摘要
Background: Molecular targeted agents, such as bevacizumab and cetuximab, have been shown to improve the overall survival of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. However, we still do not know the best sequence in which to use the molecular targeted agents for mCRC, especially in K-ras wild-type cases. Methods: From July 2006 to November 2010, 63 chemotherapy-naive patients who were diagnosed with mCRC and received an oxaliplatin-based regimen as the first line, did not respond to a bevacizumab-containing regimen used as the first or second line, and received cetuximab or continued bevacizumab, were eligible for this analysis. Thirty-two patients received cetuximab as the third or fourth line chemotherapy due to the K-ras wild-type (Group A). Also, thirty-one patients continued a bevacizumab-containing regimen in spite of disease progression (Group B). Results: The difference in the rate of serious adverse events was not significant between the two groups, but the rate of overall adverse events tended to be higher in Group A than in Group B. The median overall survival (MST) was significantly higher in Group A than Group B (30.8 months and 23.13 months (95%CI: 15.80 - 30.47), respectively) (P = 0.031). Group A patients were all K-ras wild-type, and 21 of Group B were K-ras mutant type. Compared with Group B patients with the K-ras mutant type, MST of Group A patients was significantly longer (30.8 months and 25.73 months, respectively) (P = 0.025). Conclusion: Using cetuximab after progression with bevacizumab might be an effective sequence to improve the overall survival of K-ras wild-type mCRC patients. However, we need further prospective studies to identify the best sequence of chemotherapy for mCRC patients.
Background: Molecular targeted agents, such as bevacizumab and cetuximab, have been shown to improve the overall survival of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. However, we still do not know the best sequence in which to use the molecular targeted agents for mCRC, especially in K-ras wild-type cases. Methods: From July 2006 to November 2010, 63 chemotherapy-naive patients who were diagnosed with mCRC and received an oxaliplatin-based regimen as the first line, did not respond to a bevacizumab-containing regimen used as the first or second line, and received cetuximab or continued bevacizumab, were eligible for this analysis. Thirty-two patients received cetuximab as the third or fourth line chemotherapy due to the K-ras wild-type (Group A). Also, thirty-one patients continued a bevacizumab-containing regimen in spite of disease progression (Group B). Results: The difference in the rate of serious adverse events was not significant between the two groups, but the rate of overall adverse events tended to be higher in Group A than in Group B. The median overall survival (MST) was significantly higher in Group A than Group B (30.8 months and 23.13 months (95%CI: 15.80 - 30.47), respectively) (P = 0.031). Group A patients were all K-ras wild-type, and 21 of Group B were K-ras mutant type. Compared with Group B patients with the K-ras mutant type, MST of Group A patients was significantly longer (30.8 months and 25.73 months, respectively) (P = 0.025). Conclusion: Using cetuximab after progression with bevacizumab might be an effective sequence to improve the overall survival of K-ras wild-type mCRC patients. However, we need further prospective studies to identify the best sequence of chemotherapy for mCRC patients.
