Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Yildirim, Mahmut Emre
• Karaca, Mustafa
• Artac, Mehmet
• Cicin, Irfan
• Geredeli, Caglayan
• Alacacioglu, Ahmet
• Tanrikulu Simsek, Eda
• Bilici, Ahmet
• Harputluoglu, Hakan
• Ozcelik, Melike
• Bozkurt, Oktay
• Yuksel, Sinemis
• Tural, Deniz
• Sakin, Abdullah
• Cil, Timucin
• Oven, Basak Bala
• Dane, Faysal
• Cevik, Duygu
• Gumus, Mahmut
• Isikdogan, Abdurrahman

Titel

Real-world treatment outcomes from nationwide Onco-colon Turkey registry in RAS wi̇ld-type patients treated with biologics second-line mCRC

Ist Teil von

• Journal of clinical oncology, 2022-06, Vol.40 (16_suppl), p.e15562-e15562

Erscheinungsjahr

2022

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

Alma/SFX Local Collection

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• e15562 Background: Varieties of systemic treatments in second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients have showed an improvement on survival. In this context, most of mCRC patients are likely to progress and to change from first line to second line treatment when they develop resistance to first-line treatment options. Therefore, we aimed to investigate second-line treatment selection in patients with RAS-wild type mCRC. Methods: Medical records from 28 centers were collected for patients diagnosed with RAS wild-type and were included into the study. Histopathological, molecular and clinical characteristics of the patients were recorded. The treatment duration, response rate, progression-free survival and safety results were determined. Patients were compared according to the second-line biological treatments as anti-EGFR group (Group A and B; panitumumab and cetuximab) and anti-VEGF group (group C; bevacizumab or aflibercept). Results: A total of 1064 patients with documented RAS wild-type status were evaluated. Fifty-six percent of all first line patients were treated with regimen including biologics received second line treatment. Median age was 60 years. 34,7 percent of the patients were female. Nineteen percent of the patients had a right-sided colon tumor. 16,3 %, 22,5% and 61,2 % of all second-line patients were treated with regimen including panitumumab, cetuximab and anti-VEGF, respectively. Patients received median 5 (1-21) cycles of treatment. Also, responded patients received median 4 (1-23) cycles of treatment as maintenance treatment with biologics plus fluoropyrimidine. Overall response rate was 28,5 % for all patients. Disease control rate also was 70,6 %. The median OS was 15,7, 14,3, and 14,7 months in A, B and C group respectively (p = 0.764). The median PFS of the patients in second-line setting that received panitumumab, cetuximab and bevacizumab/ aflibercept were 7,8, 6,6 and 7,4 months respectively (p = 0.848). There was not found as independent prognostic factors in multivariate analysis. Conclusions: According to the results of our real-life data study, there is no significant difference in efficacy between the combinations of biological agent and chemotherapy used in the second-line treatments. Therefore, the results of the first-line treatment become important and the use of the most effective agent at this setting also increases survival.