Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: A previous phase I/II C-TASK FORCE study of trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab for patients with heavily pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) showed promising activity with an acceptable toxicity profile. This retrospective study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab compared with trifluridine/tipiracil monotherapy in patients with heavily pretreated mCRC in clinical settings. METHODS: Records of patients with mCRC refractory to standard therapies who initiated trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab from January 2016 to March 2018 or trifluridine/tipiracil monotherapy from June 2014 to December 2015 were retrospectively reviewed at our institution. RESULTS: Totally, 60 patients received trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab and 66 received trifluridine/tipiracil monotherapy. All patients had previously received standard chemotherapy. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.7 months 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.3-5.1 in the trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab group and 2.2 months (95% CI, 1.8-2.6) in the trifluridine/tipiracil monotherapy group hazards ratio (HR) 0.69; 95% CI 0.48-0.99. PFS rate at 16 weeks was 46.6% for the trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab group and 33.9% for the trifluridine/tipiracil monotherapy group. Although a relatively higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 neutropenia was observed in the trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab group than that in the other group (50.0% vs. 40.9%, p = 0.371), the incidence of febrile neutropenia was not high (3.3% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.444). CONCLUSIONS: In real-world settings, trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab prolonged PFS and helped achieve higher 16-week PFS rate compared with trifluridine/tipiracil monotherapy in patients with heavily pretreated mCRC with manageable toxicities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered.
Kotani et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: