First-Line XELOX Plus Bevacizumab Followed by XELOX Plus Bevacizumab or Single-Agent Bevacizumab as Maintenance Therapy in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The Phase III MACRO TTD Study

Eduardo Díaz‐Rubio(Instituto de Salud Carlos III), Auxiliadora Gómez‐España(Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía), Bartomeu Massutí(Hospital General Universitario de Alicante Doctor Balmis), Javier Sastre(Instituto de Salud Carlos III), Albert Abad, Manuel Valladares(Complexo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña), Fernando Rivera(Marqués de Valdecilla University Hospital), María José Safont(Hospital General Universitario De Valencia), Purificación Martínez de Prado(Hospital de Basurto), Manuel Gallén(Hospital Del Mar), Encarnación González‐Flores(Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves), Eugenio Marcuello(Hospital de Sant Pau), Manuel Benavides(Hospital Universitario Rey Juan Carlos), Carlos Fernández-Martos(Fundación Instituto Valenciano de Oncología), Ferrán Losa, P. Escudero(Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa), A. Arriví(Hospital Son Llatzer), Andrés Cervantes(Universitat de València), Rosario Dueñas(Complejo Hospitalario de Jaén), Amelia López-Ladrón(Hospital Universitario de Valme), Adelaida Lacasta, Marta Llanos(Hospital Universitario de Canarias), Josep Tabernero(Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari), Antonio Antón(Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet), Enrique Aranda(Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía), Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumors (TTD)
The Oncologist
January 1, 2012
Cited by 212Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this phase III trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab alone with those of bevacizumab and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) as maintenance treatment following induction chemotherapy with XELOX plus bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of bevacizumab, capecitabine, and oxaliplatin every 3 weeks followed by XELOX plus bevacizumab or bevacizumab alone until progression. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) interval; secondary endpoints were the overall survival (OS) time, objective response rate (RR), time to response, duration of response, and safety. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population comprised 480 patients (XELOX plus bevacizumab, n = 239; bevacizumab, n = 241); there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. The median follow-up was 29.0 months (range, 0-53.2 months). There were no statistically significant differences in the median PFS or OS times or in the RR between the two arms. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities in the XELOX plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab arms were diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, and neuropathy. CONCLUSION: Although the noninferiority of bevacizumab versus XELOX plus bevacizumab cannot be confirmed, we can reliably exclude a median PFS detriment >3 weeks. This study suggests that maintenance therapy with single-agent bevacizumab may be an appropriate option following induction XELOX plus bevacizumab in mCRC patients.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis