Search

The addition of anti-angiogenic agents to cytotoxic agents to improve outcomes has become the standard treatment for metastatic colorectal carcinoma. In this study, we evaluated the safety of bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI with that of ramucirumab plus FOLFIRI in second- and later-line treatment in Japanese patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma. Patients who received ramucirumab or bevacizumab as a second- and later-line treatment between January 2016 and March 2020 were included. Treatment regimens, body surface area, dosage, number of treatment courses, and adverse events( AEs) were evaluated. There were 66 and 17 patients in the bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI and ramucirumab plus FOLFIRI groups, respectively. All patients developed AEs. AEs of grade 3/4 were documented in 84.8% and 100% of the patients in the bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI and ramucirumab plus FOLFIRI groups, respectively. Progressive disease was the most common reason for treatment discontinuation in both groups. Twelve (18.2%) and 5 (29.4%) patients in the bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI and ramucirumab plus FOLFIRI groups, respectively, discontinued treatment due to AEs. The most common AEs leading to discontinuation were malaise and decreased performance status. The findings of our study indicated that both bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI and ramucirumab plus FOLFIRI groups have a high incidence of AEs, and that medical professionals need to be aware of the frequent development of malaise and decreased performance status.

Background/aim: The efficacy of folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus ramucirumab (F-RAM) or aflibercept (F-AFL) as a second-line treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is established. In this study, the risks and benefits of F-RAM/AFL as a third-line treatment after first- and second-line bevacizumab for mCRC were evaluated., Patients and Methods: Overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs) were compared between groups treated with F-RAM/AFL (n=17) and trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet (TAS-102) (n=26)., Results: Median OS was longer in the third-line F-RAM/AFL group (379 days; 95%CI=157-458 days) than in the TAS-102 group (183 days; 95%CI=80-204 days) (log-rank test, p=0.015). Discontinuation due to AEs was only observed in the F-RAM/AFL group (3 cases)., Conclusion: As a third-line treatment for mCRC, F-RAM/AFL should be prioritized over TAS-102 in terms of efficacy; however, the risk of AEs should be considered., (Copyright © 2021 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Aim: To clarify the differences in overall survival (OS) depending on the presence or absence of hypomagnesemia and the type of epidermal growth factor receptor antibody as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively compared the OS in 68 patients who received cetuximab or panitumumab for mCRC at Ogaki Municipal Hospital (Ogaki, Japan) between January 2010 and December 2019., Results: The complete and partial response rates in the cetuximab and panitumumab groups were 60.0% and 72.0%, respectively (p=0.470). The OS was significantly longer in the panitumumab group (median=1,007 days, range=208-1,433 days) than in the cetuximab group (median=735 days, range=181-2,391 days; p=0.047). Hypomagnesemia did not contribute to differences in OS in the two groups., Conclusion: Panitumumab may lead to a longer OS than cetuximab as first-line treatment of mCRC. The presence or absence of hypomagnesemia in cetuximab- or panitumumab-treated patients did not affect OS., (Copyright © 2020 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Cetuximab and panitumumab are monoclonal antibodies that target the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Treatment with cetuximab and panitumumab commonly causes hypomagnesemia, and optimal management of this adverse effect remains unclear. Here, we evaluated the optimal magnesium replacement points based on the risk of severe hypomagnesemia in colorectal cancer patients who received cetuximab or panitumumab., Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 184 patients who received cetuximab or panitumumab for colorectal cancer at Ogaki Municipal Hospital (Ogaki, Japan) between January 2010 and December 2019. Univariate analyses were conducted to evaluate the relationship between patient baseline characteristics and development of hypomagnesemia following cetuximab or panitumumab treatment. Variables that were significantly associated with hypomagnesemia in the univariate analyses as well as previously reported risk factors were entered into a multivariate logistic regression model., Results: The incidence of hypomagnesemia was associated with panitumumab treatment, pre-replenishment serum magnesium concentration, treatment duration, and treatment line. Severe hypomagnesemia post-cetuximab or panitumumab treatment was significantly associated with low baseline magnesium concentrations (< 1.8 mg/dL; odds ratio 18.100, 95% confidence interval 1.570-210.000; p = 0.020) and low serum magnesium concentrations during treatment (< 1.1 mg/dL; odds ratio 93.800, 95% confidence interval 3.510-2510.000; p = 0.007)., Conclusion: To minimize the risk of severe hypomagnesemia during anti-EGFR treatment, magnesium replenishment should be initiated in patients with pre-replenishment concentrations of < 1.8 mg/dL, preferably before reaching intra-treatment concentrations of < 1.1 mg/dL.

Background/aim: The aim of this study was to clarify the risk benefits of folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus ramucirumab (F-RAM) as third-line and later-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)., Patients and Methods: We compared the overall survival (OS), adverse events (AEs), and cost of F-RAM to those of trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet (TAS-102)., Results: There was no significant difference in the median OS [6.1 (range=1.2-16.3) months vs. 6.1 (range=1.2-22.3) months; log-rank test, p=0.272] and treatment duration [4.0 (range=1.2-9.6) months vs. 3.5 (range=0.2-12.3) months, p=0.888] between the F-RAM (n=13) and the TAS-102 (n=36) groups. However, AEs were more frequent in the F-RAM group, and 1-year administration of F-RAM cost higher ($81,724.8 vs. $18,931.4, p<0.001)., Conclusion: F-RAM as third-line and later-line treatment for mCRC has a poor risk benefit. TAS-102 should be given priority over F-RAM., (Copyright© 2020, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Aim: This study aimed to clarify the tolerability of a trifluridine/tipiracil combination tablet (TAS-102) in patients with advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer over 75 years of age., Patients and Methods: Patients were divided into groups under the age of 75 years (n=62), and 75 years and over (n=17). The treatment period with TAS-102 tablet, reasons for discontinuation, adverse events (AEs), and overall survival (OS) were compared between the groups., Results: The incidence of AEs (including neutropenia, anemia, nausea, malaise, and anorexia) was similar for both groups and the treatment enforcement periods for different regimens were not statistically significant between the groups (p=0.207). No major differences were observed in the reasons for discontinuation, such as AEs or progressive disease, between the two groups., Conclusion: TAS-102 therapy for advanced/recurrent colorectal cancer is considered to be highly tolerable in patients 75 years and older. These findings are important for AE monitoring and guidance for patients taking TAS-102., (Copyright© 2019, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

We evaluated the association between the number of treatment courses with the concomitant use of bevacizumab(BV) and the reasons for discontinuation of the regimen in patients who received FOLFOX with or without BV as first-line chemotherapy and FOLFIRI with or without BV as second-line chemotherapy for advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer. In first-line treatment, 12 (2-46) and 10 (2-60) treatment courses were administered with and without BV, respectively, and this difference was not significant (p=0.60). In second-line treatment after first-line treatment with the concomitant use of BV, 11 (1-23) and 3 (1-12) treatment courses were administered with and without BV, respectively, and this difference was significant (p<0.01). Discontinuation due to adverse reactions was more frequent for first-line treatment (34.9%) than for second-line treatment (6.2%; p<0.01). The reasons for discontinuation due to adverse reactions during first-line treatment with BV were often associated with BV, and those during first-line treatment without BV were most often associated with peripheral neuropathy. Therefore, we conclude that early detection and prevention of adverse reactions are important in first-line treatment and that pharmacists as well should be involved in the monitoring and management of adverse reactions, although continued administration of BV even during second-line treatment after first-line treatment with BV is recommended.