English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The optimal targeted therapy sequence in patients of RAS wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains controversial, and few studies focus on the impact of first-line targeted agents on second-line ones. We enrolled 101 left-sided mCRC patients with RAS wild-type status, of which 50 cases received bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in both first-line and second-line therapies (Group A) and 51 cases received first-line cetuximab plus chemotherapy followed by second-line bevacizumab-containing regimens (Group B). The progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) from start of first-line (PFS 1nd and OS 1nd) and second-line (PFS 2nd and OS 2nd) therapy were compared between the two groups. PFS 1nd was comparable (10.0 vs 10.4 months;  p  = 0.402), while PFS 2nd (4.6 vs 7.9 months;  p  = 0.002), OS 1nd (26.8 vs 40.0 months;  p  = 0.011), and OS 2nd (15.2 vs 22.3 months;  p  = 0.006) were all poorer in group A compared with group B. Our study in combination with previous clinical data suggest that first-line application of cetuximab may provide a favorable condition for promoting the effect of subsequent bevacizumab, thus representing the optimal targeted therapy sequence in patients of RAS wild-type left-sided mCRC.

scientific reports

First-line cetuximab improves the efficacy of subsequent bevacizumab for RAS wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer: an observational retrospective study