{"title":"创新贝伐单抗与生物仿制药贝伐单抗治疗晚期结直肠癌比较结果的真实世界证据","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":"{\"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}","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}
Real-World Evidence for Comparative Outcomes between Innovator and Biosimilar Bevacizumab in Advanced Colorectal Cancers.
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.