Next Article in Journal
A Review of Potential Role of Capsule Endoscopy in the Work-Up for Chemotherapy-Induced Diarrhea
Previous Article in Journal
Application of Machine Learning in Developing Decision-Making Support Models for Decompressed Vertebroplasty
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 10
Issue 2
10.3390/healthcare10020217
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Tolerability on Serious Adverse Events of First-Line Bevacizumab and Cetuximab for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Yu Na Han
1,†,
Yeo Jin Choi
2,† and
Sandy Jeong Rhie
1,3,*
1
Graduate School of Converging Clinical & Public Health, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 03760, Korea
2
Graduate School of Clinical Pharmacy, CHA University, Seongnam 13488, Korea
3
College of Pharmacy, Graduated School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 03760, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Co-first authors; These authors contributed equally to this work.
Healthcare 2022, 10(2), 217; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10020217
Submission received: 15 December 2021 / Revised: 18 January 2022 / Accepted: 21 January 2022 / Published: 23 January 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Proper medication management is crucial in metastatic colorectal cancer because of its substantially low survival rate. There has been advancing evidence on the efficacy of the two most prescribed targeted agents (bevacizumab and cetuximab); however, comprehensive analyses on their safety are limited. This study aims to comprehensively assess the clinical safety of first-line bevacizumab and cetuximab-based chemotherapy in unresectable RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients and to provide guidance on the selection of appropriate targeted therapeutic agents. Keyword searches of MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalKey were conducted per PRISMA guidelines. We performed pooled analysis on safety outcomes from six studies which administered FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan) as backbone chemotherapy. Thirty different adverse events from six categories were compared. First-line bevacizumab-based chemotherapy substantially lowered the risks of adverse events related to the dermatological (RR 0.24, 95% CI: 0.11–0.53, p < 0.00001) and renal systems (RR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.37–0.86, p = 0.007), while significantly increasing the incidence of cardiovascular adverse events (RR 4.65, 95% CI: 1.83–11.78, p = 0.001). Thus, first-line cetuximab-based chemotherapy increases patient susceptibility to dermatological and renal adverse events, especially with rash and electrolyte disorders, whereas bevacizumab-based chemotherapy increases cardiovascular risks such as hypertension and arrhythmia.

1. Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, accounting for more than 850,000 deaths per year [1]. The average 5-year survival rate in CRC patients is 63%; however, the 5-year survival rate is substantially lower, less than 20%, in patients initially diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), which accounts for 20% of new CRC diagnoses [1]. Moreover, about 25% of patients diagnosed with localized CRC are at elevated risk for metastatic progression in the later course of the disease. In Korea, approximately 15–25% of the patients show synchronous metastases and 30–40% of them have unresectable liver metastasis [2]. Ultimately, 50–60% of patients present with mCRC, including recurrent metachronous CRC [3]. The treatment modalities for mCRC include surgical resection and medication management, involving chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy; however, mCRC is often unresectable, especially with high cancer stage or the involvement of major organs and remote lymph nodes [3].
For mCRC patients without rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (RAS) mutation, chemotherapy with targeted therapeutic agent is usually reserved as first-line therapy for unresectable mCRC patients [3]. The current National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline recommends two different classes of targeted therapeutic agents with backbone chemotherapy including FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin), FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan), CAPEOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) and FOLFOXIRI (5-fluorauracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) in mCRC patients: vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors. Bevacizumab, a recombinant humanized VEGF antibody, inhibits tumor angiogenesis, whereas EGFR inhibitors, such as cetuximab and panitumumab, block tumor cell proliferation [3,4]. Currently, bevacizumab is the most commonly prescribed first-line targeted therapeutic agent in patients with unresectable synchronous mCRC as part of conversion therapy [3]. EGFR inhibitors, on the other hand, are only recommended in patients with RAS wild-type left-sided mCRC, as EGFR antibodies only elicit responses in patients with RAS wild-type mCRC, implying that genetic variability is significantly associated with patient outcomes [3]. Previous studies demonstrated superior efficacy of cetuximab over bevacizumab [4,5]; however, comprehensive comparative analysis on tolerability, especially on serious adverse events (SAEs) in patients receiving cetuximab or bevacizumab is still lacking despite markedly increased the risk of adverse events (AEs) with concomitant administration of chemotherapy such as 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, or oxaliplatin [6]. In general, the choice of first-line treatment should be influenced by the tolerability of the medication as well as the patient’s characteristic and efficacy outcomes [6]. Thus, the purpose of the study is to assess tolerability, in terms of comprehensive systemic SAE profiles, of bevacizumab and cetuximab, and to provide guidance on the selection of appropriate targeted therapeutic agents in patients with RAS wild-type tumors.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Sources and Search Strategy

This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [7]. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalKey without year and language restrictions. The initial database search involved a combination of keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH): ‘colon cancer,’ ‘colorectal cancer,’ ‘bevacizumab,’ ‘cetuximab,’ and ‘metastatic cancer’ in the title/abstract. The last search was conducted in March 2021. We manually searched the references of eligible review articles to identify additional studies for meta-analysis.

