We carried out a pooled analysis of TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies focusing on patients with skeletal deposits. Our analyses on the whole population showed that patients with baseline bone involvement reported shorter overall survival [OS; 14.0 versus 26.2 months; hazard ratio (HR) 2.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46-2.87; P < 0.001] and progression-free survival (PFS; 6.2 versus 11.1 months; HR 1.96, 95% CI 1.42-2.69; P < 0.001) compared with those without bone metastases; no significant interaction with the treatment was reported for PFS (P = 0.094) and OS (P = 0.38). Bone metastases had a negative prognostic implication in the multivariate analysis (HR 2.24, 95% CI 1.54-3.26; P < 0.001). Furthermore, patients with bone lesions at first radiological progression (including those with baseline bone metastases) had a shorter OS compared with those who progressed in other sites (10.4 versus 13.2 months; HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.15-1.91; P = 0.002). A trend toward inferior OS (7.5 versus 11 months, HR 1.50, 95% CI 0.92-2.45; P = 0.10) appeared in patients with basal skeletal deposits compared with those with bone involvement at first radiological progression. Our study confirmed the negative prognostic impact of bone metastases in CRC. Furthermore, we demonstrated for the first time that the survival advantage of triplet chemotherapy plus bevacizumab is maintained even in this prognostically unfavorable subgroup.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers; ∼20% of patients have metastases at diagnosis, and 50%-60% subsequently develop metachronous metastases. Bone involvement, despite being rare, is usually associated with higher disease burden, worse prognosis, impaired quality of life, and significant health-related cost. In the last few years, following the positive results of the TRIBE and TRIBE2 trials, the association of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab has become the new standard of care for metastatic CRC. Despite being highly efficacious in all subgroups, little is known about the activity of this regimen in patients with bone metastases.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We carried out a pooled analysis of TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies focusing on patients with skeletal deposits.
RESULTS
Our analyses on the whole population showed that patients with baseline bone involvement reported shorter overall survival [OS; 14.0 versus 26.2 months; hazard ratio (HR) 2.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46-2.87; P < 0.001] and progression-free survival (PFS; 6.2 versus 11.1 months; HR 1.96, 95% CI 1.42-2.69; P < 0.001) compared with those without bone metastases; no significant interaction with the treatment was reported for PFS (P = 0.094) and OS (P = 0.38). Bone metastases had a negative prognostic implication in the multivariate analysis (HR 2.24, 95% CI 1.54-3.26; P < 0.001). Furthermore, patients with bone lesions at first radiological progression (including those with baseline bone metastases) had a shorter OS compared with those who progressed in other sites (10.4 versus 13.2 months; HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.15-1.91; P = 0.002). A trend toward inferior OS (7.5 versus 11 months, HR 1.50, 95% CI 0.92-2.45; P = 0.10) appeared in patients with basal skeletal deposits compared with those with bone involvement at first radiological progression.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study confirmed the negative prognostic impact of bone metastases in CRC. Furthermore, we demonstrated for the first time that the survival advantage of triplet chemotherapy plus bevacizumab is maintained even in this prognostically unfavorable subgroup.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36327757
pii: S2059-7029(22)00236-8
doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100606
pmc: PMC9808439
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Bevacizumab
2S9ZZM9Q9V
Camptothecin
XT3Z54Z28A
Fluorouracil
U3P01618RT
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
100606Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure CC reports consulting or advisory role for Roche, Bayer, Amgen, MSD, and Pierre Fabre; is on the speakers bureau for SERVIER and Merck; honoraria from Roche, Amgen, Bayer, SERVIER, MSD, Merck, Pierre Fabre, and Organon; research funding from Merck, Bayer, Roche, and SERVIER. DR is on the speakers bureau for MSD Oncology. SL received consulting or advisory role from Amgen, Merck Serono, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Daiichi-Sankyo, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, and MSD; is on the speakers bureau for Roche, Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre, GSK, and Amgen; research funding from Amgen, Merck Serono, Bayer, Roche, Lilly, Astra Zeneca, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. AZ is on the speaker’s bureau for Amgen, Merck Serono, MSD, Bayer, Servier, and AstraZeneca. GV received accommodation reimbursement from Roche and Amgen. GM received contribution for advisory role from Eisai, Roche, MSD, and Amgen. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Références
Ann Oncol. 2012 Aug;23(8):2072-2077
pubmed: 22219016
Oncotarget. 2015 Nov 17;6(36):38658-66
pubmed: 26484417
Sci Rep. 2016 Jul 15;6:29765
pubmed: 27416752
Ann Oncol. 2019 Dec 1;30(12):1969-1977
pubmed: 31573612
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Oct;16(13):1306-15
pubmed: 26338525
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 Jan;71(1):7-33
pubmed: 33433946
BMC Cancer. 2017 Jun 9;17(1):408
pubmed: 28599628
Ann Oncol. 2016 Aug;27(8):1386-422
pubmed: 27380959
Lancet Oncol. 2020 Apr;21(4):497-507
pubmed: 32164906
World J Surg. 2016 Apr;40(4):982-6
pubmed: 26541868
Front Oncol. 2020 Jun 19;10:974
pubmed: 32637357
BMC Cancer. 2009 Aug 07;9:274
pubmed: 19664211
Ann Oncol. 2018 Apr 20;29(7):1528-1534
pubmed: 29873679
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021 Mar 02;19(3):329-359
pubmed: 33724754
Dis Colon Rectum. 2018 Jun;61(6):673-678
pubmed: 29722726
Dis Colon Rectum. 1999 Dec;42(12):1592-7
pubmed: 10613479
BMC Gastroenterol. 2021 Mar 4;21(1):103
pubmed: 33663400
N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 23;371(17):1609-18
pubmed: 25337750