Key clinical point: Long-term (3 years) bimekizumab treatment was associated with a sustained improvement in patient-reported outcomes like pain, fatigue, physical function, and quality of life in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: At week 48, there was a substantial improvement in mean arthritis pain (29.9 points), fatigue (2.4 points), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (0.43 points), and Physical Component Summary score (9.1 points), with improvements sustained till week 152. High proportions of patients achieved the Patient Acceptable Symptom State at weeks 48 (75.2%) and 152 (65.0%).

Study details: The findings are from a phase 2b (BE ACTIVE) trial including 206 patients with active PsA who were randomly assigned to receive bimekizumab or placebo for 48 weeks and its open-label extension (BE ACTIVE 2) including 184 patients who received 160 mg bimekizumab every 4 weeks from week 48 to week 152.

Disclosures: This study was supported by UCB Pharma. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of UCB Pharma. The other authors reported ties with various sources, including UCB Pharma.

Source: Mease PJ et al. Effect of bimekizumab on symptoms and impact of disease in patients with psoriatic arthritis over 3 years: Results from BE ACTIVE. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Jul 5). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac353

Key clinical point: Long-term (3 years) bimekizumab treatment was associated with a sustained improvement in patient-reported outcomes like pain, fatigue, physical function, and quality of life in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: At week 48, there was a substantial improvement in mean arthritis pain (29.9 points), fatigue (2.4 points), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (0.43 points), and Physical Component Summary score (9.1 points), with improvements sustained till week 152. High proportions of patients achieved the Patient Acceptable Symptom State at weeks 48 (75.2%) and 152 (65.0%).

Study details: The findings are from a phase 2b (BE ACTIVE) trial including 206 patients with active PsA who were randomly assigned to receive bimekizumab or placebo for 48 weeks and its open-label extension (BE ACTIVE 2) including 184 patients who received 160 mg bimekizumab every 4 weeks from week 48 to week 152.

Disclosures: This study was supported by UCB Pharma. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of UCB Pharma. The other authors reported ties with various sources, including UCB Pharma.

Source: Mease PJ et al. Effect of bimekizumab on symptoms and impact of disease in patients with psoriatic arthritis over 3 years: Results from BE ACTIVE. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Jul 5). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac353

Key clinical point: Long-term (3 years) bimekizumab treatment was associated with a sustained improvement in patient-reported outcomes like pain, fatigue, physical function, and quality of life in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: At week 48, there was a substantial improvement in mean arthritis pain (29.9 points), fatigue (2.4 points), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (0.43 points), and Physical Component Summary score (9.1 points), with improvements sustained till week 152. High proportions of patients achieved the Patient Acceptable Symptom State at weeks 48 (75.2%) and 152 (65.0%).

Study details: The findings are from a phase 2b (BE ACTIVE) trial including 206 patients with active PsA who were randomly assigned to receive bimekizumab or placebo for 48 weeks and its open-label extension (BE ACTIVE 2) including 184 patients who received 160 mg bimekizumab every 4 weeks from week 48 to week 152.

Disclosures: This study was supported by UCB Pharma. Four authors declared being employees and shareholders of UCB Pharma. The other authors reported ties with various sources, including UCB Pharma.

Source: Mease PJ et al. Effect of bimekizumab on symptoms and impact of disease in patients with psoriatic arthritis over 3 years: Results from BE ACTIVE. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Jul 5). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac353

Key clinical point: Ixekizumab as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) demonstrated sustained efficacy through 3 years in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).  Ixekizumab had a similar and consistent safety profile.

Major finding: At week 156, similar proportions of patients receiving ixekizumab, ixekizumab+methotrexate, and ixekizumab+any csDMARD achieved ≥ 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (59.1%, 67.0%, and 66.1%, respectively) and reported ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse events (91.0%, 84.1%, and 83.2%, respectively) of mostly mild or moderate severity.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of 2 phase 3 trials, SPIRIT-P1 and SPIRIT-P2, including 202 patients with active PsA who were biologic-naive or had prior inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and were randomly assigned to receive ixekizumab, ixekizumab+methotrexate, or ixekizumab+any csDMARD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. Five authors reported employment or stock ownership with Eli Lilly, and other authors reported ties with several sources, including Eli Lilly.

