Early dissemination of bevacizumab for advanced colorectal cancer: a prospective cohort study

Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
BMC Cancer (Impact Factor: 3.32). 08/2011; 11:354. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-354
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We describe early dissemination patterns for first-line bevacizumab given for metastatic colorectal cancer treatment.
We analyzed patient surveys and medical records for a population-based cohort with metastatic colorectal cancer treated in multiple regions and health systems in the United States (US). Eligible patients were diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer and initiated first-line chemotherapy after US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) bevacizumab approval in February 2004. First-line bevacizumab therapy was defined as receiving bevacizumab within 8 weeks of starting chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. We evaluated factors associated with first-line bevacizumab treatment using logistic regression.
Among 355 patients, 31% received first-line bevacizumab in the two years after FDA approval, including 26% of men, 41% of women, and 16% of those ≥ 75 years. Use rose sharply within 6 months after FDA approval, then plateaued. 20% of patients received bevacizumab in combination with irinotecan; 53% received it with oxaliplatin. Men were less likely than women to receive bevacizumab (adjusted OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.32-0.93; p = 0.026). Patients ≥ 75 years were less likely to receive bevacizumab than patients < 55 years (adjusted OR 0.13; 95% CI 0.04-0.46; p = 0.001).
One-third of eligible metastatic colorectal cancer patients received first-line bevacizumab shortly after FDA approval. Most patients did not receive bevacizumab as part of the regimen used in the pivotal study leading to FDA approval.


Available from: Yousuf Zafar, Jun 03, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Diffusion of new cancer treatments can be both inefficient and incomplete. The uptake of new treatments over time (diffusion) has not been well studied. We analyzed the diffusion of docetaxel in metastatic prostate cancer. We identified metastatic prostate cancer patients diagnosed from 1995 to 2007 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER)-Medicare database. Medicare claims through 2008 were analyzed. We assessed cumulative incidence of docetaxel by socioeconomic, demographic, and comorbidity variables, and compared diffusion patterns to landmark events including release of phase III results and FDA approval dates. We compared docetaxel diffusion patterns in prostate cancer to those in metastatic breast, lung, ovarian, and gastric cancers. To model docetaxel use over time, we used the classic "mixed influence" deterministic diffusion model. All statistical tests were two-sided. We identified 6561 metastatic prostate cancer patients; 1350 subsequently received chemotherapy. Among patients who received chemotherapy, docetaxel use was 95% by 2008. Docetaxel uptake was statistically significantly slower (P < .01) for patients older than 65 years, blacks, patients in lower income areas, and those who experienced poverty. Eighty percent of docetaxel diffusion occurred prior to the May, 2004 release of phase III results showing superiority of docetaxel over standard-of-care. The maximum increase in the rate of use of docetaxel occurred nearly simultaneously for prostate cancer as for all other cancers combined (in 2000). Efforts to increase the diffusion of treatments with proven survival benefits among disadvantaged populations could lead to cancer population survival gains. Docetaxel diffusion mostly preceded phase III evidence for its efficacy in castration-resistant prostate cancer, and appeared to be a cancer-wide-rather than a disease-specific-phenomenon. Diffusion prior to definitive evidence indicates the prevalence of off-label chemotherapy use. © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail:
    JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 02/2015; 107(2). DOI:10.1093/jnci/dju412 · 15.16 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Angiogenesis affects both wound healing and malignant cell growth through nutrients and oxygen. Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is the most important element involved in this complex process. Inhibition of VEGF influences angiogenesis and may restrict tumor growth and metastatic ability. Modern anti-angiogenic therapy is based on this theory. Bevacizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody (immunoglobulin G1) which binds with VEGF-A forming a large molecule. It can not be bound with VEGF tyrosine kinase receptors preventing VEGF-A incorporation; thus its activity is inhibited inducing blockage of VEGF-mediated angiogenesis. Bevacizumab, in combination with chemotherapy or other novel targeted therapeutic agents, is currently used more frequently in clinical practice, mainly for managing advanced colorectal cancer. It is also used for managing other malignancies, such as breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, non small-cell lung cancer, metastatic renal carcinoma and ovarian tumors. Although it is generally considered a safe treatment, there are reports of some rare side effects which should be taken into account. Recent experiments in rats and mice show promising results with a wider therapeutic range.
    World Journal of Gastroenterology 08/2013; 19(31):5051-60. DOI:10.3748/wjg.v19.i31.5051 · 2.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hypertension is the most common adverse effect of the inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway-based therapy (VEGF pathway inhibitors therapy, VPI therapy) in cancer patients. VPI includes monoclonal antibodies against VEGF, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, VEGF Traps, and so-called aptamers that may become clinically relevant in the future. All of these substances inhibit the VEGF pathway, which in turn causes a decrease in nitric oxide (NO) and an increase in blood pressure, with the consequent development of hypertension and its final events (e.g., myocardial infarction or stroke). To our knowledge, there is no current study on how to provide an optimal therapy for patients on VPI therapy with hypertension. This review summarizes the roles of VEGF and NO in vessel biology, provides an overview of VPI agents, and suggests a potential treatment procedure for patients with VPI-induced hypertension.
    American Journal of Hypertension 10/2013; 27(1). DOI:10.1093/ajh/hpt201 · 3.40 Impact Factor