Comparison of irinotecan and oxaliplatin as the first-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

BMC Cancer

Keita Mori¹  Takanori Kawabata¹  Akifumi Notsu¹  Nozomi Takeshima²  Yu Hayasaka³  Kentaro Yamazaki⁴  Hirofumi Yasui⁴  Sadayuki Kawai⁵  Mutsumi Yamazaki⁶ 

[1] Clinical Research Center, Shizuoka Cancer Center, 1007 Shimonagakubo, Nagaizumi, Sunto-gun, 411-8777, Shizuoka, Japan;Department of Psychiatry, Kitabayashi Hospital, 7-58 Nakamura-cho, Nakamura-ku, 453-0053, Nagoya, Aichi, Japan;Department of Psychiatry, Tsukuba Psychosomatics Clinic, 5-12-4, Kenkyu-gakuen, Tsukuba, 305-0817, Ibaraki, Japan;Division of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Shizuoka Cancer Center, 1007 Shimonagakubo, Nagaizumi, Sunto-gun, 411-8777, Shizuoka, Japan;Division of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Shizuoka Cancer Center, 1007 Shimonagakubo, Nagaizumi, Sunto-gun, 411-8777, Shizuoka, Japan;Department of Medical Oncology, Shizuoka General Hospital, 4-27-1 Kita ando, Aoi-ku, 420-8527, Shizuoka City, Japan;Information Management Office, Shizuoka Cancer Center, 1007 Shimonagakubo, Nagaizumi, Sunto-gun, 411-8777, Shizuoka, Japan;

关键词: Meta-analysis;    Metastatic colorectal cancer;    Chemotherapy;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12885-021-07823-7

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundIrinotecan (IRI) and oxaliplatin (Ox) are standard therapeutic agents of the first-line treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showed that treatment with Ox-based compared with IRI-based regimens was associated with better overall survival (OS). However, these reports did not include trials of molecular targeting agents and did not take methods for the administration of concomitant drugs, such as bolus or continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil, into account. A systematic literature review was performed to compare the efficacy and toxicity profiles between IRI- and Ox-based regimens as the first-line treatments for mCRC.MethodsThis meta-analysis used data from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and SCOPUS. The primary endpoint was OS, and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs).ResultsNineteen trials involving 4571 patients were included in the analysis. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of OS, PFS, and ORR. There was no significant heterogeneity. Regarding ≥ grade 3 AEs, IRI-based regimens were associated with a high incidence of leukopenia, febrile neutropenia, and diarrhea. Moreover, there was a high incidence of thrombocytopenia and peripheral sensory neuropathy in patients who received Ox-based regimens. In a subgroup analysis, IRI combined with bevacizumab was correlated with a better PFS (HR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.82–0.98, P = 0.02), but not with OS (pooled HR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.80–1.03, P = 0.15).ConclusionAlthough the safety profiles of IRI- and Ox-based regimens varied, their efficacy did not significantly differ. The combination of anti-VEGF antibody and IRI was associated with better PFS compared with anti-VEGF antibody and Ox. Both regimens could be used as the first-line treatments for mCRC with consideration of the patients’ condition or toxicity profiles.

【 授权许可】

CC BY