Source: Coates LC et al. Efficacy and safety of ixekizumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis with and without concomitant conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: SPIRIT-P1 and SPIRIT-P2 3-year results.  Clin Rheumatol. 2022 (Jun 8). Doi: 10.1007/s10067-022-06218-8

Key clinical point: Ixekizumab as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) demonstrated sustained efficacy through 3 years in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).  Ixekizumab had a similar and consistent safety profile.

Major finding: At week 156, similar proportions of patients receiving ixekizumab, ixekizumab+methotrexate, and ixekizumab+any csDMARD achieved ≥ 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (59.1%, 67.0%, and 66.1%, respectively) and reported ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse events (91.0%, 84.1%, and 83.2%, respectively) of mostly mild or moderate severity.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of 2 phase 3 trials, SPIRIT-P1 and SPIRIT-P2, including 202 patients with active PsA who were biologic-naive or had prior inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and were randomly assigned to receive ixekizumab, ixekizumab+methotrexate, or ixekizumab+any csDMARD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. Five authors reported employment or stock ownership with Eli Lilly, and other authors reported ties with several sources, including Eli Lilly.

Source: Coates LC et al. Efficacy and safety of ixekizumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis with and without concomitant conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: SPIRIT-P1 and SPIRIT-P2 3-year results.  Clin Rheumatol. 2022 (Jun 8). Doi: 10.1007/s10067-022-06218-8

Key clinical point: Ixekizumab as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) demonstrated sustained efficacy through 3 years in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).  Ixekizumab had a similar and consistent safety profile.

Major finding: At week 156, similar proportions of patients receiving ixekizumab, ixekizumab+methotrexate, and ixekizumab+any csDMARD achieved ≥ 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (59.1%, 67.0%, and 66.1%, respectively) and reported ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse events (91.0%, 84.1%, and 83.2%, respectively) of mostly mild or moderate severity.

Study details: Findings are from a post hoc analysis of 2 phase 3 trials, SPIRIT-P1 and SPIRIT-P2, including 202 patients with active PsA who were biologic-naive or had prior inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and were randomly assigned to receive ixekizumab, ixekizumab+methotrexate, or ixekizumab+any csDMARD.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. Five authors reported employment or stock ownership with Eli Lilly, and other authors reported ties with several sources, including Eli Lilly.

Source: Coates LC et al. Efficacy and safety of ixekizumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis with and without concomitant conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: SPIRIT-P1 and SPIRIT-P2 3-year results.  Clin Rheumatol. 2022 (Jun 8). Doi: 10.1007/s10067-022-06218-8

Key clinical point: A dose of 100 mg guselkumab every 4/8 weeks (Q4W/Q8W) demonstrated a rapid and sustained improvement in different disease activity (DA) domains in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Significantly higher proportion of patients receiving guselkumab Q4W/Q8W vs placebo achieved low DA in PsA (DAPSA) at week 8 (19.8%/17.3% vs 8.1%), DAPSA remission at week 12 (4.3%/4.3% vs 0.5%), minimal DA at week 16 (14.7%/16.5% vs 4.6%; all P < .001,) and very low DA at week 24 (6.4%/4.3% vs 1.3%; P < .05), with improvements maintained till week 52.

Study details: Findings are from a pooled analysis of 2 phase 3 trials (DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2) including 1120 patients with active PsA who had inadequate response to standard therapies or were biologic-naive and were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg guselkumab (Q4W/Q8W) or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Eight authors reported being current or former employees of Janssen and stockholders of Johnson & Johnson, the parent company of Janssen. The other authors reported ties with various sources, including Janssen.

