Abstract
Although major progress has been achieved in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) with the employment of antiangiogenic agents, several questions remain on the use of these drugs in older patients. Since cardiovascular, renal and other comorbidities are common in the elderly, an accurate assessment of the patients’ conditions should be performed before a treatment decision is made. Since most CRC patients enrolled in clinical trials testing antiangiogenic drugs were aged < 65 years, the efficacy and tolerability of these agents in elderly patients has not been adequately explored. Data suggest that patients with advanced CRC derive similar benefit from bevacizumab treatment regardless of age, but the advantage of other antiangiogenic drugs in the same class of patients appears more blurred. Literature data suggest that specific antiangiogenic-related toxicities such as hypertension or arterial thromboembolic events may be higher in the elderly than in the younger patients. In addition, it should be emphasized that the patients included in the clinical studies discussed herein were selected and therefore may not be representative of the usual elderly population. Advanced age alone should not discourage the use of bevacizumab. However, a careful patients’ selection and watchful monitoring of toxicities are required to optimize the use of antiangiogenics in this population.
Keywords: Advanced colorectal cancer, Bevacizumab, Elderly, Antiangiogenesis, Chemotherapy
Core tip: Although promising, limited evidence supports the use of antiangiogenic drugs to treat elderly colorectal cancer patients, that also may have increased toxicities compared to younger subjects. However, advanced age per-se should not discourage the use of these drugs. Since older patients constitute a heterogeneous population in terms of overall health status and comorbid conditions, a careful patients’ selection and a watchful monitoring of potential treatment-related side effects are recommended to optimize the use of angiogenesis inhibitors in this population.
INTRODUCTION
Whilst most of cancer diagnosis and deaths occur in older subjects[1,2], three major factors are shaping the scenery in which the advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) is managed in all developed countries. Firstly, people are steadily aging and cancer incidence and prevalence are rising among senior citizens[3,4]. Secondly, the incorporation of new drugs within more complex treatment strategies has raised the median survival of CRC patients to unprecedented figures of 30 mo[5]. Lastly, more often than before, aggressive surgery and other regional approaches are performed with curative intent in older oligometastatic patients. As a result, the soaring demand for care of senior with CRC is likely to further increase. Although many elderly cancer patients have concurrent chronic disorders or morbidities requiring medical treatment and present with diminished organ functions, impairment of daily vital activities or minor cognitive deficits, the majority of them are treated with systemic chemotherapy and/or biologics[6,7]. Bevacizumab, a humanized vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor, has proven efficacy when added to systemic chemotherapy regardless CRC patients’ age in first or subsequent lines of therapy[8]. Specific data regarding its use in the older population are limited. Nevertheless, one out of three patients receive bevacizumab beyond 65 years of age[9]. Chronological age is still a major barrier that limits the proposal of standard treatment options to the elderly and the harm-to-benefit risk is particularly challenging when treating with noncurative intent[10]. However, patients’ chronologic age does not always reflect their overall health status and older patients are highly heterogeneous because of dissimilar types and grades of concurrent morbidities. All these reasons may increase the difficulty in choosing the most appropriate treatment. Besides, advanced age is a common exclusion criteria to be recruited in clinical trials so that elderly patients have been underrepresented in CRC studies and the few included, usually representing less than 15% of the whole trial population, are highly selected. Despite recent studies have demonstrated the usefulness of a comprehensive geriatric assessment, its adoption in the clinical practice is still limited. Herein, we present the latest data regarding the use of antiangiogenic drugs in older CRC patients, specifically focusing at safety issues and efficacy results of landmark clinical studies.
THE IMPORTANCE OF ANGIOGENESIS IN COLORECTAL CANCERS
Angiogenesis is a cornerstone of tumor mass expansion. In response to hypoxia, the activation of hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) triggers the expression of VEGF, one of the most important proangiogenic molecules[11], and its numerous isoforms[12]. In order to grow, CRCs need to continually acquire new blood supplies throughout the neoangiogenetic process, the formation of new capillaries rising from the splitting of existing ones. In the same way as in other solid tumors, angiogenesis plays an important role in CRC progression and metastatization, and its therapeutic inhibition has become a key component of anticancer treatment. Bevacizumab, the first Food and Drug Administration-labeled antiangiogenic antibody, was been approved for clinical use after showing efficacy in combination with chemotherapy in CRC patients. Still, many issues are unresolved, such as the lack of validated predictive biomarkers[13], the reasons for initial or acquired resistance to VEGF-inhibitors, and the uncertainty surrounding the opportunity for further antiangiogenic treatment beyond tumor progression. The study of non-endothelial cells involved in the neoangiogenesis through the production of growth factors or the modulation of cell-matrix interactions is of interest[14]. For example, pericyte recruitment, a key phenomenon in the neovascular formation that is regulated by platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β) and angiopoietin/Tie2, may be blocked by a number of novel antiangiogenic multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), including sunitinib, sorafenib, and regorafenib.
ANTIANGIOGENIC DRUGS IN OLDER CRC PATIENTS: FRIENDS OR FOES?
Elderly patients who received 5-FU either alone[15] or in combination with irinotecan[16] or oxaliplatin[17] had similar survival benefits when compared to younger patients, although they may suffer higher rates of specific toxicities[18]. Despite these reassuring data, clinicians tend to be conservative when considering systemic therapy in the elderly, either not proceeding or upfront reducing chemotherapy doses[19]. The use of antiangiogenic drugs in patients with advanced CRC is supported by strong scientific evidence and common bevacizumab-related side-effects have been extensively described. Although its treatment effect does not seem to be influenced by patients’ age, specific outcome data on the use of bevacizumab in elderly patients derive from retrospective subpopulation analyses of large randomized controlled trials[20], small phase 2 studies[21-25], non-randomized community-based registries[26-29], or cohort studies[30,31], and have been summarized elsewhere[32].
In all, available data suggest that medically fit older CRC patients exposed to bevacizumab achieved the same benefits compared to younger patients[33,34], with a similar toxicity profile, except for a significant increase in arterial thrombosis[20].
