* If you want to update the article please login/register
Abstract Abstract: Many clinical trials for older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer have been carried out, and fluoropyrimidine and bevacizumab are common treatments. In older metastatic colorectal cancer patients, the connection between age and the efficacy and safety of this therapy is uncertain. Methods Individual results from two phase II studies on older, non-frail patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with uracil-tegafur/leucovorin or S-1 mixed with bevacizumab were collected. For the worst grade of adverse events, patient characteristics were examined with multiple regression analyses for survival outcomes, using the Cox proportional hazard model and linear regression analyses. Grade 2 exhaustion was the cause of the most common treatment failures. Conclusions: Fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab was age-independence in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer aged 76 years, and more attention should be paid to non-hematologic adverse events as age increases.
Source link: https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyac073
Abstract Purpose of Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer have a key determinant of long-term treatment outcomes. We investigated changes in renal function in a year of mCRC patients receiving first-line chemotherapy. Further, we reviewed the prognostic factors and effects of each chemotherapy regimen on the patients's renal function. Methods We retrospectively reviewed patients with mCRC who were treated with a standard triplet regimen in the first-line setting at Korea University Anam Hospital from 2015 to 2020. Patients treated with FOLFIRI + Bevacizumab was 74. 9 mL/min/1. 73 m 2 m 2. The 1-year incidence rate of acute kidney injury in patients receiving FOLFOX/cetuximab was 9. 1%, with the lowest occurrence in patients receiving FOLFIRI+ bevacizumab and the highest in those receiving FOLFIRI+ bevacizumab. Renal dysfunction was more prevalent with FOLFIRI + bevacizumab than with other regimens.
Source link: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1546517/v1
In metastatic colorectal cancer, primary tumor resection may be unfeasible. We investigated the effects of bevacizumab and cetuximab treatments on survival or conversion in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who did not have primary tumor resection. We reviewed the results of both therapies in patients with primary tumor resection who did not receive primary tumor resection. After prostatity score weighting, Cetuximab resulted in reduced mortality than bevacizumab, but it did not have the same effect in patients underwent primary tumor resection. Primary tumor resection was associated with reduced mortality among patients treated with bevacizumab and cetuximab, among those who received both bevacizumab and cetuximab. The cetuximab group had a significant metastasectomy rate among patients that did not undergo primary tumor resection, according to a multivariable analysis for conversion surgery. Cetuximab's higher conversion surgery success rate was also present in the surgery.
Source link: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14092118
Background: Capecitabine has shown non-infertility, increased longevity, and increased protection in metastatic colorectal cancer despite the inconvenience of an infusional therapy. Capecitabine plus irinotecan can be used as a first-line treatment in locally advanced or mCRC, with the intention of improving patient tolerability and quality of life. Patients with mCRC or mCRC received CPT-11 225 mg/m2 on day 1 and capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 2-15 every three weeks, with patients experiencing either LA or mCRC receiving CPT-11 225 mg/m2 on day 1 and capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily. Both times were 9. 3 and 17. 1 months for Median time to progress and OS. The most common adverse vents were Grade 3/4 neutropenia and diarrhea. The XELIRI regimen, which was administered every three weeks as first-line therapy of LA or mCRC, was safe and well tolerated, even elderly patients.
Source link: https://doi.org/10.6000/1927-7229.2013.02.03.4
BACKGROUND: This observational research looked at the efficiency and safety of chemotherapy with bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in Spanish patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients receiving bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy for mCRC patients who later developed PD were included in this multicentre, retrospective, observational review. All patients were treated in hospital oncology departments, and no one received bevacizumab as part of a clinical trial. Patients who are not receiving bevacizumab for reasons other than PD were refused. Median duration of bevacizumab therapy was 8. 7 months. Patients receiving oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based regimens had median PFS of 9. 2 and 7. 7 months, respectively; those receiving oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based therapy had median PFS of 6. 1 months; those receiving oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based regimens had median PFS of 9. 2 and 7. 7 months; those not receiving oxaliplatin- or iriri Conclusions: Bevacizumab plus standard chemotherapy is an affordable and well-tolerated alternative for patients with mCRC who are still receiving treatment until PD.
Source link: https://doi.org/10.6000/1927-7229.2013.02.03.1
The aim of this paper is to highlight the dangers involved with bevacizumab use in combination chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic or recurrent colorectal cancer. Methods: Between July 2005 to March 2013, a total of 130 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who underwent oxaliplatin as first-line chemotherapy were divided into two groups: those treated with bevacizumab and others without, as well as others without. The median OS was 926 days in group A and 534 days in group B, and 534 days in group B.
Source link: https://doi.org/10.6000/1927-7229.2015.04.01.4
Abstract Background In patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, therapeutic options are limited. In the TASCO1 trial, the use of trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab in this setting was investigated; here, we present the final overall survival findings. Affects: median OS was 22. 3 months with TT-B and 17. 7 months with C-B, as reported on September 1, 2020. TT-B is a hardware dependent OS with no variables positively affecting the OS. Conclusions: TT-B is a promising therapeutic regimen for mCRC patients who are ineligible for intense chemotherapy.
Source link: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-022-01737-2
Background Bowel cancer is the third most common cancer in the United Kingdom. Sometimes the liver tumor can be surgically treated, but chemotherapy may be used to shrink the tumor to make surgery possible. Objectives: To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of KRAS mutation tests in differentiating adults with metastatic colorectal cancer metastases are limited to the liver and are unresectable, and who may benefit from first-line treatment with cetuximab in combination with standard chemotherapy for those who should receive standard chemotherapy alone. The health economic study considered the long-term costs and quality-adjusted life-years of various pharmaceutical treatments followed by chemotherapy with standard chemotherapy or cetuximab plus standard chemotherapy. Results from two studies reported on the validity of KRAS mutation tests for predicting response to chemotherapy in patients treated with cetuximabplus standard chemotherapy. Four RCTs published studies comparing the clinical results of cetuximab plus standard chemotherapy with that of standard chemotherapy in patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. Regardless of which KRAS mutation test was used to select patients, there were no obvious differences in the treatment results reported by various studies. The Therascreen ® KRAS RGQ PCR Kit was more costly but also more efficient than pyrosequencing or direct sequencing in the ‘linked evidence' review, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £17,019 per quality-adjusted life years gained. Conclusions There was no evidence that any one KRAS mutation test was more efficient or cost-effective than any other test.
Source link: https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18620
* Please keep in mind that all text is summarized by machine, we do not bear any responsibility, and you should always check original source before taking any actions