Source: Coates LC et al. Guselkumab provides sustained domain-specific and comprehensive efficacy using composite indices in patients with active psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Jun 29). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac375

Key clinical point: A dose of 100 mg guselkumab every 4/8 weeks (Q4W/Q8W) demonstrated a rapid and sustained improvement in different disease activity (DA) domains in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Significantly higher proportion of patients receiving guselkumab Q4W/Q8W vs placebo achieved low DA in PsA (DAPSA) at week 8 (19.8%/17.3% vs 8.1%), DAPSA remission at week 12 (4.3%/4.3% vs 0.5%), minimal DA at week 16 (14.7%/16.5% vs 4.6%; all P < .001,) and very low DA at week 24 (6.4%/4.3% vs 1.3%; P < .05), with improvements maintained till week 52.

Study details: Findings are from a pooled analysis of 2 phase 3 trials (DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2) including 1120 patients with active PsA who had inadequate response to standard therapies or were biologic-naive and were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg guselkumab (Q4W/Q8W) or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Eight authors reported being current or former employees of Janssen and stockholders of Johnson & Johnson, the parent company of Janssen. The other authors reported ties with various sources, including Janssen.

Source: Coates LC et al. Guselkumab provides sustained domain-specific and comprehensive efficacy using composite indices in patients with active psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Jun 29). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac375

Key clinical point: A dose of 100 mg guselkumab every 4/8 weeks (Q4W/Q8W) demonstrated a rapid and sustained improvement in different disease activity (DA) domains in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Significantly higher proportion of patients receiving guselkumab Q4W/Q8W vs placebo achieved low DA in PsA (DAPSA) at week 8 (19.8%/17.3% vs 8.1%), DAPSA remission at week 12 (4.3%/4.3% vs 0.5%), minimal DA at week 16 (14.7%/16.5% vs 4.6%; all P < .001,) and very low DA at week 24 (6.4%/4.3% vs 1.3%; P < .05), with improvements maintained till week 52.

Study details: Findings are from a pooled analysis of 2 phase 3 trials (DISCOVER-1 and DISCOVER-2) including 1120 patients with active PsA who had inadequate response to standard therapies or were biologic-naive and were randomly assigned to receive 100 mg guselkumab (Q4W/Q8W) or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Janssen Research & Development, LLC. Eight authors reported being current or former employees of Janssen and stockholders of Johnson & Johnson, the parent company of Janssen. The other authors reported ties with various sources, including Janssen.

Source: Coates LC et al. Guselkumab provides sustained domain-specific and comprehensive efficacy using composite indices in patients with active psoriatic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Jun 29). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac375

Key clinical point: Use of beta-adrenergic receptor blockers is associated with decreased tumor-specific mortality in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), with the association with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) being particularly significant in those with advanced CRC.

Major finding: Beta-blocker use was significantly associated with a lower cancer-specific (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87; P  =  .04) and overall 1-year (HR 0.54; P < .00001) mortality but not with overall survival (HR 0.95; P  =  .28) and exerted a significant positive effect on PFS (HR 0.76; P  =  .005) in patients with stage IV CRC.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 14 retrospective cohort studies involving 85,993 patients with CRC and data on beta-blocker treatment outcomes for ≥1 endpoints (overall survival, PFS, and cancer-specific mortality).

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang J et al. Beta adrenergic blockade and clinical outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pharmacol. 2022;929:175135 (Jul 4). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2022.175135

Key clinical point: Use of beta-adrenergic receptor blockers is associated with decreased tumor-specific mortality in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), with the association with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) being particularly significant in those with advanced CRC.

Major finding: Beta-blocker use was significantly associated with a lower cancer-specific (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87; P  =  .04) and overall 1-year (HR 0.54; P < .00001) mortality but not with overall survival (HR 0.95; P  =  .28) and exerted a significant positive effect on PFS (HR 0.76; P  =  .005) in patients with stage IV CRC.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 14 retrospective cohort studies involving 85,993 patients with CRC and data on beta-blocker treatment outcomes for ≥1 endpoints (overall survival, PFS, and cancer-specific mortality).

