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).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
337 Background: Elderly patients (pts) comprise the majority of pts diagnosed with mCRC, although they are in general underrepresented in clinical trials. AVEX, an open-label phase III trial, evaluated the efficacy and safety of cape ± bev in elderly pts with previously untreated mCRC. Methods: Pts ≥70 years with mCRC, for whom single-agent chemotherapy was deemed appropriate, were randomized 1:1 to receive first-line cape (1000 mg/m2 bid days 1–14) as monotherapy or in combination with bev (7.5 mg/kg) q3w. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety. The study was powered to show a difference in PFS, but not OS, between treatment arms. PFS and OS estimates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Results: 280 pts across 10 countries were randomized to cape + bev (n=140) and cape alone (n=140). Median age at enrollment was 76 years (range, 70–87), and 91.1% of pts had an ECOG performance status of 0–1. Baseline pt and disease characteristics were well balanced between arms. Bev + cape was associated with significantly prolonged PFS compared with cape alone (median of 9.1 vs 5.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41–0.69; p<0.001). The ORR was also significantly improved in the bev + cape arm (19.3% vs 10.0%; p=0.042). OS was longer in pts treated with bev + cape vs cape alone, although this difference did not reach statistical significance (median of 20.7 vs 16.8 months; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.57–1.09; p=0.182). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 59.0% vs 44.1% of pts in the bev + cape and cape arm, respectively. Treatment was in general well tolerated and the safety profile consistent with previously reported data for bev + cape. Conclusions: This is the first randomized study prospectively evaluating bev specifically in elderly pts with mCRC. Based on the efficacy and safety results, bev plus cape might be an optimal treatment approach to improve outcomes in elderly pts. Clinical trial information: NCT00484939.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".