4.4 Article

Efficacy and safety of dilpacimab (ABT-165) versus bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI in metastatic colorectal cancer: a phase II study

Journal

FUTURE ONCOLOGY
Volume 18, Issue 27, Pages 3011-3020

Publisher

FUTURE MEDICINE LTD
DOI: 10.2217/fon-2021-1603

Keywords

bevacizumab; colorectal cancer; dilpacimab; DLL4; FOLFIRI

Categories

Funding

  1. AbbVie

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This phase II study compared the safety and efficacy of dilpacimab or bevacizumab in combination with FOLFIRI for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. The results showed that dilpacimab + FOLFIRI treatment was not well tolerated and did not provide clinical benefit compared to bevacizumab + FOLFIRI in mCRC patients.
Aim: This phase II study investigated safety and efficacy of dilpacimab or bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI in patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Materials & methods: Overall, 66 patients were treated (n = 34 dilpacimab FOLFIRI; n = 32 bevacizumab + FOLFIRI). Progression-free survival, overall survival, response rates and tolerability were assessed. Results: Median progression-free survival for dilpacimab + FOLFIRI compared with bevacizumab FOLFIRI was 3.78 months (95% CI: 2.07-7.20) versus 7.36 months (95% CI: 5.68-10.55) (hazard ratio: 3.57; 95% CI: 1.57-8.11; stratified). Median overall survival: 7.95 months for dilpacimab + FOLFIRI; not reached for bevacizumab + FOLFIRI. Objective response rates: 5.6% for dilpacimab + FOLFIRI and 14.7% for bevacizumab + FOLFIRI. Patients treated with dilpacimab + FOLFIRI experienced serious treatment-related adverse events (n = 4; 11.8%), including one case of intestinal perforation leading to death; none were reported for bevacizumab + FOLFIRI. Conclusion: Treatment with dilpacimab FOLFIRI was not well tolerated and did not provide clinical benefit to patients with mCRC compared with bevacizumab + FOLFIRI.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available