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang J et al. Beta adrenergic blockade and clinical outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pharmacol. 2022;929:175135 (Jul 4). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2022.175135

Key clinical point: Use of beta-adrenergic receptor blockers is associated with decreased tumor-specific mortality in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), with the association with prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) being particularly significant in those with advanced CRC.

Major finding: Beta-blocker use was significantly associated with a lower cancer-specific (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87; P  =  .04) and overall 1-year (HR 0.54; P < .00001) mortality but not with overall survival (HR 0.95; P  =  .28) and exerted a significant positive effect on PFS (HR 0.76; P  =  .005) in patients with stage IV CRC.

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 14 retrospective cohort studies involving 85,993 patients with CRC and data on beta-blocker treatment outcomes for ≥1 endpoints (overall survival, PFS, and cancer-specific mortality).

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang J et al. Beta adrenergic blockade and clinical outcomes in patients with colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Pharmacol. 2022;929:175135 (Jul 4). Doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2022.175135

Key clinical point: Hepatic arterial infusion (HAI)-fluorouracil-oxaliplatin-irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) has a similar efficacy but worse safety profile compared with HAI-oxaliplatin in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer (LMCRC) resistant to previous lines of therapy.

Major finding: HAI-FOLFIRINOX vs HAI-oxaliplatin did not significantly improve the median overall survival (17.0 vs 26.2 months; P  =  .1), median progression-free survival (5.9 vs 6.4 months; P  =  .6), or objective response rate (43.2% vs 45.9%) but led to significantly higher secondary hepatic resection (35.6% vs 16.7%; P  =  .007) and grade ≥2 toxicity rates.

Study details: The data come from a multicenter, retrospective study that included 273 patients with LMCRC who had undergone ≥1 chemotherapy protocols and received HAI-oxaliplatin (n = 221) or HAI-FOLFIRINOX (n = 52).

Disclosures: No source of funding was disclosed. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Randrian V et al. Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with Folfirinox or oxaliplatin alone in metastatic colorectal cancer. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:830595 (Jun 16). Doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.830595

Key clinical point: Hepatic arterial infusion (HAI)-fluorouracil-oxaliplatin-irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) has a similar efficacy but worse safety profile compared with HAI-oxaliplatin in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer (LMCRC) resistant to previous lines of therapy.

Major finding: HAI-FOLFIRINOX vs HAI-oxaliplatin did not significantly improve the median overall survival (17.0 vs 26.2 months; P  =  .1), median progression-free survival (5.9 vs 6.4 months; P  =  .6), or objective response rate (43.2% vs 45.9%) but led to significantly higher secondary hepatic resection (35.6% vs 16.7%; P  =  .007) and grade ≥2 toxicity rates.

Study details: The data come from a multicenter, retrospective study that included 273 patients with LMCRC who had undergone ≥1 chemotherapy protocols and received HAI-oxaliplatin (n = 221) or HAI-FOLFIRINOX (n = 52).

Disclosures: No source of funding was disclosed. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Randrian V et al. Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with Folfirinox or oxaliplatin alone in metastatic colorectal cancer. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:830595 (Jun 16). Doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.830595

Key clinical point: Hepatic arterial infusion (HAI)-fluorouracil-oxaliplatin-irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX) has a similar efficacy but worse safety profile compared with HAI-oxaliplatin in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer (LMCRC) resistant to previous lines of therapy.

Major finding: HAI-FOLFIRINOX vs HAI-oxaliplatin did not significantly improve the median overall survival (17.0 vs 26.2 months; P  =  .1), median progression-free survival (5.9 vs 6.4 months; P  =  .6), or objective response rate (43.2% vs 45.9%) but led to significantly higher secondary hepatic resection (35.6% vs 16.7%; P  =  .007) and grade ≥2 toxicity rates.