2.2. Study Selection and Data Extraction

Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of all studies identified in the initial database searches to verify eligibility. Disagreements on study eligibility were further discussed, and any disagreements not meeting consensus were resolved by the third researcher. We extracted the following information from eligible studies: study characteristics (name of the first author, year of publication, study periods, study design, clinical study phase, if applicable, and study region), study population (inclusion criteria for the study and number of patients assigned to each treatment arm), study interventions and comparators (medication names, dosages, types of backbone chemotherapy), and safety outcomes. The safety outcomes included any AEs classified as grades 3 (severe AEs) or 4 (life-threatening or disabling AEs) per common terminology criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0 [8], and we classified each AE according to the affected physiological systems, such as hematological, dermatological, gastrointestinal (GI), neurological, cardiovascular (CV), and renal systems. Duplicated studies, commentaries, editorials, case reports, clinical trial protocols, review articles, and studies written in languages other than English were excluded. Additionally, any study for which the full text was unavailable was excluded from the analysis. The PICOS (patient, intervention, comparator, outcomes, study design) summary is described in Table 1.

2.3. Assessment of Bias Risk and Evidence

Two independent reviewers evaluated the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) utilizing the Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB) tool [9]. The studies were graded as low, unclear, or high in the following domains: selection bias (random sequence generation and allocation concealment), performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel), detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment), attrition bias (incomplete outcome data), reporting bias (selective reporting), and other potential biases. The observational studies were assessed with the Risk Of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies (ROBINS-I) assessment tool [10], and scored as low, unclear, and high in the following domains: selection of participants, confounding variables, measurement interventions, blinding for assessment, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting. Disagreements about the risk of bias and quality of evidence were resolved by consensus, and any disagreements not meeting the consensus were resolved by a third reviewer. Funnel plots were used to detect possible publication bias; symmetric funnel plots implied a low risk of publication bias.

2.4. Statistical Methods

The risks of AEs were analyzed with relative risks (RRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to estimate the risk in mCRC patients undergoing targeted therapies. Reverse percentages were calculated for any results reported as percentages (%) in the original studies. Heterogeneity across the eligible studies was assessed by Cochran’s Q test (significance was revealed for p < 0.10) and the I2 index [11]. Mantel–Haenszel’s random-effects model was adapted for study outcomes with I2 > 50%, which is considered highly heterogenous, whereas a fixed-effects model was used for study outcomes with low heterogeneity (I2 < 50%). P values were calculated by two-sided tests, and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. We utilized Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020) for all statistical analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Study Search and Selection

The primary literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed), the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalKey yielded 1943 studies (Figure 1). A total of 26 of these studies were eligible for full-text reviews after excluding duplicates or irrelevant studies, including those with irrelevant study designs (1040), abstracts including conference abstracts (12), study protocols or clinical trial registrations (9), reviews, case reports, editorials, or commentaries (761), studies without full-text availability (8), and studies written in languages other than English (87). A total of 6 studies [12,13,14,15,16,17] were eligible for the analysis after excluding studies with different study designs and outcomes (20). Therefore, this study included 2498 patients diagnosed with mCRC; a total of 1308 patients received bevacizumab-based chemotherapy, whereas 1190 patients received cetuximab-based chemotherapy as first-line treatments

3.2. Study Characteristics

The characteristics of the included studies are described in Table 2. This analysis included three RCTs [12,13,14] and three observational studies [15,16,17]. All studies included RAS wild-type Stage IV or mCRC patients who received bevacizumab- or cetuximab-based chemotherapy as first-line treatments. The majority of study populations received either FOLFOX (mFOLFOX6; 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) [12,13,15,16,17] or FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) [13,14,15,16,17] as backbone chemotherapy. The study regions included Austria [14], Canada [13], China [15,17], Germany [14], Japan [12], Turkey [16], and the United States [13]. The baseline characteristics of the study populations, such as age, gender, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status, were well balanced between the arms in the original studies. The intervention AE outcomes were classified into the hematological (neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, hematological toxicity, thrombosis/thromboembolism, infection and hemorrhage), dermatological (mucositis, rash, paronychia, hand-foot syndrome (HFS), GI (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, GI perforation, liver toxicity, constipation, ileus, and subileus), neurological (peripheral neuropathy and fatigue), CV (hypertension and arrythmia), and renal (nephrotoxicity, proteinuria, dehydration, edema, and electrolyte disorders) systems. Quality assessments of the included studies are reported in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2. The risk of bias was generally acceptable, as implied by the symmetric funnel plots (Supplementary Figure S1).

3.3. Safety Outcomes

The risks of hematological (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79–1.00, p = 0.05), GI (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78–1.11, p = 0.42), and neurological AEs (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.78–1.18, p = 0.69) were similar between bevacizumab- and cetuximab-treated patients (Figure 2a–c). However, bevacizumab-based chemotherapy has lower risks of dermatological (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11–0.53, p = 0.0003) and renal AEs (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37–0.85, p = 0.007), especially rash (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.025–0.23, p < 0.00001), HFS (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15–0.74, p = 0.007), and electrolyte disorders (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29–0.87, p = 0.007) (Figure 3a,b). However, the risk of CV SAEs, including hypertension and arrhythmia, was markedly elevated in patients treated with bevacizumab (RR 4.65, 95% CI 1.83–11.78, p = 0.001) (Figure 4).

4. Discussion

Combination chemotherapy with cetuximab or bevacizumab in conjunction with the classic CRC treatment regimen has ultimately led to a decreased rate of tumor progression and a significant increase in favorable prognostics of mCRC [3]. Nonetheless, the risk of AEs is markedly attenuated with targeted therapy administered concomitantly with backbone chemotherapy (FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, CAPEOX, or FOLFOXIRI) for CRC [18,19]. According to a retrospective study, the risk of AEs is substantially elevated with drug combinations and intravenous chemotherapy administration, being the major route of administration of both chemotherapy and targeted therapy agents in mCRC patients [6]. However, up to now, a choice of effective first-line biologic chemo-treatment with either cetuximab or bevacizumab in patients with RAS wild-type for mCRC is a still controversial. A recent meta-analysis was performed to determine the efficacy of first-line cetuximab- versus bevacizumab-based chemotherapy for RAS wild-type mCRC [5]. According to these results, it seems reasonable to initiate treatment of RAS wild-type mCRC patients with an anti-EGFR strategy [5]. However, an equally important aspect for achieving complete clinical success is the prevention of avoidable AEs. They only compared the toxicity burden of both hematologic adverse events and nonhematologic adverse events, which were comparable between the two groups [5]. However, considering that chemotherapy induces numerous AEs into the whole body system, classifying AEs in to two categories, hematologic and nonhematologic AEs, is not sufficient to predict patient outcomes. Furthermore, the SAE risks from bevacizumab- or cetuximab-mased chemotherapy should be evaluated to improve patient outcomes by preventing avoidable SAEs.
In our study, we comprehensively investigated 30 different systemic SAE (Grade 3 and 4 per CTCAE) profiles of bevacizumab- and cetuximab-based chemotherapy to assess the tolerability of targeted therapy in treatment-naïve patients diagnosed with RAS wild-type mCRC. Our pooled analysis revealed no differences in the risks of hematological, GI, and neurological SAEs between bevacizumab- and cetuximab-based chemotherapies; however, bevacizumab-based chemotherapy has lower risks of dermatological (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11–0.53, p = 0.0003) and renal SAEs (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37–0.86, p = 0.007) than cetuximab-based chemotherapy.
A review article evaluating cetuximab AEs from 15 trials with cetuximab monotherapy and combination cetuximab therapy suggested that more than 80% of patients receiving cetuximab reported dermatological AEs including papulopustular or acneiform skin rash and nail disorders [18]. On the other hand, the PRODIGE18 (Partenariat de Recherche en Oncologie DIGEstive) randomized clinical trial compared the AEs between cetuximab-based and bevacizumab-based chemotherapies in 132 patients with mCRC. They showed comparable dermatologic AEs with any and grade 3/4 (skin disorders, stomatitis, and paronychia) with no significant differences [20]. Similarly, our systematic meta-analysis also revealed insignificant elevation in the risk of mucositis and paronychia in patients treated with cetuximab when compared with bevacizumab, but the risk of rash and HFS was markedly lower in patients receiving bevacizumab-based chemotherapy with RRs of 0.11 (95% CI 0.05–0.23, p < 0.00001) and 0.33 (95% CI 0.15–0.74, p = 0.007) for rash and HFS, respectively. According to a meta-analysis of the cetuximab-induced rash, the risk of cetuximab-induced high grade acneiform rash was substantially elevated when administered with concomitant chemotherapy, indicating that mCRC patients are vulnerable to papulopustular or acneiform skin rash [21], and a cohort demonstrated a greater risk of cetuximab-induced rash in male and young patients [22]. Nonetheless, cetuximab administration should not be interrupted as cetuximab-induced grade 2–4 dermatological toxicity is dose-dependent and has a strong correlation with progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) prolongation in mCRC patients though pharmacological management is currently limited to moisturizing skin products for dermatological disorders [23].
Electrolyte disorders, such as hypomagnesemia, hypokalemia, and hypocalcemia, are commonly reported SAEs related to renal system in patients undergoing cetuximab-based chemotherapy. Previous studies have identified old age, high baseline magnesium levels, and longer treatment duration (usually more than 3 months) as risk factors for cetuximab-induced grade 3 or 4 hypomagnesemia with an incidence of 6–47%, which is mostly reversible after treatment discontinuation; however, delayed management may increase mortality associated with fatal events, including cardiac arrhythmia [23,24]. Despite its substantial impact on patient prognosis, the pharmacological management is limited to electrolyte supplementation for electrolyte disruptions [23]. Hence, more studies on risk stratification as well as SAE management modalities are warranted to improve patient outcomes from cetuximab-based chemotherapy.
