医学
贝伐单抗
福克斯
内科学
临床终点
危险系数
结直肠癌
肿瘤科
人口
随机对照试验
外科
化疗
癌症
奥沙利铂
置信区间
环境卫生
作者
Johanna C. Bendell,Tamara Saurí,Antonio Cubillo,Carlos López,Pilar Alfonso,Maen Hussein,M. Luisa Limon,Andrés Cervantes,Clara Montagut,Cristina Santos,Alberto Bessudo,Manuel Modiano,Veerle Moons,Johannes Andel,Jaafar Bennouna,André van der Westhuizen,Leslie Samuel,Oliver Krieter,Simona Rossomanno,Herbert I. Hurwitz
标识
DOI:10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.3539
摘要
3539 Background: VEGF-A and ANG-2 have complementary roles in regulation of tumor angiogenesis. Targeting VEGF-A with BEV in combination chemotherapy (CT) in mCRC has proven to increase PFS and OS. ANG-2 is overexpressed and associated with poor outcome of mCRC pts receiving BEVcontaining treatment. Hence, dual blockade of VEGF-A and ANG-2 by the bispecific mAb VAN with standard CT may improve clinical activity in mCRC. Methods: All pts received mFOLFOX-6 and were randomized 1:1 to also receive intravenous VAN 2000 mg every other week (Q2W) (Arm A) or BEV 5 mg/kg Q2W (Arm B). The primary end point was investigator assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Key eligibility criteria included pts with non-resectable mCRC, no prior therapy for advanced disease, PS 0-1, adequate organ functions, and no history of GI fistula/perforation or intraabdominal abscess within the last 6 months. Results: 192 pts were randomized (Arms A/B, n = 95/97) by 39 sites in 7 countries, between Oct 2014 and May 2016. Median follow-up was 17.6 months (range 2.8 – 20.7). In the ITT population (n = 189; Arms A/B, n = 94/95), median PFS in Arms A and B was 11.3 and 11.0 months (stratified hazard ratio (HR) 1.00 (95%CI 0.64-1.58; p = 0.985)), respectively. Objective response rate was 52.1% vs 57.9%. Relevant prognostic factors incl. RAS/BRAF status and tumor sidedness were balanced between arms and did not significantly influence outcome. Baseline plasma ANG-2 levels were prognostic in both arms but not predictive for response to VAN. The overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) grade ≥ 3 was similar (Arms A/B, 83.9%/82.1%); AEs grade ≥ 3 attributed to the mode of action of VAN/BEV included hypertension (37.6%/18.9%), hemorrhage (2.2%/1.1%), thromboembolic events (venous 6.5%/2.1%; arterial 1.1%/3.2%) and GI perforations incl. GI fistula & abdominal abscess (10.6%/8.4%). Conclusions: The combination of VAN and FOLFOX did not improve PFS and was associated with a marked increase in hypertension compared with BEV plus FOLFOX. Our results strongly suggest that ANG-2 is not a relevant therapeutic target in the setting of first line mCRC. Clinical trial information: NCT02141295.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI