BMC Cancer (Mar 2024)

Chemotherapy re-use versus anti-angiogenic monotherapy as the third-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world cohort study

  • Jingjing Duan,
  • Lila Zhu,
  • Yinghui Shi,
  • Weixue Wang,
  • Tongtong Wang,
  • Tao Ning,
  • Le Zhang,
  • Ming Bai,
  • Hongli Li,
  • Rui Liu,
  • Shaohua Ge,
  • Xia Wang,
  • Yuchong Yang,
  • Zhi Ji,
  • Feixue Wang,
  • Yansha Sun,
  • Yi Ba,
  • Ting Deng

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-12072-5
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 24, no. 1
pp. 1 – 13

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background There are various recommendations for third-line treatment in mCRC, however, there is no consensus on who is more suitable for particular strategy. Chemotherapy re-use in third-line setting is a common option in clinical practice. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of third-line chemotherapy re-use by the comparison with that of anti-angiogenic monotherapy, and further find the population more suitable for third-line chemotherapy. Methods Using electronic medical records of patients with mCRC, a retrospective cohort study was conducted. A total of 143 patients receiving chemotherapy and 40 patients receiving anti-angiogenic monotherapy in third-line setting as control group were retrospectively collected. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using the χ² test or the Fisher’s exact test. ROC curve and surv_cutpoint function of ‘survminer’ package in R software were used to calculate the cut-off value. Survival curves were plotted with the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared using the log-rank test. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to analyze the potential risk factors. Results A total of 143 patients receiving chemotherapy and 40 patients receiving anti-angiogenic monotherapy in third-line setting were retrospectively collected. Chemotherapy rechallenge was recorded in 93 patients (93/143, 65.0%), and the remaining patients chose new chemotherapeutic drugs that had not been previously used, including irinotecan-based (22/50), oxaliplatin-based (9/50), raltitrexed (9/50), gemcitabine (5/50) and other agents (5/50). The ORR and DCR of third-line chemotherapy reached 8.8%, 61.3%, respectively (anti-angiogenic monotherapy group: ORR 2.6%, DCR 47.4%). The mPFS and mOS of patients receiving chemotherapy were 4.9 and 12.0 m, respectively (anti-angiogenic monotherapy group: mPFS 2.7 m, mOS 5.2 m). Subgroup analyses found that patients with RAS/RAF mutation, longer PFS (greater than 10.6 m) in front-line treatment or larger tumor burden had better prognosis with third-line chemotherapy rather than anti-angiogenic monotherapy. Conclusions Third-line chemotherapy re-use was effective in mCRC. Those with more aggressive characteristics (RAS/RAF mutant, larger tumor burden) or better efficacy of previous chemotherapy (longer PFS) were more appropriate for third-line chemotherapy, rather than anti-angiogenic monotherapy.

Keywords