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

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":"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:贝伐单抗的仿制药在印度通常用于晚期/转移性结直肠癌(mCRCs)患者,但与创新的贝伐单抗相比,其疗效的实际证据(RWE)有限。方法:回顾性分析2017年1月至2022年1月期间诊断为mCRC并接受化疗和贝伐单抗联合治疗的患者的人口统计学变量和生存率。该研究的主要终点是通过Kaplan-Meier方法估计和比较接受创新贝伐单抗和仿制贝伐单抗作为一线治疗(CT1)的患者之间的中位无进展生存期(mPFS)。结果:共纳入944例患者,其中652例(69%)患者接受贝伐单抗作为CT1, 449例(48%)患者接受二线化疗(CT2), 74例(8%)患者接受三线化疗(CT3)。132名患者(14%)接受了创新药物治疗,而其余812名患者(86%)接受了通用分子治疗。中位随访时间为18个月,接受创新药物或生物仿制药的患者的mPFS没有差异(10个月vs 9.3个月,p = 0.62)。同样,CT1期间接受创新药物或生物仿制药的患者的中位总生存期(mOS)也没有差异(17.8 vs. 18个月,p = 0.85)。在CT2期间接受贝伐单抗治疗的患者中,创新药物与生物仿制药的mPFS差异无统计学意义(5.5个月vs. 5.8个月,p = 0.97), CT2期间接受创新药物与生物仿制药的患者的mOS差异无统计学意义(8.15个月vs. 8.58个月,p = 0.16)。结论:目前的研究提供了RWE,表明创新贝伐单抗和仿制贝伐单抗联合化疗治疗mccs的结果相似。除了为肿瘤学家在临床实践中使用这些分子提供更大的信心外,这对印度和其他低收入和中等收入国家具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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