More recently, the randomized phase III AVEX study has prospectively evaluated the additive effect of bevacizumab in the older CRC population. In this trial, 280 elderly patients (median age 76 years, range 70-87 years) received either capecitabine alone (1000 mg/sqm bid days 1-14, q21) or combined with bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg). Over 90% of the enrolled patients had ECOG PS ≤ 1. Clinically significant cardiovascular disease was among exclusion criteria. The simultaneous use of bevacizumab produced significant increase of median PFS (9.1 mo vs 5.1 mo, HR = 0.53). Interestingly, the RR was twice as high in the combination arm (19.3% vs 10.0%) while the safety profile was similar to that previously reported when testing the combination of capecitabine and bevacizumab. Although the trial was underpowered to detect differences in survival, median OS was longer in the experimental arm (20.7 mo vs 16.8 mo, HR = 0.79)[35]. Nevertheless, senior patients are usually underrepresented in well-designed randomized clinical trials and those enrolled, with good PS and few comorbidities, may not represent the average elderly population. This is the main reason why although skilled in dealing with hypertension, proteinuria, vascular thromboembolic events, bleeding, congestive heart failure, gastrointestinal perforation, and wound-healing complications, most oncologists fear that frequency and intensity of those side-effects might be greater in older CRC patients and the benefit-to-risk ratio less favorable in the general practice.
ANTIANGIOGENIC-INDUCED HYPERTENSION IN OLDER CRC PATIENTS
Epidemiological data collected over the last 30 years have demonstrated that the increasing prevalence of hypertension with age is linked to the combination of increased arterial stiffness, neurohormonal and autonomic dysregulation, and the progressive decline of renal function[36-38]. In the elderly, hypertension per-se is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The increase of blood pressure, the most frequent side-effect of systemic inhibition of VEGF signaling, may occur at any time during therapy and it is often associated with asymptomatic proteinuria that spontaneously resolves as soon as treatment ends[39-41]. According to a retrospective review that found an incidence of increased blood pressure of 29% in patients aged > 75 years vs 11% in those aged 65 to 75 years[42], advanced age has to be considered a risk factors for the development of bevacizumab-induced hypertension.
Since hypertension-related disorders, such as stroke or myocardial infarction, have been reported with a higher incidence in older patients, a careful home-based daily blood pressure monitoring is suggested during the whole treatment period[43,44]. Older patients developing elevated systolic blood pressure may be at particular risk for complication, since this event is even more associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality than diastolic hypertension[45].
Management of antiangiogenic-induced hypertension in older patients usually requires standard treatment and should be promptly adopted[46]. An 1.5%-3.4% 60-d mortality rate has been reported for CRC patients older than 65 years who developed or worsened preexisting hypertension during exposure to bevacizumab in the BRITE trial[26]. How to manage this side-effect has been largely discussed. The upfront use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors is supported by their ability to counteract bevacizumab-induced plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and this intervention is widely adopted in the general population[47]. However, the optimal treatment strategy in the elderly population is unconfirmed and the use of diuretics may be preferred. The JNC-7 hypertension guidelines suggested the use of thiazidic diuretics either alone or in combination as initial therapy for older patients[48]. Importantly, the Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial study showed that the use of indapamide, either alone or combined with perindopril,significantly reduced the incidence of stroke and heart failure even in patients aged ≥ 80 years[49,50]. Although the long term benefits from antihypertensive drug treatment may be relevant for elderly subjects, fit octogenarians with bevacizumab-induced hypertension and a reduced life-expectancy should achieve benefits from intervention as soon as possible. Actually, immediate treatment compared with delayed treatment reduced the occurrence of stroke by 28% and cardiovascular complications by 15% in the Systolic Hypertension in Europe extension trial[51].
Interestingly, retrospective studies have consistently reported a better survival outcome for patients who had developed bevacizumab-induced hypertension[52,53]. Inhibition of VEGF signaling may induce a rapid increase in blood pressure, suggesting that hypertension could be a useful pharmacodynamic surrogate marker of VEGF activity[54]. However, a retrospective analysis of seven randomized phase III trials with bevacizumab in different types of metastatic cancers, showed that the correlation between the vascular side-effect and the clinical outcome was shaggy, since the development of bevacizumab-induced hypertension inconsistently predicted longer PFS and OS[55].
OTHER CARDIOVASCULAR SIDE-EFFECTS: VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLIC EVENTS, ARTERIAL THROMBOEMBOLIC EVENTS, BLEEDING, AND HEARTH FAILURE
Older cancer patients are at increased risk for vascular thrombosis[56-59], More specifically, placebo-controlled trials confirmed that the risk for venous thromboembolic events (VTE) is higher when the patient is aged ≥ 65, diagnosed with gastrointestinal malignancies, or receiving antiangiogenic drugs[60]. The average risk for VTE among ambulatory patients undergoing chemotherapy exceeds 12% over one year after treatment initiation, being the use of bevacizumab a potential risk factors[61,62]. Nevertheless, a pivotal randomized trial enrolling over 800 CRC patients showed similar VTE incidences (19.4% vs 16.2%) regardless of bevacizumab exposure[63]. In addition, a large pooled analysis showed similar incidence of all-grade VTE among CRC cancer patients exposed to bevacizumab (10.9%) compared to the control group (9.8%), with a similar median time to VTE of 2.2 mo vs 1.7 mo[64]. Moreover, a real-practice observational study enrolling 637 advanced CRC patients reported a VTE incidence rate of only 4% in those aged over 65 years[9]. Taking into account these data, it remains to be clarified if thromboprophylaxis should be considered for all cancer patients[65,66], or limited to older patients with limited mobility[67].
Some concerns surround the use of antiangiogenic drugs and the risk of arterial thromboembolic events (ATE) in elderly patients, many of whom may have preexisting cardiovascular risk factors or known cardiovascular disease. Although the event-related death rate remained low, the overall incidence of ATE is close to 4% for advanced CRC patients receiving bevacizumab, and less than 2% in those receiving chemotherapy alone. Significant risk factors for ATE are the history of previous VTE (HR = 2.17) and the older age (HR = 3.65)[43]. In the BRITE (Bevacizumab regimens: investigation of treatment effects and safety) study, the rate of ATE was identical in patients aged < 65 years old (1.4%) compared with those aged between 65-74 years (1.4%), but it was significantly higher in patients aged > 75 years (4.8%). The analysis of the MAX AGTGC showed that bevacizumab was associated with a modestly higher risk of ATE, but the safety profile was similar regardless of age, previous history of ATE or other vascular risk factors[68]. Whether the use of low-dose aspirin may be beneficial in reducing the rate of cardiovascular events in cancer patients as well as in the general population[69] is plausible but unproven.
