The ‘real-life’ impact of adding bevacizumab to first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: A large Israeli retrospective cohort study

Figures & data

Table I. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics.

	Cohort A (without bevacizumab) n = 687	Cohort B (with bevacizumab) n = 1052	p-Value
Gender (female)	328 (47.7%)	517 (49.1%)	0.568
Age (years)	63 ± 10.9	64.3 ± 11.5	0.020
Charlson’s Comorbidity score
0	18 (2.6%)	33 (3.1%)
1	19 (4.4%)	46 (4.4%)	0.299
2	63 (9.2%)	88 (8.4%)
3+	587 (85.4%)	885 (84.1%)
First-line chemotherapy regimen
Oxaliplatin-based	30 (4.4%)	406 (38.6%)	< 0.0001
Irinotecan-based	657 (95.6%)	646 (61.4%)	< 0.0001
Second-line chemotherapy regimen
Oxaliplatin-based	293 (42.6%)*	369 (35.1%)	< 0.0001
Irinotecan-based	10 (1.5%)	245 (23.3%)	< 0.0001
Exposure to both oxaliplatin and irinotecan	303 (44.1%)*	614 (58.4%)	0.022
EGFR inhibitor (as a latter line therapy)	3 (0.4%)	218 (20.7%)	< 0.0001

EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor.

*49 patients (7.1%) finished first-line treatment prior to January 2001 (before oxaliplatin was available in second-line).

Figure 1. Overall survival (A) and progression-free survival (B) in patients receiving combination chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab.

Table II. Outcomes in patients receiving combination chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab.

Measure	Cohort A (no bevacizumab) n = 687	Cohort B (with bevacizumab) n = 1052	p-Value	Unadjusted HR (95% CI)	Adjusted HR (95% CI)*
OS (95% CI)	15.0 ± 0.8 (13.4–16.6)	23.0 ± 0.7 (21.7–24.3)	< 0.0001	0.74 (0.67–0.82)	0.75 (0.68–0.84)
PFS (95% CI)	9.8 ± 0.4 (9.0–10.5)	14.0 ± 0.5 (13.0–15.0)	< 0.0001	0.80 (0.71–0.87)	0.75 (0.68–0.83)
Metastatectomy rate	27 (3.9%)	85 (8.1%)	0.001

OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.

*By multivariate modeling, adjusting covariates include bevacizumab use, age, sex, comorbidity and exposure to both irinotecan and oxaliplatin.

Figure 2. Overall survival (A) and progression-free survival (B) in patients receiving irinotecan-based chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab.

Figure 3. Overall survival (A) and progression-free survival (B) in patients receiving bevacizumab therapy with oxaliplatin/irinotecan.

Table III. Outcomes in patients receiving irinotecan-based chemotherapy backbone.

Measure	Cohort A (no bevacizumab) n = 657	Cohort B (with bevacizumab) n = 646	p-Value	Unadjusted HR (95% CI)	Adjusted HR (95% CI)*
OS (95% CI)	16.0 ± 0.9 (14.3–17.7)	21.0 ± 0.9 (19.2–22.8)	0.008	0.84 (0.75–0.94)	0.84 (0.76–0.96)
PFS (95% CI)	9.8 ± 0.4 (9.0–10.5)	13.0 ± 0.5 (12.1–13.9)	0.004	0.88 (0.78–0.98)	0.84 (0.75–0.95)
Metastatectomy rate	25 (3.8%)	35 (5.4%)	0.165

OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.

*By multivariate modeling, adjusting covariates include bevacizumab use, age, sex, comorbidity and exposure to both irinotecan and oxaliplatin.

Table IV. Bevacizumab treated patients’ outcomes, according to the chemotherapy backbone.

Measure	Irinotecan n = 646	Oxaliplatin n = 406	p-Value	Unadjusted HR (95% CI)	Adjusted HR (95% CI)*
OS (95% CI)	21.0 ± 0.9 (19.2–22.8)	25.0 ± 0.9 (23.2–26.8)	< 0.0001	0.75 (0.65–0.86)	0.77 (0.67–0.90)
PFS (95% CI)	13 ± 0.5 (12.1–13.9)	16.3 ± 0.9 (14.6–18.1)	< 0.0001	0.77 (0.67–0.88)	0.78 (0.68–0.90)
Metastatectomy rate	35 (5.4%)	50 (12.3%)	< 0.0001

OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.

*By multivariate modeling, adjusting covariates include bevacizumab use, age, sex, comorbidity and exposure to both irinotecan and oxaliplatin.