Regorafenib or rechallenge chemotherapy: which is more effective in the third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer?
- 284 Downloads
To assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib versus rechallenge chemotherapy in previously treated mCRC patients in third-line setting.
Materials and methods
The data of 104 patients diagnosed with mCRC enrolled from 2010 to 2017 in six oncology centers were analyzed. Tumor treatment options were obtained from follow-up and treatment files. Rechallenge chemotherapy was identified as the re-use of the regimen which was previously administered to patients in one of the therapy lines and obtained disease control, these were the patients whose disease did not progress within 3 months.
A total of 104 patients had received previously two lines of chemotherapy regimens for mCRC. Of these, 73 patients with mCRC who received regorafenib and 31 those who received rechallenge chemotherapy in third-line therapy were analyzed. Overall survival was better with rechallenge than it was with regorafenib (HR 0.29 95% CI 0.16–0.54, p < 0.001). Median OS was 12.0 months (95% CI 8.1–15.9) in rechallenge versus 6.6 months (95% CI 6.0–7.3) in regorafenib group (p < 0.001). Progression-free survival in the rechallenge group showed a higher median value of 9.16 months (95% CI 7.15–11.18) versus with that recorded in the regorafenib group of 3.41 months (95% CI 3.01–3.82), in favor of rechallenge chemotherapy. The most common adverse events of regorafenib was liver function test abnormality and hand–foot syndrome. Although grade 3 or 4 adverse events were similar, non-hematologic toxicities were more common than those of rechallenge.
Rechallenge is still a valuable option against regorafenib in patients who achieved disease control in one of the first two lines of therapy. Even though mCRC patients treated with regorafenib benefited clinically from this treatment, we revealed that chemotherapy rechallenge compared to regorafenib was more effective in the third-line treatment for mCRC patients.
KeywordsRechallenge Regorafenib Metastatic colorectal cancer Overall survival Progression-free survival Third-line
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Shah MA, Renfro LA, Allegra CJ et al (2016) Impact of patient factors on recurrence risk and time dependency of oxaliplatin benefit in patients with colon cancer: analysis from modern-era adjuvant studies in the Adjuvant Colon Cancer End Points (ACCENT) database. J Clin Oncol 34:843–853CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 3.Venook AP, Niedzwiecki D, Lenz HJ et al (2017) Effect of first-line chemotherapy combined with cetuximab or bevacizumab on overall survival in patients with KRAS wild-type advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 317:2392–2401CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 6.Li J, Qin S, Xu R et al (2015) Regorafenib plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care in Asian patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CONCUR): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 16:619–629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Matsuda C, Honda M, Tanaka C et al (2016) Multicenter randomized phase II clinical trial of oxaliplatin reintroduction as a third- or later-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer-biweekly versus standard triweekly XELOX (The ORION Study). Int J Clin Oncol 21(3):566–572CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Kwon HC, Oh SY, Lee S, Kim SH, Kim HJ (2007) Bevacizumab plus infusional 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan for advanced colorectal cancer that progressed after oxaliplatin and irinotecan chemotherapy: a pilot study. World J Gastroenterol 13(46):6231–6235CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar