Aflibercept-Based and Bevacizumab-Based Second Line Regimens in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Propensity Score Weighted-Analysis from a Multicenter Cohort

Both aflibercept and bevacizumab-based regimens are available II-line treatment options for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, no head-to-head trials established the optimal anti-angiogenic strategy for this setting. We launched a multicenter, retrospective, observational st...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical colorectal cancer 2025-01
Hauptverfasser: Lucchetti, Jessica, Angotti, Lorenzo, Parisi, Alessandro, Basso, Michele, Polito, Mariam Grazia, Zoratto, Federica, Di Giacomo, Emanuela, Nitti, Daniele, Minelli, Alessandro, Salvatore, Lisa, Calegari, Maria Alessandra, Lo Prinzi, Federica, Gemma, Donatello, Signorelli, Carlo, Veroli, Margherita, Anghelone, Annunziato, Galbato Muscio, Luca, Di Cocco, Barbara, Trombetta, Giorgio, Morelli, Cristina, Schietroma, Francesco, Vincenzi, Bruno, Cortellini, Alessio, Tonini, Giuseppe
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Both aflibercept and bevacizumab-based regimens are available II-line treatment options for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, no head-to-head trials established the optimal anti-angiogenic strategy for this setting. We launched a multicenter, retrospective, observational study to assess and compare clinical efficacy of II-line treatments for patients with mCRC. Patients with KRAS/NRAS/BRAF-wild type and KRAS/NRAS mutant tumors were also analyzed separately. 348 patients were included, of whom 153 and 195 were treated with bevacizumab- and aflibercept-based regimens, respectively. Patients treated with aflibercept showed an increased risk of death (corrected [co]-HR 1.92, 95 %CI: 1.37–2.68), of disease progression/death (co-HR 1.43, 95 %CI: 1.12–1.82) and a decreased objective response rate (ORR) (21.5 % vs 34.7 %, p=0.007) in comparison to bevacizumab. Patients treated with II-line bevacizumab were more frequently treated in the third line setting after disease progression (91.1 % vs 68.5 %, p
ISSN:1533-0028
1938-0674
1938-0674
DOI:10.1016/j.clcc.2024.12.007