Study details: The data come from a multicenter, retrospective study that included 273 patients with LMCRC who had undergone ≥1 chemotherapy protocols and received HAI-oxaliplatin (n = 221) or HAI-FOLFIRINOX (n = 52).

Disclosures: No source of funding was disclosed. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Randrian V et al. Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with Folfirinox or oxaliplatin alone in metastatic colorectal cancer. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:830595 (Jun 16). Doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.830595

Key clinical point: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common cause of noncancer death among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).

Major finding: During a median follow-up of 37 months, 79,455 patient deaths occurred, of which 23,270 (29.29%) were attributed to causes other than CRC, such as CVD (9702 [41.69%] of 23,270 deaths). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year cumulative incidence functions of CVD deaths were 12.20%, 24.25%, and 30.51%, respectively, whereas those of non-CVD deaths were 1.93%, 4.13%, and 4.77%, respectively.

Study details: This real-world, retrospective study included 197,699 patients with CRC and active follow-up data, including mortality causes, from 18 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results  (SEER) registries.

Disclosures: No source of funding was reported. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhang S et al. Cardiovascular outcomes in the patients with colorectal cancer: A multi-registry-based cohort study of 197,699 cases in the real world. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:851833 (Jun 16). Doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.851833

Key clinical point: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common cause of noncancer death among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).

Major finding: During a median follow-up of 37 months, 79,455 patient deaths occurred, of which 23,270 (29.29%) were attributed to causes other than CRC, such as CVD (9702 [41.69%] of 23,270 deaths). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year cumulative incidence functions of CVD deaths were 12.20%, 24.25%, and 30.51%, respectively, whereas those of non-CVD deaths were 1.93%, 4.13%, and 4.77%, respectively.

Study details: This real-world, retrospective study included 197,699 patients with CRC and active follow-up data, including mortality causes, from 18 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results  (SEER) registries.

Disclosures: No source of funding was reported. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhang S et al. Cardiovascular outcomes in the patients with colorectal cancer: A multi-registry-based cohort study of 197,699 cases in the real world. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:851833 (Jun 16). Doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.851833

Key clinical point: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most common cause of noncancer death among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).

Major finding: During a median follow-up of 37 months, 79,455 patient deaths occurred, of which 23,270 (29.29%) were attributed to causes other than CRC, such as CVD (9702 [41.69%] of 23,270 deaths). The 1-, 3-, and 5-year cumulative incidence functions of CVD deaths were 12.20%, 24.25%, and 30.51%, respectively, whereas those of non-CVD deaths were 1.93%, 4.13%, and 4.77%, respectively.

Study details: This real-world, retrospective study included 197,699 patients with CRC and active follow-up data, including mortality causes, from 18 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results  (SEER) registries.

Disclosures: No source of funding was reported. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Zhang S et al. Cardiovascular outcomes in the patients with colorectal cancer: A multi-registry-based cohort study of 197,699 cases in the real world. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:851833 (Jun 16). Doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.851833

Key clinical point: Compared with fecal immunochemical test (FIT), colonoscopy is a more effective method for improving survival among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).

Major finding: Compared with no screening, colonoscopy led to a 44% decrease in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.56; 95% CI 0.53-0.59), whereas FIT reduced mortality by 22% (aHR 0.78; 95% CI 0.74-0.82).

Study details: This nationwide population-based retrospective study included 24,875 patients with CRC who underwent colonoscopy (n = 9619), FIT (n = 6936), or no screening (n = 8320).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by the Catholic Medical Center Research Foundation, USA. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Sung S-Y et al. Colonoscopy decreases mortality in colorectal cancer patients compared with fecal immunochemical test. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 (Jun 23). Doi: 10.1111/jgh.15924

Key clinical point: Compared with fecal immunochemical test (FIT), colonoscopy is a more effective method for improving survival among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).

