Real-World Evidence for Comparative Outcomes between Innovator and Biosimilar Bevacizumab in Advanced Colorectal Cancers.

IF 0.6 Q4 ONCOLOGY
South Asian Journal of Cancer Pub Date : 2025-03-06 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0045-1804535
Arvind Vaidyanathan, Pranaya Vana, Nachiket Joshi, Bikash Sourav, Prabhat Bhargava, George John, Anant Ramaswamy, Vikas Ostwal
{"title":"Real-World Evidence for Comparative Outcomes between Innovator and Biosimilar Bevacizumab in Advanced Colorectal Cancers.","authors":"Arvind Vaidyanathan, Pranaya Vana, Nachiket Joshi, Bikash Sourav, Prabhat Bhargava, George John, Anant Ramaswamy, Vikas Ostwal","doi":"10.1055/s-0045-1804535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Generic versions of bevacizumab are commonly used in India in patients with advanced/metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRCs), but there is limited real-world evidence (RWE) about their efficacy in comparison to the innovator bevacizumab.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients diagnosed with mCRC between January 2017 and January 2022 and receiving a combination of chemotherapy and bevacizumab were retrospectively analyzed for demographic variables and survivals. The primary endpoint of the study was the estimation and comparison of median progression-free survival (mPFS) between patients receiving innovator versus generic bevacizumab as first-line therapy (CT1) by the Kaplan-Meier method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 944 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 652 patients (69%) received bevacizumab as CT1, 449 patients (48%) during second-line chemotherapy (CT2), and 74 patients (8%) during third-line therapy (CT3). The innovator was administered to 132 patients (14%), while the remaining 812 patients (86%) received a generic molecule. With a median follow-up of 18 months, there was no difference in mPFS between patients receiving the innovator or biosimilar (10 vs. 9.3 months, <i>p</i>  = 0.62). Similarly, there was no difference in median overall survival (mOS) between patients receiving the innovator or biosimilar during CT1 (17.8 vs. 18 months, <i>p</i>  = 0.85). Among the patients who received bevacizumab during CT2, there was no statistically significant difference in mPFS between the innovator and the biosimilar (5.5 vs. 5.8 months, <i>p</i>  = 0.97), nor was there a difference in mOS between patients receiving the innovator or biosimilar during CT2 (8.15 vs. 8.58 months, <i>p</i>  = 0.16).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The current study offers RWE to suggest similar outcomes with innovator and generic bevacizumab when combined with chemotherapy in mCRCs. This has significant implications in India and other low- and middle-income countries besides providing oncologists with greater confidence to use these molecules in their clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":22053,"journal":{"name":"South Asian Journal of Cancer","volume":"13 4","pages":"296-299"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11888807/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South Asian Journal of Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0045-1804535","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Generic versions of bevacizumab are commonly used in India in patients with advanced/metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRCs), but there is limited real-world evidence (RWE) about their efficacy in comparison to the innovator bevacizumab.

Methods: Patients diagnosed with mCRC between January 2017 and January 2022 and receiving a combination of chemotherapy and bevacizumab were retrospectively analyzed for demographic variables and survivals. The primary endpoint of the study was the estimation and comparison of median progression-free survival (mPFS) between patients receiving innovator versus generic bevacizumab as first-line therapy (CT1) by the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results: A total of 944 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 652 patients (69%) received bevacizumab as CT1, 449 patients (48%) during second-line chemotherapy (CT2), and 74 patients (8%) during third-line therapy (CT3). The innovator was administered to 132 patients (14%), while the remaining 812 patients (86%) received a generic molecule. With a median follow-up of 18 months, there was no difference in mPFS between patients receiving the innovator or biosimilar (10 vs. 9.3 months, p  = 0.62). Similarly, there was no difference in median overall survival (mOS) between patients receiving the innovator or biosimilar during CT1 (17.8 vs. 18 months, p  = 0.85). Among the patients who received bevacizumab during CT2, there was no statistically significant difference in mPFS between the innovator and the biosimilar (5.5 vs. 5.8 months, p  = 0.97), nor was there a difference in mOS between patients receiving the innovator or biosimilar during CT2 (8.15 vs. 8.58 months, p  = 0.16).

Conclusion: The current study offers RWE to suggest similar outcomes with innovator and generic bevacizumab when combined with chemotherapy in mCRCs. This has significant implications in India and other low- and middle-income countries besides providing oncologists with greater confidence to use these molecules in their clinical practice.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
80
审稿时长
35 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信