On the other hand, bevacizumab has shown substantially elevated SAE risks related to the CV system, including hypertension and arrythmia (RR 4.65, 95% CI 1.83–11.78, p = 0.001). Hypertension is one of the most common bevacizumab-induced AEs affecting 4–35% of patients [25]. The mechanism of bevacizumab-induced hypertension is still being debated, but reduced production of nitric oxide in the endothelium from VEGF inhibition seems to play a crucial role in increasing blood pressure. The incidence of bevacizumab-induced hypertension is dose-dependent, and paradoxically, some studies suggest hypertension incidence may be a marker for predicting improved survival of CRC patients; nonetheless, uncontrolled bevacizumab-induced hypertension may attenuate the risk of other CV disorders, including arrhythmias, ischemic heart disease, and congestive heart failure [25]. Although current guidelines do not offer specific recommendation for bevacizumab-induced hypertension in patients with underlying CV disorders, stratification of CV risks is required in patients who are planning bevacizumab-based chemotherapy. It can be easily aggregable since bevacizumab is the most commonly prescribed targeted therapeutic agent and patients with underlying CV disorders or the risk factors are at elevated risk of CV-related hospitalization due to bevacizumab treatment [26]. Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis on fatal adverse events (FAE) of targeted therapeutic agents in CRC patients revealed the highest FAE cases associated with CV events despite similar incidence of fatal AEs between bevacizumab and cetuximab [27]. Hence, the development of standard CV monitoring parameters associated with bevacizumab administration should be endorsed.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis comprehensively analyzing 30 individual SAE profiles of bevacizumab and cetuximab prescribed as first-line therapeutic agents for RAS wild-type mCRC. In the PRODIGE18 trial, an incidence ratio of 15 AEs was assessed among small number of patients of 65 and 67 patients in bevacizumab and cetuximab groups, respectively, and no statistical comparison was performed [20]. Thus, the evaluation of potential risk of AE occurrence between two major targeted therapy-based chemotherapy of RAS wild-type mCRC is beneficial for proper management of the entire clinical profile of the patients. We also assessed hepatic and renal toxicity in overall and the related components between the bevacizumab- and cetuximab-based chemotherapy among patients with RAS wild-type mCRC. Furthermore, the risk of infection, the major complication of chemotherapy secondary to neutropenia [28], was not substantially different between cetuximab (n = 452)- and bevacizumab (n = 405)-based chemotherapy for RAS wild-type mCRC. Nonetheless, caution is required when interpreting the study results because AEs are induced by numerous factors including older age, multiple comorbidities, drug combination, drug interactions, route of administration, and treatment duration [6]. Although this analysis included two backbone chemotherapy regimens, FOLFOX and FOLFIRI, variable chemotherapy regimens options including CAPEOX and FOLFOXIRI are available for mCRC patients, and a different combination may induce divergent AEs [3]. Moreover, administration of drug combination regimen may predispose patients at escalated risk of AEs secondary to drug–drug interactions [29], and studies suggest that approximately 27–58% of cancer patients experience at least one drug–drug interaction during cancer management [30,31]. However, due to the large burden of medications and the substantial toxicity of chemotherapeutic agents, the causes of AEs during cancer management may obscure, and severely attenuated patients’ health status from metastatic cancers may disguise the AEs [3]. Thus, assumptions that all cancer patients possess increased AE risks associated with chemotherapy regimen, drug–drug interactions and patient status should be taken into consideration during patient care.
Based on the previous studies [4,5], cetuximab-based chemotherapy has higher efficacy as implied by the superior response rate, which consequently increases patient survival; however, further assessment of tolerability of cetuximab-based chemotherapy should not be neglected because of substantially elevated AE risks of electrolyte and dermatological disorders, which may decrease patients’ quality of life (QOL). In fact, a prospective cohort study showed better patient-related outcomes and health-related QOL measured by European Organization for the Research and treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 and QLQ-CR 29 questionnaires in mCRC patients treated with bevacizumab compared with patients receiving cetuximab-based chemotherapy [32]. The clinical outcomes from medication management in metastatic cancer patients are unpredictable in most cases because numerous factors, including patient-specific factors (age, comorbidities, genetics, and health status inferred by ECOG score), cancer characteristics, chemotherapy regimens, and drug–drug interactions can affect patients’ responses to medication, and patients diagnosed with metastatic cancers already possess underlying factors associated with increased AE risk [3,25]. Thus, risk stratification related to SAEs in addition to medication efficacy should be taken into consideration when choosing medication regimens for RAS wild-type mCRC patients.
The interest in precision medicine in cancer has been steadily increased and has advanced the clinical diagnosis and management of cancer [33,34]. The clinical efficacy of chemotherapeutic agents as well as patient prognosis are easily predicted by the precision medicine, and administration of EGFR inhibitors in RAS wild-type mCRC patients is an example of precision medicine, in terms of variable drug responses secondary to genetic traits [33]. Recently, computational methods involving virtual molecular tumor boards, digital twins, and dynamic precision medicine have be adapted for precision oncology trials on cancer biomarkers, thereby improving patient outcomes by selecting optimal therapeutic agents [35]. However, the application of precision medicine on the prediction of chemotherapy-related AEs is relatively neglected despite the significant AE risks in cancer patients, as implied by the limited number of studies. As previously stated, the causes of AEs are variable, subsequently making AE predictions ambiguous. Therefore, further studies on mechanism of AEs of each chemotherapeutic and targeted agents as well as AE traits associated with genetic variability are warranted to establish a foundation on precision medicine-based AE prediction modeling to improve patient outcomes.
This study possesses some limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the included studies had different study designs and outcome measurements. All patients received either FOLFOX or FOLFIRI; thus, the backbone chemotherapy regimens are not the same among the studies. Moreover, only two RCTs investigated our outcomes in mCRC patients administering the same backbone chemotherapeutic regimens; others were observational studies retrospectively recruited patients who received either bevacizumab- or cetuximab-based chemotherapy, which increased the heterogeneity across the study outcomes. Nonetheless, monotherapy is rare in cancer management, and patients receive at least two concomitant chemotherapeutic agents to improve clinical outcomes, which subsequently makes patients more susceptible to unpredictable AEs. However, since metastatic cancer patients are vulnerable population who rarely participate in clinical trials and for whom various regimens are available, this study has strong external validity because we comprehensively evaluated the overall AE profiles of targeted therapy administered by diverse chemotherapy regimens. However, further research on factors associated with risk stratifications of AEs is recommended to improve the clinical outcomes of mCRC patients