Major finding: Compared with no screening, colonoscopy led to a 44% decrease in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.56; 95% CI 0.53-0.59), whereas FIT reduced mortality by 22% (aHR 0.78; 95% CI 0.74-0.82).

Study details: This nationwide population-based retrospective study included 24,875 patients with CRC who underwent colonoscopy (n = 9619), FIT (n = 6936), or no screening (n = 8320).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by the Catholic Medical Center Research Foundation, USA. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Sung S-Y et al. Colonoscopy decreases mortality in colorectal cancer patients compared with fecal immunochemical test. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 (Jun 23). Doi: 10.1111/jgh.15924

Key clinical point: Compared with fecal immunochemical test (FIT), colonoscopy is a more effective method for improving survival among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).

Major finding: Compared with no screening, colonoscopy led to a 44% decrease in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.56; 95% CI 0.53-0.59), whereas FIT reduced mortality by 22% (aHR 0.78; 95% CI 0.74-0.82).

Study details: This nationwide population-based retrospective study included 24,875 patients with CRC who underwent colonoscopy (n = 9619), FIT (n = 6936), or no screening (n = 8320).

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by the Catholic Medical Center Research Foundation, USA. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Sung S-Y et al. Colonoscopy decreases mortality in colorectal cancer patients compared with fecal immunochemical test. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022 (Jun 23). Doi: 10.1111/jgh.15924

Key clinical point: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improves the survival of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and peritoneal metastasis.

Major finding: The CRS plus HIPEC vs control group had a longer overall survival (hazard ratio 0.53; P < .00001).

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 10 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 7 cohort studies) including 3200 patients with CRC and peritoneal metastasis who were assigned to the CRS plus HIPEC (n = 788) or control (n = 2412) group.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Li J et al. Effect of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in combination with cytoreductive surgery on the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2022;20:200 (Jun 14). Doi: 10.1186/s12957-022-02666-3.

Key clinical point: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improves the survival of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and peritoneal metastasis.

Major finding: The CRS plus HIPEC vs control group had a longer overall survival (hazard ratio 0.53; P < .00001).

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 10 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 7 cohort studies) including 3200 patients with CRC and peritoneal metastasis who were assigned to the CRS plus HIPEC (n = 788) or control (n = 2412) group.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Li J et al. Effect of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in combination with cytoreductive surgery on the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2022;20:200 (Jun 14). Doi: 10.1186/s12957-022-02666-3.

Key clinical point: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improves the survival of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and peritoneal metastasis.

Major finding: The CRS plus HIPEC vs control group had a longer overall survival (hazard ratio 0.53; P < .00001).

Study details: This was a meta-analysis of 10 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 7 cohort studies) including 3200 patients with CRC and peritoneal metastasis who were assigned to the CRS plus HIPEC (n = 788) or control (n = 2412) group.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Li J et al. Effect of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy in combination with cytoreductive surgery on the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastasis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2022;20:200 (Jun 14). Doi: 10.1186/s12957-022-02666-3.

Key clinical point: Colonoscopy screening prevents both distal and proximal colorectal cancer (CRC) with similar efficacy.

Major finding: After 11 years of follow-up, the colonoscopy screening vs no screening group showed an adjusted CRC risk of 1.62% vs 2.38%, respectively, with the adjusted relative risk (aRR) being 0.68 (95% CI 0.63-0.73). The aRR for distal vs proximal CRC was 0.67 (95% CI 0.62-0.73) vs 0.70 (95% CI 0.63-0.79), respectively.

Study details: This study analyzed the observational data of 307,158 participants from a German claims database who were 55-69 years old, at an average risk for CRC, and did (n = 198,389) or did not (n = 117,399) undergo colonoscopy screening.

Disclosures: This study was supported by intramural funding from the Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology–BIPS, Germany. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Braitmaier M et al. Screening colonoscopy similarly prevented distal and proximal colorectal cancer: a prospective study among 55–69-year-olds J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;149:118-126 (Jun 6). Doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.024

Key clinical point: Colonoscopy screening prevents both distal and proximal colorectal cancer (CRC) with similar efficacy.

