|
|
|
Thématique :
- Cancer colorectal (CCR)
|
|
|
Originalité :
Intermédiaire
|
|
|
Doit faire évoluer notre pratique : |
Dans certains cas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nom du veilleur :
Dr Yann TOUCHEFEU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Journal of clinical oncology (JCO)
|
 |
|
2019/01
|
|
|
|
2019 Jan;37(1):22-32.
|
|
|
doi: 10.1200/JCO.18.00052.
|
|
|
|
Sequential Versus Combination Therapy of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Using Fluoropyrimidines, Irinotecan, and Bevacizumab: A Randomized, Controlled Study-XELAVIRI (AIO KRK0110).
|
|
|
|
Modest DP, Fischer von Weikersthal L, Decker T, Vehling-Kaiser U, Uhlig J, Schenk M, Freiberg-Richter J, Peuser B, Denzlinger C, Peveling Genannt Reddemann C, Graeven U, Schuch G, Schwaner I, Stahler A, Jung A, Kirchner T, Held S, Stintzing S, Giessen-Jung C, Heinemann V; XELAVIRI/AIO KRK0110 Investigators.
|
|
|
|
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30388045
|
|
|
|
Abstract
PURPOSE:
The XELAVIRI trial investigated the optimal treatment strategy for patients with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. We tested the noninferiority of initial treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, followed by the addition of irinotecan at first progression (arm A) versus upfront use of fluoropyrimidine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (arm B) in a 1:1 randomized, controlled phase III trial.
METHODS:
The primary efficacy end point was time to failure of the strategy (TFS). Given a 90% CI, a power of 70%, and a one-sided α of .05, the margin for noninferiority was set at 0.8. In the case of demonstrated noninferiority of TFS, an analysis of symptomatic toxicities during TFS would define the superior strategy. Secondary end points included the effect of molecular subgroups on efficacy parameters.
RESULTS:
A total of 421 randomly assigned patients (arm A: n = 212; arm B: n = 209) formed the full analysis set. Median age was 71 and 69 years, respectively. Noninferiority of TFS was not shown (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 90% CI, 0.73 to 1.02). In detail, patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type tumors benefitted from combination chemotherapy (HR, 0.61; 90% CI, 0.46 to 0.82; P = .005), whereas patients with RAS mutant tumors (HR, 1.09; 90% CI, 0.81 to 1.46; P = .58) did not (Cox model for interaction of study arm and RAS status: P = .03). Comparable results were obtained for overall survival.
CONCLUSION:
Noninferiority of sequential escalation therapy compared with initial combination chemotherapy could not be demonstrated for TFS. RAS status may be important to guide therapy as treatment of patients with upfront combination therapy was clearly superior in RAS/BRAF wild-type tumors, whereas sequential escalation chemotherapy seems to provide comparable results in patients with RAS mutant tumors.
|
|
|
|
|
Un traitement séquentiel par Fluoropyrimidine/bevacizumab puis FOLFIRI bevacizumab à progression est-il non inférieure à un bichimiothérapie FOLFIRI bevacizumab d’emblée, avec comme critère de jugement le temps jusqu’à échec de la stratégie ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dans cette étude randomisée, la non-infériorité n’était pas démontrée. En analyse de sous-groupe, la bichimiothérapie d’emblée semblait bénéfique en cas de tumeur RAS et BRAF sauvage, mais le traitement séquentiel semblait comparable en cas de mutation RAS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cette étude stratégique est importante, négative sur son objectif principal, mais donnant quelques pistes pour affiner la place de la monochimiothérapie avec bévacizumab d’emblée. En cas de mutation RAS où le nombre de ligne est plus limité, cette stratégie séquentielle pourrait être discutée.
|
|
|