기관회원 [로그인]
소속기관에서 받은 아이디, 비밀번호를 입력해 주세요.
개인회원 [로그인]

비회원 구매시 입력하신 핸드폰번호를 입력해 주세요.
본인 인증 후 구매내역을 확인하실 수 있습니다.

회원가입
서지반출
Xeliri Plus Bevacizumab Compared with Folfiri Plus Bevacizumab as First-Line Setting in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Experiences at Two-Institutions
[STEP1]서지반출 형식 선택
파일형식
@
서지도구
SNS
기타
[STEP2]서지반출 정보 선택
  • 제목
  • URL
돌아가기
확인
취소
  • Xeliri Plus Bevacizumab Compared with Folfiri Plus Bevacizumab as First-Line Setting in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Experiences at Two-Institutions
  • Xeliri Plus Bevacizumab Compared with Folfiri Plus Bevacizumab as First-Line Setting in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Experiences at Two-Institutions
저자명
Uygun. Kazim,Bilici. Ahmet,Kaya. Serap,Ustaalioglu. Bala Basak Oven,Yildiz. Ramazan,Temiz. Suleyman,Seker. Mesut,Aksu. Gorkem,Ca
간행물명
Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP
권/호정보
2013년|14권 4호|pp.2283-2288 (6 pages)
발행정보
아시아태평양암예방학회
파일정보
정기간행물|ENG|
PDF텍스트
주제분야
기타
이 논문은 한국과학기술정보연구원과 논문 연계를 통해 무료로 제공되는 원문입니다.
서지반출

기타언어초록

Background: Efficacy of chemotherapy plus bevacizumab has been shown in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) compared with chemotherapy alone. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FOLFIRI or XELIRI regimens in combination with bevacizumab for mCRC patients in a first-line setting. Materials and Methods: A total of 132 patients with previously untreated and histologically confirmed mCRC were included. They were treated with either FOLFIRI-Bevacizumab (Bev) or XELIRI-Bev according to physician preference. The efficacy and safety of the two regimens were compared. Results: Between 2006 and 2010, 68 patients were treated with the XELIRI-Bev regimen, while the remaining 64 patients received the FOLFIRI-Bev regimen. The median age was 58.5 years (53.6 years in the FOLFIRI-Bev and 59.7 years in the XELIRI-Bev arm, p=0.01). Objective response rate was 51.6% for FOLFIRI-Bev versus 41.2% for XELIRI-Bev (p=0.38). At the median follow-up of 24.5 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was not different between two groups (14.2 months in FOLFIRI-Bev vs. not reached in the XELIRI-Bev, p=0.30). However, median overall survival time for the FOLFIRI-Bev arm was better than that for patients treated with XELIRIBev, but these differences was not statistically significant (37.8 months vs. 28.7 months, respectively, p=0.58). Most commonly reported grade 3-4 toxicities (FOLFIRI-Bev vs XELIRI-Bev) were nausea/vomiting (7.8% vs. 14.7%, p=0.27), diarrhea (10.9% vs 22.1%, p=0.10), hand-foot syndrome (0% vs 8.8%, p=0.02) and neutropenia (18.7% vs 27.9%, p=0.22). Conclusion: Our results showed that FOLFIRI-Bev and XELIRI-Bev regimens were similarly effective treatments in a first-line setting for patients with untreated mCRC, with manageable adverse event profiles.