Bevacizumab (Bev) with or without erlotinib as maintenance therapy, following induction first-line chemotherapy plus Bev, in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Efficacy and safety results of the International GERCOR DREAM phase III trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LBA3500^ Background: Therapy targeting VEGF or EGFR demonstrated clinical activity in combination with chemotherapy (CT) in mCRC but monoclonal antibodies cannot be associated. The DREAM trial compares a maintenance therapy (MT) with bev +/- EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib (E) after a first-line Bev-based induction therapy (IT) in pts with mCRC. Methods: Pts with previously untreated and unresectable mCRC were eligible. After a Bev-based IT with FOLFOX or XELOX or FOLFIRI, pts without disease progression were randomized to MT between Bev alone (Bev 7.5 mg/kg q3w; arm A) or Bev+E (B 7.5 mg/kg q3w, E 150 mg/day continuously; arm B). Pts were treated until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was PFS on MT. Results: The study enrolled 700 pts from 01/2007 to 11/2011 in 3 countries (France, Canada, Austria). 446 (63.7%) pts were randomized for MT (arm A, N=224; arm B, N=222). Among the 446 randomized pts, IT regimen was FOLFOX-Bev in 265 pts (59.4%), XELOX-Bev in 135 pts (30.3%), and FOLFIRI-Bev in 46 pts (10.3%). Baseline characteristics of randomized pts were (arm A/B): ECOG PS 0, 60% in both arms; normal LDH level 47%/49%; normal alkaline phosphatase level 48%/50%; synchronous metastasis 83%/82%. The median no of MT cycles was 6 in both arms. With a median follow-up of 31.0 months, 327 PFS events were observed. Median MT-PFS were 4.6 m in arm A vs 5.8 m in arm B (HR 0.73 [95%CI: 0.59-0.91], P=.005). Median PFS from inclusion were 9.2 m vs 10.2 m. During MT, in arm A vs arm B, grade 3-4 diarrhea (<1% vs 9%) and grade 3 skin toxicity (0% vs 19%) were the main differences in toxicity. Severe adverse events from randomization related to B or E were 6 in arm A and 7 in arm B. Overall survival is not mature. Conclusions: The addition of erlotinib to bevacizumab after induction therapy significantly improves the duration of maintenance PFS, following induction with first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".