In:
Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 35, No. 4_suppl ( 2017-02-01), p. 776-776
Abstract:
776 Background: The main objective of care in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is survival prolongation preserving the quality of life (QoL). Optimal duration of chemotherapy after induction treatment is still a matter of debate, such as the treatment strategies that could be adopted (intermittent versus continuous maintenance chemotherapy). Methods: In this monoinstitutional retrospective study we evaluated 70 patients (pts) diagnosed with mCRC with stable or responsive disease after chemotherapy with Bevacizumab (12 courses of FOLFIRI-Bevacizumab) as first or second-line treatment. We observed three groups: group A (20pts): maintenance therapy with de Gramont-Bevacizumab 2 months on/2 months off until disease progression (intermittent strategy); group B (30 pts): no maintenance treatment; group C (20 pts): induction treatment exclusively as first line followed by continuous maintenance with de Gramont-Bevacizumab. Results: Median progression free survival (PFS) was 21 months in Group A (range: 10-51 months), 9 months in Group B (range 6.6-12.9 months), 11 months in groups C (range 10.4-13.3 months), the difference resulted significant among group in favor of intermittent strategy (p = 0.006). Median OS was 60.6 months (range: 35.6-96.2 months) in group A, 27.2 months (range 19.5-39.9 months) in group B and 23.6 months in group C (range: 19.1-31 months); p = 0.0011. The most frequent adverse events of all grades were: hypertension, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, diarrhea, asthenia. No toxic death was observed. Adverse events (AEs) of all grades were more frequent in group C (15% Grade 3-4), comparing with Group A and B (10% Grade 3-4 AEs) Conclusions: According to our retrospective analysis, intermittent maintenance treatment with chemotherapy and Bevacizumab appears to be a feasible strategy in pts with stable or responsive disease. PFS and OS resulted longer in patients treated with intermittent strategy comparing with other groups. The study has at least three bias: selection of patients, small sample size and retrospective nature, however we can conclude that intermittent strategy could improve patients outcome with an acceptable toxicity profile.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
0732-183X
,
1527-7755
DOI:
10.1200/JCO.2017.35.4_suppl.776
Language:
English
Publisher:
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Publication Date:
2017
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2005181-5
