Table III.

Prognostic relevance.

A, Activity, efficacy and effectiveness of second line after FIr-B/FOx regimen according to KRAS genotype
	All		KRAS wild-type		KRAS mutant
	Intent-to-treat analysis		Intent-to-treat analysis		Intent-to-treat analysis
	No	%	No	%	No	%
Enrolled patients	40	100	21	100	17	100
Evaluable patients	34	89	18	86	14	93
Objective response	13	38 (CI ± 17)	9	50 (CI ± 24)	4	29 (CI ± 25)
Partial response	10	29	7	39	3	21
Complete response	3	9	2	11	1	7
Stable disease	10	29	5	28	3	21
Progressive disease	11	32	3	17	7	50
Median PFS, months	10		10		10
Range	1–32+		3–31+		1–32+
Progression events	33	82.5	17	81	14	82
Median OS, months	14		17		12
Range	1–51+		5+−51+		1–39+
Deaths	26	65	13	62	11	65
Metastasectomies	5	12.5	3	15	2	12
Peritoneal carcinomatosis	2		1		1
Liver	2		1		1
Lymph nodes	1		1		-
Pathologic complete responses	1	20	-	-	1	50
PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival.

B, Activity, efficacy and effectiveness of second line intensive treatments
	Intent-to-treat analysis
	Triplet chemotherapy plus targeted agent		Triplet regimen
	No.	%	No.	%
Enrolled patients	10	100	19	100
Evaluable patients	10	100	18	95
Objective response	8	80 (CI ± 26)	5	28 (CI ± 21)
Partial response	5	50	5	28
Complete response	3	30	-	-
Stable disease	1	10	6	33
Progressive disease	1	10	7	39
Median PFS, months	13		8
Range	4–32+		1+−17
Progression events	6	60	17	89
Median OS, months	NR		11
Range	6+−39+		1+−38
Deaths	2	20	16	84
Metastasectomies	4	40	1	6
Peritoneal	1		1
Liver	2		-
Lymph nodes	1		-
Pathologic complete responses	1	25	-	-
PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival. NR, not reached.