5. Conclusions

First-line cetuximab-based chemotherapy may predispose treatment-naïve mCRC patients at elevated risk for dermatological and renal SAEs, mostly rash, HFS, and electrolyte disorders. On the other hands, mCRC patients undergoing first-line bevacizumab-based chemotherapy may have higher CV risks such as hypertension and arrhythmia. However, the risks of hematological, GI, and neurological SAEs are comparable between cetuximab- and bevacizumab-based chemotherapy patients.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/healthcare10020217/s1, Figure S1: Funnel plot of hematological adverse events, Table S1: Quality assessment of included RCTs, Table S2: Quality assessment of included observational studies.

Author Contributions

For Conceptualization, Y.N.H. and S.J.R.; methodology, Y.N.H., Y.J.C. and S.J.R.; software, Y.J.C. and Y.N.H.; validation, Y.J.C. and S.J.R.; formal analysis, Y.N.H. and Y.J.C.; investigation, Y.N.H. and S.J.R.; resources, Y.N.H. and Y.J.C.; data curation, Y.J.C.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.J.C.; writing—review and editing, Y.J.C., Y.N.H. and S.J.R. visualization, Y.J.C.; supervision, S.J.R.; project administration, Y.J.C. and S.J.R.; funding acquisition, S.J.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea Government Ministry of Science and ICT [2020R1A2C1009224]. This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education [NRF-2017R1D1A1B03033389].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in article or supplementary material cited in the reference.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Biller, L.H.; Schrag, D. Diagnosis and treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A Review. JAMA 2021, 325, 669–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Jeon, Y.; Park, E.J.; Lim, J.H.; Baik, S.H. Clinical outcomes of complete cytoreduction with concurrent liver resection followed by hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for synchronous peritoneal and liver metastatic colorectal cancer. World J. Surg. Oncol. 2019, 17, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Guidelines Version 2. 2021. Colon Cancer. Available online: www.nccn.org (accessed on 30 March 2021).
  4. Jiang, W.; Yu, Q.; Ning, R.; Zhao, W.; Wei, C. Efficacy of bevacizumab versus epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors for wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis. Onco Targets Ther. 2018, 11, 4271–4281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Zheng, B.; Wang, X.; Wei, M.; Wang, Q.; Li, J.; Bi, L.; Deng, X.; Wang, Z. First-line cetuximab versus bevacizumab for RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 2019, 19, 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Du, R.; Wang, X.; Ma, L.; Larcher, L.M.; Tang, H.; Zhou, H.; Chen, C.; Wang, T. Adverse reactions of targeted therapy in cancer patients: A retrospective study of hospital medical data in China. BMC Cancer 2021, 21, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009, 339, b2535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 5.0. Available online: https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/ctcae_v5_quick_reference_5x7.pdf (accessed on 2 March 2021).
  9. Higgins, J.P.; Altman, D.G.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Jüni, P.; Moher, D.; Oxman, A.D.; Savovic, J.; Schulz, K.F.; Weeks, L.; Sterne, J.A.C. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011, 343, d5928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Sterne Bennouna, J.A.C.; Higgins, J.P.T.; Elbers, R.G.; Reeves, B.C.; the Development Group for ROBINSI. Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I): Detailed Guidance, Updated 12 October 2016. Available online: http://www.riskofbias.info (accessed on 30 March 2021).
  11. Higgins, J.P.; Thompson, S.G.; Deeks, J.J.; Altman, D.G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003, 327, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Oki, E.; Emi, Y.; Yamanaka, T.; Uetake, H.; Muro, K.; Takahashi, T.; Nagasaka, T.; Hatano, E.; Ojima, H.; Manaka, D.; et al. Randomised phase II trial of mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 plus cetuximab as first-line treatment for colorectal liver metastasis (ATOM trial). Br. J. Cancer 2019, 121, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Venook, A.P.; Niedzwiecki, D.; Lenz, H.J.; Innocenti, F.; Fruth, B.; Meyerhardt, J.A.; Schrag, D.; Greene, C.; O’Neil, B.H.; Atkins, J.N.; et al. Effect of first-line chemotherapy combined with cetuximab or bevacizumab on overall survival in patients with KRAS wild-type advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017, 317, 2392–2401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Heinemann, V.; von Weikersthal, L.F.; Decker, T.; Kiani, A.; Vehling-Kaiser, U.; Al-Batran, S.E.; Heintges, T.; Lerchenmuller, C.; Kahl, C.; Seipelt, G.; et al. FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): A randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014, 15, 1065–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bai, L.; Wang, F.; Li, Z.Z.; Ren, C.; Zhang, D.S.; Zhao, Q.; Lu, Y.X.; Wang, D.S.; Ju, H.Q.; Qiu, M.Z.; et al. Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab versus chemotherapy plus cetuximab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Results of a registry-based cohort analysis. Medicine 2016, 95, e4531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Degirmencioglu, S.; Tanriverdi, O.; Menekse, S.; Dogan, M.; Hacıoglu, B.; Oktay, E.; Erdem, D.; Arpaci, E.; Uluc, B.O.; Turhal, S.; et al. A retrospective analysis on first-line bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitimumab-containing regimens in patients with RAS-wild metastatic colorectal cancer: A Collaborative Study by Turkish Oncology Group (TOG). J. BUON 2019, 24, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  17. Yang, Y.H.; Lin, J.K.; Chen, W.S.; Lin, T.C.; Yang, S.H.; Jiang, J.K.; Lan, Y.T.; Lin, C.C.; Yen, C.C.; Tzeng, C.H.; et al. Comparison of cetuximab to bevacizumab as the first-line bio-chemotherapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Superior progression-free survival is restricted to patients with measurable tumors and objective tumor response--a retrospective study. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2014, 140, 1927–1936. [Google Scholar]
  18. Fakih, M.; Vincent, M. Adverse events associated with anti-EGFR therapies for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Curr. Oncol. 2010, 17 (Suppl. 1), S18–S30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Totzeck, M.; Mincu, R.I.; Rassaf, T. Cardiovascular adverse events in patients with cancer treated with bevacizumab: A meta-analysis of more than 20 000 patients. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2017, 10, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Bennouna, J.; Hiret, S.; Bertaut, A.; Bouche, O.; Deplanque, G.; Borel, C.; Francois, E.; Conroy, T.; Ghiringhelli, F.; des Guetz, G.; et al. Continuation of bevacizumab vs cetuximab plus chemotherapy after first progression in KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: The UNICANCER PRODIGE18 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019, 5, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Balagula, Y.; Wu, S.; Su, X.; Lacouture, M.E. The effect of cytotoxic chemotherapy on the risk of high-grade aceniform rash to cetuximab in cancer patients: A meta-analysis. Ann. Oncol. 2011, 22, 2366–2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jatoi, A.; Green, E.M.; Rowland, K.M.; Sargent, D.J.; Alberts, S.R. Clinical predictors of severe cetuximab-induced rash: Observations from 933 patients enrolled in north central cancer treatment group study N0147. Oncology 2009, 77, 120–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Fakih, M.G.; Wilding, G.; Lombardo, J. Cetuximab-induced hypomagnesemia in patients with colorectal cancer. Clin. Colorectal. Cancer 2006, 6, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, Q.; Qi, Y.; Zhang, D.; Gong, C.; Yao, A.; Xiao, Y.; Yang, J.; Zhou, F.; Zhou, Y. Electrolyte disorders assessment in solid tumor patients treated with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies: A pooled analysis of 25 randomized clinical trials. Tumour Biol. 2015, 36, 3471–3482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Economopoulou, P.; Kotsakis, A.; Kapiris, I.; Kentepozidis, N. Cancer therapy and cardiovascular risk: Focus on bevacizumab. Cancer Manag. Res. 2015, 7, 133–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Nickel, A.C.; Patel, A.; Saba, N.F.; Leon, A.R.; El-Chami, M.F.; Merchant, F.M. Incidence of cancer treatment-induced arrhythmia associated with novel targeted chemotherapeutic agents. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2018, 7, e010101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Chen, J.; Wang, J.; Ni, T.; He, H.; Zheng, Q. Meta-analysis on the risk of fatal adverse events by bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab in 31 randomized trials including 25,000 patients with colorectal carcinoma. Medicine 2020, 99, e19908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zheng, Y.; Chen, Y.; Yu, K.; Yang, Y.; Wang, X.; Yang, X.; Qian, J.; Liu, Z.X.; Wu, B. Fatal infections among cancer patients: A population-based study in the United States. Infect. Dis. Ther. 2021, 10, 871–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Alvim, M.M.; Silva, L.A.; Leite, I.C.; Silvério, M.S. Adverse events caused by potential drug-drug interactions in an intensive care unit of a teaching hospital. Rev. Bras. Ter. Intensiva 2015, 27, 353–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Riechelmann, R.; Girardi, D. Drug interactions in cancer patients: A hidden risk? J. Res. Pharm. Pract. 2016, 5, 77–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. van Leeuwen, R.W.F.; Jansman, F.G.A.; van den Bemt, P.M.L.A.; de Man, F.; Piran, F.; Vincenten, I.; Jager, A.; Rijneveld, A.W.; Brugma, J.D.; Mathijssen, R.H.J.; et al. Drug–drug interactions in patients treated for cancer: A prospective study on clinical interventions. Ann. Oncol. 2015, 26, 992–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Marques, R.P.; Heudtlass, P.; Pais, H.L.; Quintela, A.; Martins, A.P. Patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life for cetuximab versus bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer: A prospective cohort study. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2019, 145, 1719–1728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lahiri, C.; Pawar, S.; Mishra, R. Precision medicine and future of cancer treatment. Precis. Cancer Med. 2019, 2, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Singla, P.; Musyuni, P.; Aggarwal, G.; Singh, H. Precision Medicine: An emerging paradigm for improved diagnosis and safe therapy in pediatric oncology. Cureus 2021, 13, e16489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Madhavan, S.; Beckman, R.A.; McCoy, M.D.; Pishvaian, M.J.; Brody, J.R.; Macklin, P. Envisioning the future of precision oncology trials. Nat. Cancer 2021, 2, 9–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Healthcare 10 00217 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA Plot.
Figure 1. PRISMA Plot.
Healthcare 10 00217 g001
Healthcare 10 00217 g002a 550Healthcare 10 00217 g002b 550Healthcare 10 00217 g002c 550
Figure 2. Forest plots of SAEs associated with bevacizumab- and cetuximab-based chemotherapy: (a) hematological SAEs, (b) GI SAEs, and (c) neurological SAEs.
Figure 2. Forest plots of SAEs associated with bevacizumab- and cetuximab-based chemotherapy: (a) hematological SAEs, (b) GI SAEs, and (c) neurological SAEs.
Healthcare 10 00217 g002aHealthcare 10 00217 g002bHealthcare 10 00217 g002c
Healthcare 10 00217 g003a 550Healthcare 10 00217 g003b 550
Figure 3. Forest plots of dermatological and renal SAEs associated with bevacizumab- and cetuximab-based chemotherapy: (a) dermatological SAEs, and (b) renal SAEs.
Figure 3. Forest plots of dermatological and renal SAEs associated with bevacizumab- and cetuximab-based chemotherapy: (a) dermatological SAEs, and (b) renal SAEs.
Healthcare 10 00217 g003aHealthcare 10 00217 g003b
Healthcare 10 00217 g004 550
Figure 4. Forest plot of CV SAEs associated with bevacizumab- and cetuximab-based chemotherapy.
Figure 4. Forest plot of CV SAEs associated with bevacizumab- and cetuximab-based chemotherapy.
Healthcare 10 00217 g004
Table
Table 1. PICOS of the study.
Table 1. PICOS of the study.
ComponentDefinition
P (patients)Patients diagnosed with RAS wild-type metastatic CRC who were administered the intervention or the comparator as first-line treatments
I (intervention)Bevacizumab + chemotherapy
C (comparator)Cetuximab + chemotherapy
O (outcomes)SAEs (GRADE 3–4):
Hematological SAEs: neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, hematological toxicity, thrombosis/thromboembolism, infection, and hemorrhage
Dermatological SAEs: mucositis, rash, paronychia, and HFS
GI AEs: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, GI perforation, liver toxicity, constipation, ileus, and subileus
CV SAEs: hypertension and arrhythmia
Neurological SAEs: peripheral neuropathy and fatigue
Renal SAEs: proteinuria, dehydration, edema, and electrolyte disorders
S (study design)RCTs and observational studies
Abbreviations: CRC, colorectal cancer; CV, cardiovascular; GI, gastrointestinal; HFS, hand-foot syndrome; RCT, randomized controlled trials; SAE, serious adverse events.
Table