Atrial fibrillation and coronary artery disease are prevalent with increasing age. Patients on antithrombotic treatment for those conditions should be carefully monitored since bleeding is another potentially severe bevacizumab-induced adverse event[70]. Whether patients on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy could be safely treated with bevacizumab is unclear[71]. Patients receiving full-dose anticoagulants have a limited risk of severe bleeding (< 1%) regardless concomitant antiangiogenic exposure[64] and advanced CRC patients treated with bevacizumab while on low-dose acetylsalicylic acid experienced similar rates of bleeding compared to the others (11% vs 14%, P = 0.13)[72]. Nonetheless, because of the retrospective nature of the data, a note of caution should be used in patients who are candidates for bevacizumab and are receiving full-dose anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy.
A large population-based study evaluated the risk of cardiovascular events (ATE, cardiac death, cardiomiopathy or congestive hearth failure) among 6803 older CRC patients receiving bevacizumab and chemotherapy[73]. Median age of included patients 73 years and a fifth were 80 years or older. The cohort study confirmed that the cardiovascular risk of bevacizumab use is modest, reporting no clear association between bevacizumab use and cardiovascular events and a lower than expected increased risk for ATE (HR = 1.82). Accordingly, a large Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results Medicare analysis suggested that older CRC patients treated with bevacizumab do not experience an increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events compared with patients not treated with bevacizumab[74]. Nevertheless, in the presence of ECgraphic signs of asymptomatic ischemia or in the case of angina or myocardial infarction, antiangiogenic treatment should be immediately discontinued[75].
ANTIANGIOGENIC-INDUCED PROTEINURIA AND THE AGING RENAL FUNCTION
Animal models showed that VEGF is critical in the regulation of renal vascular network and that perturbations of VEGF expression may damage cellular architecture and function, leading to hypertension and proteinuria[76]. Clinical data confirmed that bevacizumab may induce thrombotic microangiopathy by reducing glomerular VEGF, and the presence of podocyturia in patients treated with antiangiogenic drugs suggested that to quantify urinary podocyte excretion may be a highly sensitive indicator of glomerular damage[77]. A retrospective chart review showed that only 1.6% of patients developed severe proteinuria during bevacizumab administration; baseline chronic kidney disease and the development of hypertension significantly correlated with its occurrence (P < 0.01)[78]. Indeed, a number of factors may increase the chance for antiangiogenic-induced renal toxicity among elderly patients, including age-related renal structural changes and limited nephron reserve, baseline comorbid conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, or cardiovascular diseases, and the use of polypharmacy or potentially nephrotoxic agents[79]. Since renal failure is initially asymptomatic, a decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) or/and an increased albumin-to-creatinine ratio (albuminuria > 30 mg/g of creatinine) may suggest initial kidney damage and forecast later kidney failure[80]. Therefore, an accurate assessment of renal function is essential during antiangiogenic therapy, especially for elderly people at risk of developing renal dysfunctions. In the clinical practice, elderly CRC patients should be accurately screened for proteinuria before starting bevacizumab or other antiangiogenic drugs by dipstick urine analysis, and a 24-h urine collection is suggested when a 2+ or greater urine dipstick reading is detected. The frequency of the test during the course of therapy should be customized.
THE ISSUE OF THE INTACT PRIMARY TUMOR IN THE ELDERLY
Metastatic CRC patients with intact primary tumor seldom require palliative treatment while on systemic upfront chemotherapy[81,82]. Although bevacizumab has been associated with a 2% incidence of bowel perforation and a possible increased risk may exist in those with intact primary tumor, upfront noncurative intestinal resection of asymptomatic metastatic CRC patients may be avoided[83,84]. Among 1953 bevacizumab-treated patients included in the BRITE study, 37 (1.9%) developed gastrointestinal perforation[85]. Twenty-six of these cases (70%) occurred within the first 6 mo since treatment start, with a median time to event of 3.5 mo. The presence of an intact primary tumor (HR = 2.0) or having received radiotherapy (HR = 2.1) were significant risk factors for perforation. Interestingly, the study failed to show higher rates of perforation in patients with history of peptic ulcer disease, diverticulosis, or in those who chronically used aspirin (≥ 325 mg/d) or other anti-inflammatory drugs. Moreover, the event was less frequently reported among those aged > 65 (1.1%) compared to those younger than 66 (2.6%) with an HR of 0.49. Similarly, in the MAX AGTGC trial, no gastrointestinal perforations were reported in CRC patients aged over 75 years exposed to bevacizumab, but 4 cases noted in the younger cohort[34]. Alongside, the rate of intestinal perforation was 3.6% among 223 patients with unresected primary tumor compared to 1.2% among 1373 patients who had been previously resected in the First BEAT study, although an age breakdown was not available[86].
IS MAINTENANCE WITH BEVACIZUMAB USEFUL IN THE ELDERLY?
Showing a greater benefit if bevacizumab was given until disease progression, results of No. 19966 trial suggested a possible role of antiangiogenic drugs in the maintenance phase[87]. In addition, a number of randomized studies have been conducted to formally assess the role of bevacizumab as maintenance agent[88]. In the MACRO (Maintenance in Colorectal) trial, 480 CRC patients were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of bevacizumab, capecitabine, and oxaliplatin every 3 wk followed by bevacizumab either alone or combined with the same chemotherapy regimen until progression[89]. A slightly longer median PFS was reported in the combination arm (10.4 mo vs 9.7 mo), although burdened by a higher rate of severe sensory neuropathy (26% vs 8%) and HFS (13% vs 7%). Up today, the role of bevacizumab as maintenance therapy is still controversial[90] and additional randomized maintenance studies, such as the AIO KRK0207, the CAIRO-3, the FFCD Prodige 9, and the SAKK 41/06 trial, will soon clarify the point. Waiting for more substantial data, small non-randomized studies have investigated the role of bevacizumab as maintenance therapy. In the BOXE study, 44 elderly CRC patients with median age of 74 years (range 70-84 years) received XELOX and bevacizumab at the dose of 7.5 mg/kg every 3 wk for up to 8 cycles followed by maintenance with single-agent bevacizumab at the same dose[23]. The trial suggested that the combination is feasible and safe in the elderly population and a maintenance with bevacizumab may be offered to responding patients with the intent to prolong PFS.
NOVEL ANTIANGIOGENIC ANTIBODIES: DO THEY FOSTER HOPE FOR OLDER PATIENTS?
Among the more promising novel drugs, aflibercept and ramucirumab deserve to be presented. Aflibercept, a humanized protein composed of the extracellular domains of VEGFR-1/2 fused onto the constant region of human IgG, was specifically designed to bind VEGF-A, VEGF-B, and PIGF. VELOUR is a phase III placebo-controlled trial that tested the combination of FOLFIRI and aflibercept for advancer CRC patients that had failed an oxaliplatin-based first-line therapy[91]. The primary endpoint of the trial was OS; secondary endpoints included PFS, overall response rate, and safety. Median age of patients treated with aflibercept was 61 years (range 21-82 years). Patients exposed to aflibercept had longer median OS (13.5 mo vs 12 mo, HR = 0.81) and PFS (6.9 mo vs 4.6 mo, HR = 0.75) compared to those who were not. However, the toxicity profile was not negligible. While the increases in hypertension and proteinuria were expected as class side-effects, patients receiving aflibercept reported unforeseen significantly higher rates of severe diarrhea (19.3% vs 7.8%), fatigue (16.9% vs 10.6%), stomatitis (13.7% vs 5.0%), and neutropenia (36.7% vs 29.5%). This should be considered when offering the treatment to older subjects because they may have increased toxicity when treated with second-line FOLFIRI. Ramucirumab, a VEGFR-2 inhibitor that has shown efficacy in second line gastric cancer, is being studied combined with FOLFOX in the RAISE trial[92]. In this phase 3 study, over 1000 CRC patients that have previously failed first-line FOLFIRI and bevacizumab are randomized to FOLFOX or FOLFOX plus ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) every 2 wk. Results are eagerly awaited.
IS THERE A ROLE FOR ORAL TKI IN CRC?
In the last few years a number of small molecule inhibiting the VEGF pathway have been tested for advanced CRC patients with disappointing results. A phase III randomized trial compared FOLFIRI plus sunitinib (37.5 mg every 4 out of 6 wk) to FOLFIRI alone in 768 patients with advanced disease[93]. At the second planned interim analysis the trial was stopped because the data monitoring committee found that the futility boundary had been crossed and more toxicity events were reported in the experimental arm, including neutropenia and severe diarrhea. Final results confirmed no differences in median PFS (7.8 mo vs 8.4 mo, HR = 1.05) and a more severe toxic profile.
Vatalanib (PTK787/ZK222584) is an antiangiogenic TKI that blocks VEGFR-1, 2, and 3 by acting as a competitive inhibitor at the adenosine triphosphate–binding site of the receptor kinase. Two randomized, placebo-controlled, large phase 3 trials studied the role of vatalanib in CRC patients treated upfront or in second-line setting[94,95]. The CONFIRM-1 study showed that the addition of vatalanib to FOLFOX-4 had no impact on median PFS (7.7 mo vs 7.6 mo, HR = 0.88) or OS (21.4 mo vs 20.5 mo, HR = 1.08) compared with FOLFOX-4 alone as first-line treatment. Similarly, the CONFIRM-2 trial compared FOLFOX plus vatalanib or placebo in 855 advanced CRC patients after the failure of a first-line treatment. Again, marginal differences in terms of PFS (5.6 mo vs 4.2 mo, HR = 0.83) were registered with identical survival results (OS 13.1 mo vs 11.9 mo). In both trials, more gastrointestinal toxicities, dizziness, anorexia, pulmonary embolism and hypertension were reported in the vatalanib group. Taken together, the results of these trials suggested the uselessness of vatalanib for CRC patients, although a PFS advantage (HR = 0.65) was noted in those patients with higher lactate dehydrogenase baseline values.
The combination of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy and cediranib, a potent inhibitor of the VEGF family receptor tyrosine kinases with multitarget TKI properties, has been extensively tested. The HORIZON III trial compared FOLFOX plus cediranib (20 mg, daily) or bevacizumab in over 1400 advanced CRC patients in first-line setting[96]. The study did not meet its primary endpoint and the group exposed to cediranib experienced more toxicity. In addition, the randomized HORIZON II trial showed a marginal improvement in median PFS (8.6 mo vs 8.3 mo) when cediranib was added to FOLFOX or XELOX (vs placebo), without overall survival differences[97]. A third randomized trial compared the outcome of advanced CRC patients receiving FOLFOX combined to bevacizumab or cediranib at two different daily doses (20 or 30 mg)[98]. The trial revealed reduced median PFS for the low-dose cediranib group compared to the standard arm (5.8 mo vs 7.2 mo). Similar outcome results and increased toxicity rates were noted when comparing the high-dose cediranib arm to the standard arm.
After all these unsatisfactory data, regorafenib renewed the interest in oral VEGF inhibitors for CRC patients. Regorafenib is an oral multi-kinase inhibitor which targets angiogenic, stromal and oncogenic receptor TK[99]. In the randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled CORRECT study 760 advanced CRC patients received regorafenib or placebo plus best supportive care after progression to all approved standard therapies[100]. Overall survival, the primary endpoint, was significantly increased from 5 to 6.4 mo. The most common regorafenib-related AE included fatigue (47.4%), HFSR (46.6%), diarrhea (33.8%), anorexia (30.4%), voice alteration (29.4%), hypertension (27.8%), mucositis (27.2%), and rash/desquamation (26.0%).
Currently, there are no available data on the specific use of these new drugs in the elderly, and trials designed specifically for older patients are strongly desirable.
CONCLUSION
There is strong evidence for efficacy of bevacizumab and other antiangiogenic drugs in the treatment of advanced CRC. Older age per-se should not represent a stringent limit for the employ of these agents. However, the widespread clinical use of antiangiogenetics to treat elderly CRC patients should be cautious and always deserves a personalized benefit-to-risk evaluation along with a careful monitoring of cardiovascular and renal potential side effects.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dr. Giuseppe Aprile has received honoraria for speaking at symposia and participating in advisory boards from Roche, Amgen, and Merck-Serono.
