Outcome of Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated with Combination Bevacizumab Therapy: A Pooled Retrospective Analysis of Three European Cohorts from the Angiopredict Initiative

13Citations
Citations of this article
21Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background/Aims: This study is aimed at analyzing the survival rates and prognostic factors of stage IV colorectal cancer patients from 3 European cohorts undergoing combination chemotherapy with bevacizumab. Methods: Progression free-survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed in 172 patients using the Kaplan-Meier method and uni-and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: The median PFS was 9.7 and the median OS 27.4 months. Patients treated at centers in Germany (n = 97), Ireland (n = 32), and The Netherlands (n = 43) showed a median PFS of 9.9, 9.2, and 9.7 months, OS of 34.0, 20.5, and 25.1 months, respectively. Patients >65 years had a significantly shorter PFS (9.5 vs. 9.8 months) but not OS (27.4 vs. 27.5 months) than younger patients. High tumor grade (G3/4) was associated with a shorter PFS, T4 classification with both shorter PFS and OS. Fluoropyrimidine (FP) chemotherapy backbones (doublets and single) had comparable outcomes, while patients not receiving FP backbones had a shorter PFS. In multivariable analysis, age and non-FP backbone were associated with inferior PFS, T4 classification and therapy line >2nd were significantly associated with poor PFS and OS. Conclusion: The observed survival rates confirm previous studies and demonstrate reproducible benefits of combination bevacizumab regimens. Classification T4, non-FP chemotherapy backbone, and age >65 were associated with inferior outcome.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Betge, J., Barat, A., Murphy, V., Hielscher, T., Van Grieken, N. C., Belle, S., … Schulte, N. (2016). Outcome of Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated with Combination Bevacizumab Therapy: A Pooled Retrospective Analysis of Three European Cohorts from the Angiopredict Initiative. Digestion, 94(3), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1159/000449412

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free