Table 2. Characteristics of included studies.
Table 2. Characteristics of included studies.
Study NameStudy DurationCountryStudy DesignPatient PopulationInterventionComparator Backbone CTOutcomes
RCTs
ATOM (Oki et al.) 2019 [12] May 2013–April 2016JapanMulticenter, randomized phase II study Patients aged between 20 and 80 years with liver-limited metastases from wt (K) RAS CRC Bevacizumab (5 mg/kg)
(n = 57)		Cetuximab (400 mg/m2 first dose followed by 250 mg/m2 on Day 1 through Day 2)
(n = 59)		mFOLFOX6Hematological, dermatological, GI, neurological, and CV AEs
CALGB/SWOG 80405 (Venook et al. 2017) [13]November 2005–March 2012United States and CanadaMulticenter, randomized phase III studyPatients aged ≥18 years with previously untreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer whose tumors were KRAS wt Bevacizumab (5 mg/kg) (n = 559)Cetuximab (400 mg/m2 followed by 250 mg/m2 weekly) (n = 578)mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRIHematological, GI, and neurological AEs
FIRE-3 (Heinemann et al. 2014) [14]23 January 2007–19 September 2012Germany, AustriaRandomized, open-label phase 3 trialPatients aged 18–75 years with stage IV, histologically confirmed, adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum, ECOG performance status of 0–2, an estimated life expectancy of greater than 3 months and adequate organ function, and no surgery within the 4 weeks before the studyBevacizumab (5 mg/kg)
(n = 295)		Cetuximab (400 mg/m2 on Day 1 and 250 mg/m2 weekly)
(n = 297)		FOLFIRIHematological, dermatological, GI, neurological, CV, and renal AEs
Observational
Bai et al. 2016 [15]January 2009–December 2013ChinaObservational cohort study Patients with histologically proved stage IV CRC who have consecutively received at least 2 courses of bevacizumab-based (KRAS wt or mutated) or cetuximab-based (KRAS wt) triplet biochemotherapy as their first lineBevacizumab (5 mg/kg biweekly or 7.5 mg/kg triweekly) (n = 188)Cetuximab (400 mg/m2 first dose, 500 mg/m2 biweekly or 750 mg/m2 triweekly) (n = 101)mFOLFOX-6, FOLFIRIDermatological AEs
Degirmenicioglu et al. 2019 [16]Not specifiedTurkeyRetrospective multicenter observational studyPatients diagnosed pathologically as CRC adenocarcinoma with KRAS wt and who received chemotherapy in combination with either bevacizumab, cetuximab or panitumumabBevacizumab (n = 114)Cetuximab (n = 92)FOLFOX, FOLFIRIHematological, dermatological, GI, neurological, CV, and renal AEs
Yang et al. 2014 [17]April 2005–March 2012China
(Taiwan)		Retrospective cohortPatients with histologically proven colorectal cancer at clinical stage IVa or IVb according to AJCC VII and who received at least 4 courses of bevacizumab-based or cetuximab-based triplet biochemotherapy as first-line treatments Bevacizumab (5 mg/kg biweekly) (n = 95)Cetuximab (500 mg/m2 biweekly) (n = 63)FOLFIRI, FOLFOXHematological, dermatological, GI and CV AEs
Abbreviations: AE, adverse events; AJCC, American Joint Committee on Cancer; CR, complete response; CrCl, creatinine clearance; CRC, colorectal cancer; CV, cardiovascular; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; FOLFIRI, 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin and irinotecan; FOLFOX, 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin and oxaliplatin; GI, gastrointestinal; KRAS, Kirsten Rat Sarcoma; wt, wild-type.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Han, Y.N.; Choi, Y.J.; Rhie, S.J. Tolerability on Serious Adverse Events of First-Line Bevacizumab and Cetuximab for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Healthcare 2022, 10, 217. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10020217

AMA Style

Han YN, Choi YJ, Rhie SJ. Tolerability on Serious Adverse Events of First-Line Bevacizumab and Cetuximab for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Healthcare. 2022; 10(2):217. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10020217

Chicago/Turabian Style

Han, Yu Na, Yeo Jin Choi, and Sandy Jeong Rhie. 2022. "Tolerability on Serious Adverse Events of First-Line Bevacizumab and Cetuximab for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Healthcare 10, no. 2: 217. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10020217

APA Style

Han, Y. N., Choi, Y. J., & Rhie, S. J. (2022). Tolerability on Serious Adverse Events of First-Line Bevacizumab and Cetuximab for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Healthcare, 10(2), 217. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10020217

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop