FOLFOX方案联合西妥昔单抗治疗转移性结直肠癌的近期疗效及安全性分析

目的：探讨FOLFOX方案联合西妥昔单抗治疗转移性结直肠癌的近期临床疗效及安全性。方法：选择2009年2月～2011年2月本院诊治的42例转移性结直肠癌患者为研究对象,采用随机数字表法将其随机分入对照组与观察组,其中对照组20例,观察组22例。对照组患者接受FOLFOX方案治疗,每2周重复1次,治疗3周期;观察组患者给予FOLFOX方案联合西妥昔单抗治疗。比较两组的近期疗效及毒副反应。结果：观察组的客观缓解率和疾病控制率均显著高于对照组,差别具有统计学意义（P〈0．05）;骨髓抑制、消化道反应、神经毒性是两组常见的毒副反应,两组患者骨髓抑制、消化道反应、神经毒性、脱发及肝功能损害发生率无显著差别（P〉0．05）,观察组痤疮样皮疹的发生率显著高于对照组（36．4％VS0,P〈0．05）。结论：西妥昔单抗联合FOLFOX方案可提高转移性结直肠癌患者的近期疗效,毒副反应可耐受。     

西妥昔单抗和贝伐珠单抗治疗晚期结直肠癌的有效性和安全性比较

目的:比较西妥昔单抗和贝伐珠单抗治疗晚期结直肠癌的有效性和安全性。方法:选取2014年1月～2017年8月我院收治的晚期结直肠癌患者100例,根据患者入院先后顺序随机分为两组,所有患者均给予FOLFIRI方案进行化疗,A组在化疗的基础上给予贝伐珠单抗进行治疗,B组在化疗的基础上给予西妥昔单抗进行治疗。比较两组患者临床治疗的缓解率、控制率及不良反应的发生情况,对所有患者随访1年,记录并比较两组患者的无进展生存期。结果:两组患者的缓解率、控制率、恶心呕吐、头晕、延迟性腹泻、肝肾损伤、白细胞减少、血小板减少和尿蛋白的发生率相比均无统计学差异(P0.05),但B组患者骨髓抑制和皮疹的发生率显著高于A组(P0.05);两组患者的无进展生存期相比无统计学差异(P0.05)。结论:西妥昔单抗和贝伐珠单抗治疗晚期结直肠癌的临床效果相当,且不良反应较轻,以Ⅰ～Ⅱ度为主,患者均可耐受,对症治疗后均有所缓解。西妥昔单抗易引发骨髓抑制和皮疹,在临床应用过程中需注意并进行有效预防和积极处理。     

重组人血管内皮抑素联合FOLFIRI方案治疗结直肠癌肝转移的临床观察

目的:探讨重组人血管内皮抑素(恩度)联合FOLFIRI方案治疗结直肠癌肝转移的临床疗效与安全性。方法:选取结直肠癌肝转移患者58例,随机分为观察组与对照组,每组各29例。对照组予以FOLFIRI方案,观察组予以恩度联合FOLFIRI方案治疗,均于治疗4个周期后,观察和比较临床疗效及毒副反应的发生情况,并随访患者的生存情况。结果:观察组与对照组的临床总有效率(RR)分别为44.83%和24.14%,疾病控制率(DCR)分别为89.66%和65.52%,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);毒副反应的发生率分别为44.83%和37.93%,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。观察组与对照组无进展生存期(PFS)分别为7.5个月和4.3个月,总生存期(OS)分别为13.2个月和6.9个月,差异均具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:重组人血管内皮抑素联合FOLFIRI方案治疗结直肠癌肝转移的临床疗效较单用FOLFIRI方案更好,但并未显著增加毒副反应,安全性较好,值得临床推广应用。     

不同原发肿瘤位置对于西妥昔单抗联合化疗治疗K-ras 基因 野生型的转移性结直肠癌患者的预后比较

目的:探讨不同原发肿瘤位置对于西妥昔单抗治疗K-ras基因野生型的转移性结直肠癌患者的预后影响。方法:回顾性分析2008年1月1日至2013年12月31日187例我院行西妥昔单抗联合FOLFOX或FOLFIRI治疗的转移性结直肠癌患者,根据原发肿瘤位置,以结肠左曲为分界点分为右半结肠癌和左半结肠癌两组,按照严格的配对标准进行1:2配对,最终获得右半结肠癌组16例,左半结肠癌组32例,进行分析,比较两组患者的近期疗效和无进展生存期。结果:右半结肠癌组ORR为56.3%,左半结肠癌组ORR为62.5%,2组比较差异无统计学意义(X2=0.174,P=0.676)。右半结肠癌组DCR为87.5%,左半结肠癌组DCR为93.7%。2组比较差异无统计学意义(X2=0.545,P=0.460)。右半结肠癌组的中位无进展生存时间(m PFS)为5.0个月,左半结肠癌组mPFS为7.7个月,两组差别有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:K-Ras基因野生型的左半结肠癌患者应用西妥昔单抗治疗,预后好于右半结肠癌。     

西妥昔单抗联合化疗治疗K-Ras野生型转移性结直肠癌的疗效及其影响因素分析

目的:探讨西妥昔单抗联合化疗治疗K-Ras野生型转移性结直肠癌(mCRC)的疗效及其影响因素。方法:选取2013年1月～2015年1月河北北方学院附属第一医院收治的K-Ras野生型mCRC患者96例,按照随机数字表法将患者分为对照组(n=48)和观察组(n=48)。对照组给予常规化疗方案治疗,观察组在此基础上给予西妥昔单抗治疗。比较两组临床疗效、中位无进展生存期(PFS)、中位总生存期(OS)以及不良反应发生情况,并分析观察组治疗疗效的影响因素。结果:观察组客观有效率(ORR)和疾病控制率(DCR)分别为54.17%和91.67%,均高于对照组的31.25%和81.25%(P0.05)。观察组患者中位PFS和中位OS均较对照组长(P0.05)。观察组皮肤痤疮样病变发生率高于对照组(P0.05)。单因素分析显示,西妥昔单抗联合化疗治疗K-Ras野生型mCRC的ORR、DCR与年龄、肿瘤部位、肿瘤转移部位、肿瘤分化程度以及西妥昔单抗治疗时间有关(P0.05)。结论:西妥昔单抗联合化疗治疗K-Ras野生型mCRC疗效确切,预后较好,患者对不良反应可耐受,患者年龄、肿瘤部位、转移部位、分化程度及西妥昔单抗治疗时间可能是其疗效的影响因素。     

贝伐单抗二线治疗转移性结直肠癌的临床观察

目的:观察贝伐单抗二线治疗转移性结直肠癌患者的临床疗效和毒副反应。方法:回顾性分析2008年8月至2011年10月我院经组织病理学证实的转移性结直肠癌患者21例,一线治疗进展后,二线治疗方案中加用贝伐单抗,用法为5mg/kg,每2-3周1次,与化疗方案同步。化疗方案以奥沙利铂及伊立替康为基础,完成2-3周期治疗后评定疗效,观察毒副反应。结果:21例患者中PR1例,SD11例,PD9例,客观缓解率为4.8%,疾病控制率为57.1%,中位TTP为3.7个月。患者出现的不良反应有骨髓抑制、皮疹、恶心呕吐、腹泻、肝功能损害、神经毒性等,贝伐单抗所致高血压的发生率为14.3%(3/21),鼻衄发生率为4%(2/21)。结论:二线治疗中使用贝伐单抗,对一线治疗进展后的转移性结直肠癌疗效有限,毒副反应可耐受。     

