Bevacizumab or Aflibercept in Combination with Second-Line FOLFIRI after Progression on FOLFOX Plus Bevacizumab in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Comparative Study.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Journal of Cancer Pub Date : 2026-09-12 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.7150/jca.138530
Okan Aydin, Sermin Dinc Sonusen, Asli Buyukkuscu, Seyyit Bayram Sahin, Serhat Kalkan, Ahmet Emin Ozturk, Mert Erciyestepe, Fatih Atalah, Zehra Sucuoglu Isleyen, Emir Celik, Kayhan Erturk, Muhammed Mustafa Atci
{"title":"Bevacizumab or Aflibercept in Combination with Second-Line FOLFIRI after Progression on FOLFOX Plus Bevacizumab in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Comparative Study.","authors":"Okan Aydin, Sermin Dinc Sonusen, Asli Buyukkuscu, Seyyit Bayram Sahin, Serhat Kalkan, Ahmet Emin Ozturk, Mert Erciyestepe, Fatih Atalah, Zehra Sucuoglu Isleyen, Emir Celik, Kayhan Erturk, Muhammed Mustafa Atci","doi":"10.7150/jca.138530","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimal anti-angiogenic strategy in the second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after progression on first-line FOLFOX plus bevacizumab remains unclear. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of FOLFIRI combined with bevacizumab or aflibercept in this well-defined clinical setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this retrospective single-center study, 152 patients with mCRC who progressed after at least four cycles of first-line FOLFOX plus bevacizumab were included. Of these, 92 patients received FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab and 60 received FOLFIRI plus aflibercept as second-line therapy. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied to account for baseline differences between treatment groups. PFS and OS were evaluated using IPTW-weighted Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No statistically significant difference was observed between the bevacizumab and aflibercept groups for PFS (HR: 1.302, 95% CI: 0.929-1.825, p=0.125) or OS (HR: 1.212, 95% CI: 0.846-1.736, p=0.295) in the IPTW-weighted analyses. Treatment type was not independently associated with PFS or OS in multivariate analyses. Grade 3-4 toxicities were observed in both groups, with neutropenia being the most common; thrombocytopenia and neutropenia were numerically more frequent in the aflibercept group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No statistically significant differences in efficacy were observed between FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab and FOLFIRI plus aflibercept in patients with mCRC progressing after first-line FOLFOX plus bevacizumab. Both strategies represent reasonable second-line options in this setting, highlighting the need for prospective studies to define the optimal sequencing of anti-angiogenic therapies.</p>","PeriodicalId":15183,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer","volume":"17 10","pages":"1733-1743"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13617413/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.138530","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The optimal anti-angiogenic strategy in the second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after progression on first-line FOLFOX plus bevacizumab remains unclear. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of FOLFIRI combined with bevacizumab or aflibercept in this well-defined clinical setting.

Methods: In this retrospective single-center study, 152 patients with mCRC who progressed after at least four cycles of first-line FOLFOX plus bevacizumab were included. Of these, 92 patients received FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab and 60 received FOLFIRI plus aflibercept as second-line therapy. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied to account for baseline differences between treatment groups. PFS and OS were evaluated using IPTW-weighted Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.

Results: No statistically significant difference was observed between the bevacizumab and aflibercept groups for PFS (HR: 1.302, 95% CI: 0.929-1.825, p=0.125) or OS (HR: 1.212, 95% CI: 0.846-1.736, p=0.295) in the IPTW-weighted analyses. Treatment type was not independently associated with PFS or OS in multivariate analyses. Grade 3-4 toxicities were observed in both groups, with neutropenia being the most common; thrombocytopenia and neutropenia were numerically more frequent in the aflibercept group.

Conclusion: No statistically significant differences in efficacy were observed between FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab and FOLFIRI plus aflibercept in patients with mCRC progressing after first-line FOLFOX plus bevacizumab. Both strategies represent reasonable second-line options in this setting, highlighting the need for prospective studies to define the optimal sequencing of anti-angiogenic therapies.

贝伐单抗或阿非利塞普联合二线FOLFIRI治疗转移性结直肠癌:一项比较研究
背景:在一线FOLFOX加贝伐单抗治疗进展的转移性结直肠癌(mCRC)的二线治疗中,最佳抗血管生成策略尚不清楚。我们的目的是在这种明确的临床环境中比较FOLFIRI联合贝伐单抗或阿非利塞普的疗效和安全性。方法:在这项回顾性单中心研究中,纳入了152例在一线FOLFOX加贝伐单抗治疗至少4个周期后进展的mCRC患者。其中,92名患者接受了FOLFIRI +贝伐单抗治疗,60名患者接受了FOLFIRI +阿非利塞普作为二线治疗。应用稳定治疗加权逆概率(IPTW)来解释治疗组之间的基线差异。采用iptw加权Kaplan-Meier和Cox回归分析评估PFS和OS。结果:在iptw加权分析中,贝伐单抗组和阿非利赛组在PFS (HR: 1.302, 95% CI: 0.929-1.825, p=0.125)或OS (HR: 1.212, 95% CI: 0.846-1.736, p=0.295)方面无统计学差异。在多变量分析中,治疗类型与PFS或OS没有独立相关。两组均出现3-4级毒性反应,以中性粒细胞减少最为常见;血小板减少症和中性粒细胞减少症在阿非利西普组发生率更高。结论:在一线FOLFIRI +贝伐单抗治疗进展的mCRC患者中,FOLFIRI +贝伐单抗与FOLFIRI +阿非利赛的疗效无统计学差异。在这种情况下,这两种策略都是合理的二线选择,强调需要前瞻性研究来确定抗血管生成治疗的最佳序列。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Cancer
Journal of Cancer ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
2.60%
发文量
333
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cancer is an open access, peer-reviewed journal with broad scope covering all areas of cancer research, especially novel concepts, new methods, new regimens, new therapeutic agents, and alternative approaches for early detection and intervention of cancer. The Journal is supported by an international editorial board consisting of a distinguished team of cancer researchers. Journal of Cancer aims at rapid publication of high quality results in cancer research while maintaining rigorous peer-review process.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书