Footnotes
P- Reviewer Petrelli F S- Editor Wen LL L- Editor A E- Editor Ma S
References
- 1.Yancik R. Cancer burden in the aged: an epidemiologic and demographic overview. Cancer. 1997;80:1273–1283. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Smith BD, Smith GL, Hurria A, Hortobagyi GN, Buchholz TA. Future of cancer incidence in the United States: burdens upon an aging, changing nation. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2758–2765. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.8983. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Miniño AM, Murphy SL, Xu J, Kochanek KD. Deaths: final data for 2008. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2011;59:1–126. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Cokkinides VE, Bandi P, Siegel RL, Jemal A. Cancer-related risk factors and preventive measures in US Hispanics/Latinos. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62:353–363. doi: 10.3322/caac.21155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Heinemann V, Douillard JY, Ducreux M, Peeters M. Targeted therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer - An example of personalised medicine in action. Cancer Treat Rev. 2013;39:592–601. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2012.12.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Cashman J, Wright J, Ring A. The treatment of co-morbidities in older patients with metastatic cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18:651–655. doi: 10.1007/s00520-010-0813-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Muss HB. Older age--not a barrier to cancer treatment. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1127–1128. doi: 10.1056/nejm200110113451512. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Köhne CH, Folprecht G, Goldberg RM, Mitry E, Rougier P. Chemotherapy in elderly patients with colorectal cancer. Oncologist. 2008;13:390–402. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2007-0043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Bonifazi M, Rossi M, Moja L, Scigliano VD, Franchi M, La Vecchia C, Zocchetti C, Negri E. Bevacizumab in clinical practice: prescribing appropriateness relative to national indications and safety. Oncologist. 2012;17:117–124. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Mohile SG, Keplin HD, Rao AV. 2012 ASCO Meeting Educational Book. American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2012. pp. 321–328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Carmeliet P, Jain RK. Molecular mechanisms and clinical applications of angiogenesis. Nature. 2011;473:298–307. doi: 10.1038/nature10144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Hicklin DJ, Ellis LM. Role of the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway in tumor growth and angiogenesis. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:1011–1027. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.06.081. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Lambrechts D, Lenz HJ, de Haas S, Carmeliet P, Scherer SJ. Markers of response for the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1219–1230. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.46.2762. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Gaengel K, Genové G, Armulik A, Betsholtz C. Endothelial-mural cell signaling in vascular development and angiogenesis. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2009;29:630–638. doi: 10.1161/ATVBAHA.107.161521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Folprecht G, Cunningham D, Ross P, Glimelius B, Di Costanzo F, Wils J, Scheithauer W, Rougier P, Aranda E, Hecker H, et al. Efficacy of 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a pooled analysis of clinical trials. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:1330–1338. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdh344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Folprecht G, Seymour MT, Saltz L, Douillard JY, Hecker H, Stephens RJ, Maughan TS, Van Cutsem E, Rougier P, Mitry E, et al. Irinotecan/fluorouracil combination in first-line therapy of older and younger patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: combined analysis of 2,691 patients in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1443–1451. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.0509. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Goldberg RM, Tabah-Fisch I, Bleiberg H, de Gramont A, Tournigand C, Andre T, Rothenberg ML, Green E, Sargent DJ. Pooled analysis of safety and efficacy of oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil/leucovorin administered bimonthly in elderly patients with colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4085–4091. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.9039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.D’Andre S, Sargent DJ, Cha SS, Buroker TR, Kugler JW, Goldberg RM, O’Connell MJ, Poon MA. 5-Fluorouracil-based chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer in elderly patients: a north central cancer treatment group study. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2005;4:325–331. doi: 10.3816/ccc.2005.n.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Quipourt V, Jooste V, Cottet V, Faivre J, Bouvier AM. Comorbidities alone do not explain the undertreatment of colorectal cancer in older adults: a French population-based study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59:694–698. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03334.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Cassidy J, Saltz LB, Giantonio BJ, Kabbinavar FF, Hurwitz HI, Rohr UP. Effect of bevacizumab in older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: pooled analysis of four randomized studies. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2010;136:737–743. doi: 10.1007/s00432-009-0712-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Feliu J, Safont MJ, Salud A, Losa F, García-Girón C, Bosch C, Escudero P, López R, Madroñal C, Bolaños M, et al. Capecitabine and bevacizumab as first-line treatment in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2010;102:1468–1473. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605663. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Vrdoljak E, Omrčen T, Boban M, Hrabar A. Phase II study of bevacizumab in combination with capecitabine as first-line treatment in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Anticancer Drugs. 2011;22:191–197. doi: 10.1097/CAD.0b013e3283417f3e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Rosati G, Avallone A, Aprile G, Butera A, Reggiardo G, Bilancia D. XELOX and bevacizumab followed by single-agent bevacizumab as maintenance therapy as first-line treatment in elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer: the boxe study. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2013;71:257–264. doi: 10.1007/s00280-012-2004-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Carreca IU, Bellomo FM, Pernice G, Antista M, Amelio R, Balducci L. Metronomic (M), capecitabine (C), and oxaliplatin (O) plus bevacizumab (B) as treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (ACRC) in very elderly people (M-COB): Efficacy and safety (E&S) evaluation-A 2-year monitoring. J Clin Oncol. 2011:abstr e14086. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Ishibashi K, Munemoto Y, Matsuoka M, Hata T, Kobayashi M, Hasegawa J, Fukunaga M, Takagane A, Otsuji T, Miyake Y, et al. XELOX with bevacizumab in elderly patients age 75 or older with metastatic colorectal cancer: Results of a planned interim analysis for multicenter phase II ASCA study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;Suppl 34:Abstr 502. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Kozloff MF, Berlin J, Flynn PJ, Kabbinavar F, Ashby M, Dong W, Sing AP, Grothey A. Clinical outcomes in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving bevacizumab and chemotherapy: results from the BRiTE observational cohort study. Oncology. 2010;78:329–339. doi: 10.1159/000320222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Kubala E, Bartos J, Petruzelka LB, Prausova J, Benesova V, Gruna J, Finek J, Twardzikova P, Melichar B, Kohoutek M. Safety and effectiveness of bevacizumab (bev) in combination with chemotherapy (CT) in elderly patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Results from a large Czech observational registry (CSTP) Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium. 2010:Abstr 467. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Van Cutsem E, Rivera F, Berry S, Kretzschmar A, Michael M, DiBartolomeo M, Mazier MA, Canon JL, Georgoulias V, Peeters M, et al. Safety and efficacy of first-line bevacizumab with FOLFOX, XELOX, FOLFIRI and fluoropyrimidines in metastatic colorectal cancer: the BEAT study. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1842–1847. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdp233. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Hofheinz R, Grothe W, Tummes D, Kindler M, Petersen V, Boszeit-Luft S, Seraphin J, Hinke A, Arnold D. Bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Mature results from a large community-based observational study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;Suppl 4:Abstr 566. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Smith D, Rouyer M, Noize P, Lassalle R, Bernard O, Burki F, Guichard P, Ravaud A, Moore N, Fourrier-Réglat A, ETNA Study Group. Effectiveness and safety in very elderly patients treated by bevacizumab (BV) plus chemotherapy in first-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer: Results of ETNA, a French cohort study. J Clin Oncol. 2011;Suppl 4:Abstr 555. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Kozloff M, Bekaii-Saab TS, Bendell JC, Cohn AL, Hurwitz H, Roach N, Tezcan H, Fish S, Flick E. D, Mun Y, Dalal D, Grothey A. Effectiveness of first- or second-line bevacizumab (BV) treatment (tx) in elderly patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in ARIES, an observational cohort study (OCS) J Clin Oncol. 2011:Abstr 3625. [Google Scholar]
- 32.Aprile G, Ferrari L, Fontanella C, Puglisi F. Bevacizumab in older patients with advanced colorectal or breast cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2013;87:41–54. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2012.11.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Kabbinavar FF, Hurwitz HI, Yi J, Sarkar S, Rosen O. Addition of bevacizumab to fluorouracil-based first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: pooled analysis of cohorts of older patients from two randomized clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:199–205. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.17.7931. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Price TJ, Zannino D, Wilson K, Simes RJ, Cassidy J, Van Hazel GA, Robinson BA, Broad A, Ganju V, Ackland SP, et al. Bevacizumab is equally effective and no more toxic in elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer: a subgroup analysis from the AGITG MAX trial: an international randomised controlled trial of Capecitabine, Bevacizumab and Mitomycin C. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:1531–1536. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdr488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Cunningham D, Lang I, Lorusso V, Ocvirk J, Shin D, Jonker DJ, Osborne S, Andre NA, Waterkamp D, Saunders MP. Bevacizumab (bev) in combination with capecitabine (cape) for the first-line treatment of elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Results of a randomized international phase III trial (AVEX) J Clin Oncol. 2012;Suppl 34:Abstr 337. [Google Scholar]
- 36.Kearney PM, Whelton M, Reynolds K, Muntner P, Whelton PK, He J. Global burden of hypertension: analysis of worldwide data. Lancet. 2005;365:217–223. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17741-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Pimenta E, Oparil S. Management of hypertension in the elderly. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2012;9:286–296. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2012.27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Lionakis N, Mendrinos D, Sanidas E, Favatas G, Georgopoulou M. Hypertension in the elderly. World J Cardiol. 2012;4:135–147. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v4.i5.135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Geiger-Gritsch S, Stollenwerk B, Miksad R, Guba B, Wild C, Siebert U. Safety of bevacizumab in patients with advanced cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Oncologist. 2010;15:1179–1191. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2009-0155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Gressett SM, Shah SR. Intricacies of bevacizumab-induced toxicities and their management. Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43:490–501. doi: 10.1345/aph.1L426. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Zhu X, Wu S, Dahut WL, Parikh CR. Risks of proteinuria and hypertension with bevacizumab, an antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Kidney Dis. 2007;49:186–193. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2006.11.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Raman AK, Lombardo JC, Chandrasekhar R, Fakih MG. Bevacizumab (BV) related adverse events among various age groups of elderly patients with advanced colorectal cancer, ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings Part I. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:14546. [Google Scholar]
- 43.Scappaticci FA, Skillings JR, Holden SN, Gerber HP, Miller K, Kabbinavar F, Bergsland E, Ngai J, Holmgren E, Wang J, et al. Arterial thromboembolic events in patients with metastatic carcinoma treated with chemotherapy and bevacizumab. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:1232–1239. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djm086. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Mir O, Coriat R, Cabanes L, Ropert S, Billemont B, Alexandre J, Durand JP, Treluyer JM, Knebelmann B, Goldwasser F. An observational study of bevacizumab-induced hypertension as a clinical biomarker of antitumor activity. Oncologist. 2011;16:1325–1332. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2010-0002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Duprez D. Treatment of isolated systolic hypertension in the elderly. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2012;10:1367–1373. doi: 10.1586/erc.12.117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Escalante CP, Zalpour A. Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor-induced hypertension: basics for primary care providers. Cardiol Res Pract. 2011;2011:816897. doi: 10.4061/2011/816897. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Dincer M, Altundag K. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for bevacizumab-induced hypertension. Ann Pharmacother. 2006;40:2278–2279. doi: 10.1345/aph.1H244. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo JL, Jones DW, Materson BJ, Oparil S, Wright JT, et al. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA. 2003;289:2560–2572. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.19.2560. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Beckett NS, Peters R, Fletcher AE, Staessen JA, Liu L, Dumitrascu D, Stoyanovsky V, Antikainen RL, Nikitin Y, Anderson C, et al. Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1887–1898. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0801369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Beckett N, Peters R, Tuomilehto J, Swift C, Sever P, Potter J, McCormack T, Forette F, Gil-Extremera B, Dumitrascu D, et al. Immediate and late benefits of treating very elderly people with hypertension: results from active treatment extension to Hypertension in the Very Elderly randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2012;344:d7541. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7541. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Staessen JA, Fagard R, Thijs L, Celis H, Arabidze GG, Birkenhäger WH, Bulpitt CJ, de Leeuw PW, Dollery CT, Fletcher AE, et al. Randomised double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. The Systolic Hypertension in Europe (Syst-Eur) Trial Investigators. Lancet. 1997;350:757–764. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(97)05381-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Österlund P, Soveri LM, Isoniemi H, Poussa T, Alanko T, Bono P. Hypertension and overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with bevacizumab-containing chemotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2011;104:599–604. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Scartozzi M, Galizia E, Chiorrini S, Giampieri R, Berardi R, Pierantoni C, Cascinu S. Arterial hypertension correlates with clinical outcome in colorectal cancer patients treated with first-line bevacizumab. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:227–230. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdn637. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Jubb AM, Harris AL. Biomarkers to predict the clinical efficacy of bevacizumab in cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:1172–1183. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70232-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Hurwitz HI, Douglas PS, Middleton JP, Sledge GW, Johnson DH, Reardon DA, Chen D, Rosen O. Analysis of early hypertension and clinical outcome with bevacizumab: results from seven phase III studies. Oncologist. 2013;18:273–280. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Blom JW, Doggen CJ, Osanto S, Rosendaal FR. Malignancies, prothrombotic mutations, and the risk of venous thrombosis. JAMA. 2005;293:715–722. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.6.715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Lyman GH, Khorana AA, Falanga A, Clarke-Pearson D, Flowers C, Jahanzeb M, Kakkar A, Kuderer NM, Levine MN, Liebman H, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline: recommendations for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and treatment in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5490–5505. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.1283. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Khorana AA, Francis CW, Culakova E, Kuderer NM, Lyman GH. Frequency, risk factors, and trends for venous thromboembolism among hospitalized cancer patients. Cancer. 2007;110:2339–2346. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23062. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59.Soler S, Delgado C, Ballaz A, Cisneros E, Malý R, Babalis D, Monréal M. Unsuspected pulmonary embolism in patients with cancer. Thromb Res. 2012;129 Suppl 1:S16–S19. doi: 10.1016/S0049-3848(12)70010-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Cohen AT, Gurwith MM, Dobromirski M. Thromboprophylaxis in non-surgical cancer patients. Thromb Res. 2012;129 Suppl 1:S137–S145. doi: 10.1016/S0049-3848(12)70034-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61.Khorana AA, Dalal M, Lin J, Connolly GC. Incidence and predictors of venous thromboembolism (VTE) among ambulatory high-risk cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy in the United States. Cancer. 2013;119:648–655. doi: 10.1002/cncr.27772. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62.Nalluri SR, Chu D, Keresztes R, Zhu X, Wu S. Risk of venous thromboembolism with the angiogenesis inhibitor bevacizumab in cancer patients: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300:2277–2285. doi: 10.1001/jama.2008.656. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63.Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, Cartwright T, Hainsworth J, Heim W, Berlin J, Baron A, Griffing S, Holmgren E, et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2335–2342. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa032691. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64.Hurwitz HI, Saltz LB, Van Cutsem E, Cassidy J, Wiedemann J, Sirzén F, Lyman GH, Rohr UP. Venous thromboembolic events with chemotherapy plus bevacizumab: a pooled analysis of patients in randomized phase II and III studies. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1757–1764. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.32.3220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65.Lyman GH, Khorana AA. Cancer, clots and consensus: new understanding of an old problem. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:4821–4826. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.3032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66.Elice F, Rodeghiero F, Falanga A, Rickles FR. Thrombosis associated with angiogenesis inhibitors. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol. 2009;22:115–128. doi: 10.1016/j.beha.2009.01.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67.Hull RD, Schellong SM, Tapson VF, Monreal M, Samama MM, Nicol P, Vicaut E, Turpie AG, Yusen RD. Extended-duration venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients with recently reduced mobility: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153:8–18. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-153-1-201007060-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68.Tebbutt NC, Murphy F, Zannino D, Wilson K, Cummins MM, Abdi E, Strickland AH, Lowenthal RM, Marx G, Karapetis C, et al. Risk of arterial thromboembolic events in patients with advanced colorectal cancer receiving bevacizumab. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:1834–1838. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdq702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69.Brighton TA, Eikelboom JW, Mann K, Mister R, Gallus A, Ockelford P, Gibbs H, Hague W, Xavier D, Diaz R, et al. Low-dose aspirin for preventing recurrent venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1979–1987. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1210384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70.Flynn PJ, Sugrue MM, Feng S, Purdie DM, Grothey A, Sargent DJ, Berlin JD, Kabbinavar FF, Dong W, Kozloff MF. Incidence of serious bleeding events (sBE) in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving bevacizumab (BV) as part of a first-line regimen: Results from the BRiTE observational cohort study (OCS) J Clin Oncol. 2008:4104. [Google Scholar]
- 71.Fehr M, Catschegn S, Reinhart WH, Madon J, Asmis L, Cathomas R, von Moos R. The influence of bevacizumab on platelet function. Swiss Med Wkly. 2011;141:w13243. doi: 10.4414/smw.2011.13243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72.Hambleton J, Skillings J, Kabbinavar F, Bergsland E, Holmgren E, Holden S. N, Hurwitz H, Scappaticci F. Safety of low-dose aspirin (ASA) in a pooled analysis of 3 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of bevacizumab (BV) with chemotherapy (CT) in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3554. [Google Scholar]
- 73.Tsai HT, Marshall JL, Weiss SR, Huang CY, Warren JL, Freedman AN, Fu AZ, Sansbury LB, Potosky AL. Bevacizumab use and risk of cardiovascular adverse events among elderly patients with colorectal cancer receiving chemotherapy: a population-based study. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:1574–1579. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74.Shankaran V, Mummy D, Koepl L, Blough D, Yim YM, Yu E, Ramsey S. Adverse Events Associated With Bevacizumab and Chemotherapy in Older Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2012:Dec 28; Epub ahead of print. doi: 10.1016/j.clcc.2012.11.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75.Tocchetti CG, Gallucci G, Coppola C, Piscopo G, Cipresso C, Maurea C, Giudice A, Iaffaioli RV, Arra C, Maurea N. The emerging issue of cardiac dysfunction induced by antineoplastic angiogenesis inhibitors. Eur J Heart Fail. 2013;15:482–489. doi: 10.1093/eurjhf/hft008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76.Eremina V, Jefferson JA, Kowalewska J, Hochster H, Haas M, Weisstuch J, Richardson C, Kopp JB, Kabir MG, Backx PH, et al. VEGF inhibition and renal thrombotic microangiopathy. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1129–1136. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0707330. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77.Müller-Deile J, Bröcker V, Grünwald V, Hiss M, Bertram A, Kubicka S, Ganser A, Haller H, Schiffer M. Renal side effects of VEGF-blocking therapy. NDT Plus. 2010;3:172–175. [Google Scholar]
- 78.Yeh J, Frieze D, Martins R, Carr L. Clinical utility of routine proteinuria evaluation in treatment decisions of patients receiving bevacizumab for metastatic solid tumors. Ann Pharmacother. 2010;44:1010–1015. doi: 10.1345/aph.1M670. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79.Collins AJ, Foley RN, Herzog C, Chavers B, Gilbertson D, Herzog C, Ishani A, Johansen K, Kasiske B, Kutner N, et al. US Renal Data System 2012 Annual Data Report. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;61:A7, e1–476. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2012.11.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 80.van der Velde M, Matsushita K, Coresh J, Astor BC, Woodward M, Levey A, de Jong P, Gansevoort RT, van der Velde M, Matsushita K, et al. Lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and higher albuminuria are associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. A collaborative meta-analysis of high-risk population cohorts. Kidney Int. 2011;79:1341–1352. doi: 10.1038/ki.2010.536. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81.Poultsides GA, Servais EL, Saltz LB, Patil S, Kemeny NE, Guillem JG, Weiser M, Temple LK, Wong WD, Paty PB. Outcome of primary tumor in patients with synchronous stage IV colorectal cancer receiving combination chemotherapy without surgery as initial treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3379–3384. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.9817. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82.Nitzkorski JR, Farma JM, Watson JC, Siripurapu V, Zhu F, Matteotti RS, Sigurdson ER. Outcome and natural history of patients with stage IV colorectal cancer receiving chemotherapy without primary tumor resection. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:379–383. doi: 10.1245/s10434-011-2028-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83.Saif MW, Elfiky A, Salem RR. Gastrointestinal perforation due to bevacizumab in colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:1860–1869. doi: 10.1245/s10434-006-9337-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84.McCahill LE, Yothers G, Sharif S, Petrelli NJ, Lai LL, Bechar N, Giguere JK, Dakhil SR, Fehrenbacher L, Lopa SH, et al. Primary mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab without resection of the primary tumor for patients presenting with surgically unresectable metastatic colon cancer and an intact asymptomatic colon cancer: definitive analysis of NSABP trial C-10. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3223–3228. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.42.4044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85.Kabbinavar FF, Flynn PJ, Kozloff M, Ashby MA, Sing A, Barr CE, Grothey A. Gastrointestinal perforation associated with bevacizumab use in metastatic colorectal cancer: results from a large treatment observational cohort study. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:1126–1132. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.02.052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86.Kozloff M, Yood MU, Berlin J, Flynn PJ, Kabbinavar FF, Purdie DM, Ashby MA, Dong W, Sugrue MM, Grothey A. Clinical outcomes associated with bevacizumab-containing treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the BRiTE observational cohort study. Oncologist. 2009;14:862–870. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2009-0071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87.Saltz LB, Clarke S, Díaz-Rubio E, Scheithauer W, Figer A, Wong R, Koski S, Lichinitser M, Yang TS, Rivera F, et al. Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2013–2019. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.9930. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88.Giuliani F, De Vita F, Colucci G, Pisconti S. Maintenance therapy in colon cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2010;36 Suppl 3:S42–S45. doi: 10.1016/S0305-7372(10)70019-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89.Díaz-Rubio E, Gómez-España A, Massutí B, Sastre J, Abad A, Valladares M, Rivera F, Safont MJ, Martínez de Prado P, Gallén M, et al. First-line XELOX plus bevacizumab followed by XELOX plus bevacizumab or single-agent bevacizumab as maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: the phase III MACRO TTD study. Oncologist. 2012;17:15–25. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90.Rosati G, Cordio S, Aprile G, Butera A, Avallone A, Di Lucca G, De Pauli F, Parra HS, Reggiardo G, Bordonaro R. Discontinuation of bevacizumab and FOLFIRI administered up to a maximum of 12 cycles as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective Italian study. Invest New Drugs. 2012;30:1978–1983. doi: 10.1007/s10637-011-9721-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91.Van Cutsem E, Tabernero J, Lakomy R, Prenen H, Prausová J, Macarulla T, Ruff P, van Hazel GA, Moiseyenko V, Ferry D, et al. Addition of aflibercept to fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan improves survival in a phase III randomized trial in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with an oxaliplatin-based regimen. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3499–3506. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.42.8201. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92.An Open-label, Multicenter, Randomized Phase 2 Study Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of 5 FU/FA and Oxaliplatin (Modified FOLFOX 6) in Combination With IMC-1121B or IMC-18F1 or Without Investigational Therapy as Second Line Therapy in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Following Disease Progression on First Line Irinotecan-based Therapy. 2013; In press. Available from: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01111604?term=NCT01111604&rank=1.
- 93.Carrato A, Swieboda-Sadlej A, Staszewska-Skurczynska M, Lim R, Roman L, Shparyk Y, Bondarenko I, Jonker DJ, Sun Y, De la Cruz JA, et al. Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan plus either sunitinib or placebo in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized, phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1341–1347. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.45.1930. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 94.Hecht JR, Trarbach T, Hainsworth JD, Major P, Jäger E, Wolff RA, Lloyd-Salvant K, Bodoky G, Pendergrass K, Berg W, et al. Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III study of first-line oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy plus PTK787/ZK 222584, an oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor, in patients with metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1997–2003. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.29.4496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 95.Van Cutsem E, Bajetta E, Valle J, Köhne CH, Hecht JR, Moore M, Germond C, Berg W, Chen BL, Jalava T, et al. Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III study of oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin with or without PTK787/ZK 222584 in patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2004–2010. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.29.5436. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 96.Schmoll HJ, Cunningham D, Sobrero A, Karapetis CS, Rougier P, Koski SL, Kocakova I, Bondarenko I, Bodoky G, Mainwaring P, et al. Cediranib with mFOLFOX6 versus bevacizumab with mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment for patients with advanced colorectal cancer: a double-blind, randomized phase III study (HORIZON III) J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3588–3595. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.42.5355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 97.Hoff PM, Hochhaus A, Pestalozzi BC, Tebbutt NC, Li J, Kim TW, Koynov KD, Kurteva G, Pintér T, Cheng Y, et al. Cediranib plus FOLFOX/CAPOX versus placebo plus FOLFOX/CAPOX in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized, double-blind, phase III study (HORIZON II) J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3596–3603. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.42.6031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 98.Cunningham D, Wong RP, D’Haens G, Douillard JY, Robertson J, Stone AM, Van Cutsem E on behalf of the HORIZON I study group. Cediranib with mFOLFOX6 vs bevacizumab with mFOLFOX6 in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2013;108:493–502. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.545. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 99.Aprile G, Macerelli M, Giuliani F. Regorafenib for gastrointestinal malignancies: from preclinical data to clinical results of a novel multi-target inhibitor. BioDrugs. 2013;27:213–224. doi: 10.1007/s40259-013-0014-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 100.Grothey A, Van Cutsem E, Sobrero A, Siena S, Falcone A, Ychou M, Humblet Y, Bouché O, Mineur L, Barone C, et al. Regorafenib monotherapy for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CORRECT): an international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2013;381:303–312. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61900-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]