西妥昔单抗联合FOLFIRI 方案治疗晚期胃癌的疗效观察

目的:观察西妥昔单抗联合FOLFIRI方案用于一线治疗失败的局部晚期或转移性胃癌患者,观察其疗效和不良反应,并观察其与疗效和预后的相关性。方法:每2疗程评价肿瘤病灶情况,观察不良反应,随访肿瘤进展情况及生存期。按照实体瘤疗效评价标准(Response Evaluatione Criteria in solid Tumors,RECIST)进行肿瘤缓解评估,按照国立癌症研究所常见不良事件评价标准3.0版(NCI一CTCAE3.0)进行不良事件分级。计算肿瘤缓解率、中位至疾病进展时间和中位总生存期。结果:在38例至少完成了2个周期治疗并进行了疗效评价的患者中,观察到1例完全缓解(CR),占0.03%;13例部分缓解(PR),占34.00%;总的缓解率(ORR=CR+PR)为37.00%。疾病稳定(SD)的患者有20例,占53.00%;疾病控制率(Disease Control Rate,DCR=CR+PR+SD)为89.00%;疾病进展(PD)的患者为4例,占11.00%。本研究方案总体安全性良好,未发生一例治疗相关性死亡。其中III/IV度粒细胞减少的发生率为52.5%,粒缺性发热的发生率为13.1%,III/IV度度贫血的发生率为29.5%,III/IV度度血小板下降的发生率为8.2%。III/IV度非血液学毒性包括恶心(8.2%),呕吐(6.6%),口腔炎(1.6%),腹泻(6.6%),感染(4.9%),乏力(4.9%),肠梗阻(6.6%),转氨酶升高(l.6%),过敏反应(l.6%)和皮疹(9.8%)。结论:本研究显示在晚期胃癌患者的二线治疗中西妥昔单抗联合FOLFIRI是一个安全有效的方案,需要进一步的研究寻找有效的生物标记物。     

西妥昔单抗联合化疗治疗结直肠癌患者不良反应的护理

目的:分析和总结减少西妥昔单抗联合化疗治疗结直肠癌患者不良反应的护理经验。方法:回顾性分析2012年4月至2014年1月于我院接受联合化疗的17例患者的临床资料,化疗期间实施有针对性的护理干预,从而降低不良反应的发生,提升患者生存质量。结果:通过采取积极有效的护理干预,所有患者均顺利完成治疗。结论:临床上西妥昔单抗联合化疗治疗中,必须密切用药监护,对不同不良反应采取有针对性的护理,确保患者用药安全,减少患者痛苦,提高患者生存质量。     

利妥昔单抗注射液联合CHOP化疗方案治疗B细胞非霍奇金淋巴瘤的效果

目的探讨利妥昔单抗注射液联合CHOP化疗方案治疗B细胞性非霍奇金淋巴瘤的临床效果。方法选择2016年4月～2017年11月于我院进行治疗的B细胞NHL患者60例为研究对象,按照数字法分为观察组和对照组,每组各30例,对照组给予常规CHOP方案进行治疗,观察组给予利妥昔单抗注射液与CHOP方案联合治疗,比较两组患者的疗效和毒副反应。结果观察组患者有效率是93.33%,对照组患者有效率是73.33%,观察组患者有效率高于对照组(P0.05)。两组患者均有出现血小板减少、畏寒发热、恶心呕吐以及脱发现象,且两组出现毒副反应人数差异不大(P0.05)。结论对B细胞NHL使用利妥昔单抗注射液与CHOP联合治疗,可以有显著改善患者临床症状和毒副反应发生率,值得推广。     

利妥昔单抗联合CHOP化疗治疗感染乙肝病毒的非霍奇金淋巴瘤患者的安全性分析

目的:观察利妥昔单抗与CHOP化疗联合治疗感染乙肝病毒(HBV)的非霍奇金淋巴瘤(NHL)患者的有效性及安全性。方法:选取2010年6月至2013年6月35例B细胞NHL住院患者,分为两组,观察组(n=13)为感染HBV患者,接受利妥昔单抗-CHOP化疗方案;对照组(n=22)为非感染HBV的患者,单纯接受CHOP化疗方案,两组治疗4~6疗程,观察两组患者治疗的疗效及肝功能。结果:观察组完全缓解率(CR率)为76.92%,对照组CR率为40.91%(P0.05),两组差异有统计学意义。观察组肝功能损害I~Ⅱ级发生率为23.07%,对照组肝功能损害I~Ⅱ级发生率18.18%(P0.05),观察组毒副反应发生率为30.77%,对照组毒副反应发生率为22.72%(P0.05),两组在肝功能损害及毒副反应上差异无统计学意义。两组患者HBV均未再激活。结论:感染HBV的B细胞NHL患者用R-CHOP联合化疗方案治疗,以及在化疗时预防性、足疗程的抗病毒治疗,可以减少HBV再激活的发生,并且可以降低肝功损害率。     

General treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: From KEYNOTE 177 study

In the palliative treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), doublet chemotherapy (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) or triplet chemotherapy (FOLFOXIRI) combined with targeted drugs (cetuximab or bevacizumab) is the main regimen. Recently, microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or DNA mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) was discovered as a biomarker to distinguish immunotherapy-benefited populations. In this context, recently published randomized phase III clinical trials tested the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy and traditional chemotherapy with or without targeted drugs as first-line treatment for patients with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC.Here, we briefly analyze this article and further discuss immune monotherapy or double immunotherapy for patients with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC, the immunotherapy for patients with BRAF V600E mutant mCRC, and the immunotherapy for patients with microsatellite stable mCRC.     

Clinical Implication of UGT1A1 Promoter Polymorphism for Irinotecan Dose Escalation in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated with Bevacizumab Combined with FOLFIRI in the First-line Setting

PURPOSE: This study aimed to identify the efficacy and toxicity of the FOLFIRI regimen (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) with irinotecan dose escalation plus bevacizumab as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) via UGT1A1 genotyping. METHODS: We administered bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI with irinotecan dose escalation to treat 70 mCRC patients. The UGT1A1 *1/*1 and *1/*28 genotypes started with a 180-mg/m² dose of irinotecan, and UGT1A1 *28/*28 genotype started with a dose of 120 mg/m². The dose of irinotecan was escalated at increasing intervals of 20 to 30 mg/m² until grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) occurred. The clinical response rate, toxicity, and survival were analyzed. RESULTS: The clinical response and disease control rates of mCRC patients treated with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab were significantly better in patients with UGT1A1 *1/*1 and *1/*28 genotypes than in patients with UGT1A1 *28/*28 (P = .006 and P < .001, respectively). Grade 3/4 AEs were significantly more common in mCRC patients with the UGT1A1 *28/*28 genotype (P < .001). Progression-free survival was significantly higher in UGT1A1 *1/*1 and *1/*28 patients (P = .002). mCRC patients who underwent metastasectomy achieved better overall survival than those who did not undergo metastasectomy (P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that mCRC patients with UGT1A1 *1/*1 and *1/*28 genotypes could receive escalated doses of irinotecan to obtain a more favorable clinical outcome without significant AEs.     

Prospective analysis of KRAS wild-type patients with metastatic colorectal cancer using cetuximab plus FOLFIRI or FOLFOX4 treatment regimens

Cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody targeting epidermal growth factor receptor, has proven to be efficient in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. We made a prospective study of the efficacy and toxicities of cetuximab-combination first-line (FOLFOX4) versus second/third-line (FOLFIRI) chemotherapy in 98 KRAS wild-type patients who had metastatic colorectal cancer. Wild-type KRAS had been identified by direct sequencing. Associations between clinical response/progression-free survival/overall survival/toxicities and cetuximab-combination chemotherapy timing were evaluated. The overall response rate was significantly higher for first-line treatment than for second/third-line treatment (relative risk = 1.707, 95% confidence interval = 1.121-2.598). Both progression-free survival and overall survival indicated significantly longer survival of first-line treatment than second/third-line treatment patients. This study is a validation of a molecular analysis of KRAS wild-type status for the prediction of response to cetuximab-combination chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer patients; its predictive role was less prominent in the second/third-line than in the first-line treatment patients.     

