Colorectal Cancer Coverage from Every Angle
Advertisement
Advertisement

Panitumumab Versus Bevacizumab in Regimens for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

By: Joshua D. Madera, MS
Posted: Friday, July 31, 2020

For patients with RAS wild-type nonresectable metastatic colorectal cancer, first-line treatment with panitumumab and modified FOLFOX6 improved the objective response rate when compared with bevacizumab plus the same chemotherapy regimen, according to a presentation during the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer 2020 Virtual (ESMO World GI; Abstract P-9). However, there were no significant improvements in progression-free or overall survival with the panitumumab regimen versus the regimen with bevacizumab, reported Said Belhadef, MD, of Rouiba Public Hospital, Algeria, and colleagues.

From 2016 to 2019, a total of 190 patients with RAS wild-type nonresectable metastatic colorectal cancer were enrolled in the study. All patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of at least 2, no organ dysfunction, and no contraindication to the study drugs. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either panitumumab plus modified FOLFOX6 (leucovorin, fluorouracil, oxaliplatin; n = 100) or bevacizumab plus modified FOLFOX6 (n = 90).

The investigators reported early objective responses of 42% and 25% in patients receiving panitumumab and bevacizumab, respectively. In addition, there was a 10-month median progression-free survival and an 18-month median overall survival in patients from both treatment groups. Despite the consistent safety profile with both agents, surgery for liver metastasis occurred in 21% of patients taking panitumumab and 6.2% of patients taking bevacizumab.

Furthermore, grade 3 and 4 adverse effects were observed across both treatment groups. They included skin rashes (11% with panitumumab vs. 1% with bevacizumab), diarrhea (5% vs. 5.6%), intestinal obstruction (4% vs. 5.6%), fatigue (4% vs. 1%), hypertension (0% vs. 5.6%), and peripheral neuropathy (0% vs. 5.6%).

Disclosure: The study authors reported no conflicts of interest.



By continuing to browse this site you permit us and our partners to place identification cookies on your browser and agree to our use of cookies to identify you for marketing. Read our Privacy Policy to learn more.
Advertisement
Advertisement