Table 6. Comparison of recurrence patterns between bevacizumab+FOLFOX (n=76) and cetuximab+FOLFOX (n=48) treated patients.
| recurrence patterns | Bevacizumab+FOLFOX K-ras | total | Cetuximab+FOLFOX K-ras | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mutant | wild-type | wild-type | |||
| (n=40) | (n=36) | (n=48) | |||
| Distant metastasis | |||||
| Liver | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | |
| Lung | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Bone | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| Para-aortic lymph nodes | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Peritoneal carcinomatosis | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
| Multiple organ metastases | |||||
| Liver + Lung | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |
| Liver + Bone | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| Local recurrence | |||||
| Presacrum | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Pelvic side wall | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Distant metastasis plusLocal recurrence | |||||
| Lung + perineal wound | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Lung + Bone + Presacrum | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Bone + Pelvic side wall | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Liver + Presacrum | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| Liver + Pelvic side wall | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Total: n (%) | |||||
| Locoregional recurrence | 4 | 2 | 6 (7.9%) | 7 (15.2%) | P=0.2467 |
| Distant metastasis | 6 | 5 | 11(14.5%) | 9 (19.6%) | P=0.6182 |