Phase II Open-Label Study to Assess Efficacy and Safety of Lenalidomide in Combination with Cetuximab in KRAS-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of combination treatment with lenalidomide and cetuximab in KRAS-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer patients. This was a phase II multicenter, open-label trial comprising a safety lead-in phase (phase IIa) to determine the maximum tolerated dose, and a randomized proof of concept phase (phase IIb) to determine the response rate of lenalidomide plus cetuximab combination therapy. Phase IIa treatment comprised oral lenalidomide (starting dose 25 mg/day) and intravenous cetuximab (400 mg/m² followed by weekly 250 mg/m²) in 28-day cycles. In phase IIb patients were randomized to either the phase IIa treatment schedule of lenalidomide plus cetuximab combination therapy or lenalidomide 25 mg/day monotherapy. Eight patients were enrolled into phase IIa. One patient developed a dose-limiting toxicity and the maximum tolerated dose of lenalidomide was determined at 25 mg/day. Forty-three patients were enrolled into phase IIb proof of concept. Best response was stable disease in 9 patients and study enrollment was terminated prematurely due to lack of efficacy in both treatment arms and failure to achieve the planned response objective. The majority of adverse events were grade 1 and 2. In both phases, the adverse events most commonly attributed to any study drugs were fatigue, rash and other skin disorders, diarrhea, nausea, and stomatitis. Thirty-nine deaths occurred; none was related to study drug. The combination of lenalidomide and cetuximab appeared to be well tolerated but did not have clinically meaningful activity in KRAS-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT01032291","term_id":"NCT01032291"}}NCT01032291     

Recent results of irinotecan therapy in colorectal cancer

New results presented at ASCO Conference in 2003 added further important data to our knowledge on successful use of irinotecan in colorectal cancer (CRC). Irinotecan - just like oxaliplatin - given as neoadjuvant therapy with 5-FU - folinic acid (FUFA) can render originally unresectable liver or lung metastases of CRC resectable, giving the hope of long-term survival for a proportion of patients. Irinotecan combined with 5-FU is an essential part of the most successful palliative sequential chemotherapy of stage IV CRC. Sequential FOLFIRI before or after FOLFOX combination ensures the longest possible progression-free and overall survival for metastatic CRC patients in the palliative setting. In order to achieve the longest survival time, sequential use of both 5-FU, irinotecan and oxaliplatin is necessary. The French GERCOR Group achieved 26 months median overall survival with the sequential use of continuous infusional FUFA, oxaliplatin and irinotecan combinations in stage IV CRC. The analysis of large phase III trials using 5-FU, irinotecan and oxaliplatin revealed that the higher proportion of patients was treated with all three drugs, the longer overall survival was achieved. If applied with caution, toxicity and efficacy of irinotecan in elderly patients is not significantly different from that seen in younger population. The anti-VEGF bevacizumab increases the efficacy of first-line irinotecan therapy, while the addition of cetuximab restores irinotecan sensitivity in second line treatment of stage IV CRC. The combination of irinotecan with oral capecitabine is safe and effective in advanced CRC.     

No Survival Benefit from Adding Cetuximab or Panitumumab to Oxaliplatin-Based Chemotherapy in the First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in KRAS Wild Type Patients: A Meta-Analysis

Background

The efficacy of combined therapies of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) remains controversial in colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim of this study is to estimate the efficacy and safety of adding cetuximab or panitumumab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in the first line treatment in KRAS wild type patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) through meta-analysis.

Methods

Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane library, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) were searched. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluated oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy with or without anti-EGFR drugs (cetuximab or panitumumab) in untreated KRAS wild type patients with mCRC. The outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and toxicities. Hazard ratios (HR) and risk ratio (RR) were used for the meta-analysis and were expressed with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

This meta-analysis included four RCTs with 1270 patients, and all of the patients were administered oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy regimens with or without anti-EGFR MAbs. The result of heterogeneity of OS was not significant. Compared with chemotherapy alone, the addition of cetuximab or panitumumab didn’t result in significant improvement in OS (HR = 1.00, 95%CI [0.88, 1.13], P = 0.95) or PFS (HR = 0.86, 95%CI [0.71, 1.04], P = 0.13). The subgroup analysis of cetuximab also revealed no significant benefit in OS (HR = 1.02, 95%CI [0.89, 1.18], P = 0.75) or in PFS (HR = 0.87, 95%CI [0.65, 1.17], P = 0.36). Patients who received combined therapy didn’t have a higher ORR (Risk Ratio = 1.08, 95%CI [0.86, 1.36]). Toxicities slightly increased in anti-EGFR drugs group.

Conclusions

The addition of cetuximab or panitumumab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of mCRC in wild type KRAS population did not improve efficacy in survival benefit and response rate. More RCTs are warranted to evaluate the combination of chemotherapy and targeted therapy.