Major finding: After 11 years of follow-up, the colonoscopy screening vs no screening group showed an adjusted CRC risk of 1.62% vs 2.38%, respectively, with the adjusted relative risk (aRR) being 0.68 (95% CI 0.63-0.73). The aRR for distal vs proximal CRC was 0.67 (95% CI 0.62-0.73) vs 0.70 (95% CI 0.63-0.79), respectively.

Study details: This study analyzed the observational data of 307,158 participants from a German claims database who were 55-69 years old, at an average risk for CRC, and did (n = 198,389) or did not (n = 117,399) undergo colonoscopy screening.

Disclosures: This study was supported by intramural funding from the Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology–BIPS, Germany. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Braitmaier M et al. Screening colonoscopy similarly prevented distal and proximal colorectal cancer: a prospective study among 55–69-year-olds J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;149:118-126 (Jun 6). Doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.024

Key clinical point: Colonoscopy screening prevents both distal and proximal colorectal cancer (CRC) with similar efficacy.

Major finding: After 11 years of follow-up, the colonoscopy screening vs no screening group showed an adjusted CRC risk of 1.62% vs 2.38%, respectively, with the adjusted relative risk (aRR) being 0.68 (95% CI 0.63-0.73). The aRR for distal vs proximal CRC was 0.67 (95% CI 0.62-0.73) vs 0.70 (95% CI 0.63-0.79), respectively.

Study details: This study analyzed the observational data of 307,158 participants from a German claims database who were 55-69 years old, at an average risk for CRC, and did (n = 198,389) or did not (n = 117,399) undergo colonoscopy screening.

Disclosures: This study was supported by intramural funding from the Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology–BIPS, Germany. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Braitmaier M et al. Screening colonoscopy similarly prevented distal and proximal colorectal cancer: a prospective study among 55–69-year-olds J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;149:118-126 (Jun 6). Doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.05.024

Key clinical point: Second-line fluorouracil-leucovorin-irinotecan (FOLFIRI)-bevacizumab is associated with a longer overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and better tolerance than FOLFIRI-aflibercept in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after progression on fluorouracil-leucovorin-oxaliplatin (FOLFOX)-bevacizumab.

Major finding: After a 31.2-month median follow-up, the FOLFIRI-bevacizumab vs FOLFIRI-aflibercept group had a significantly longer median OS (13.0 vs 10.4 months; P < .0001) and PFS (6.01 vs 5.09 months; P < .0001) and a lower grade 3-4 toxicity rate (P < .0001), with bevacizumab being associated with better OS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.71; P  =  .0003) and PFS (aHR 0.70; P  =  .0001) even after confounder adjustment.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, real-world cohort study, BEFLICO, that included 681 patients with mCRC who received FOLFIRI-aflibercept (n = 326) or FOLFIRI-bevacizumab (n = 355) in the second-line setting.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Association des Gastro-entérologues Oncologues (AGEO). Some authors reported receiving speaker/advisor honoraria, consulting/personal fees, and/or research/travel funding from various sources.

Source: Torregrosa C et al. FOLFIRI plus BEvacizumab or aFLIbercept after FOLFOX-bevacizumab failure for COlorectal cancer (BEFLICO): An AGEO multicenter study. Int J Cancer. 2022 (Jun 15). Doi:  10.1002/ijc.34166

Key clinical point: Second-line fluorouracil-leucovorin-irinotecan (FOLFIRI)-bevacizumab is associated with a longer overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and better tolerance than FOLFIRI-aflibercept in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after progression on fluorouracil-leucovorin-oxaliplatin (FOLFOX)-bevacizumab.

Major finding: After a 31.2-month median follow-up, the FOLFIRI-bevacizumab vs FOLFIRI-aflibercept group had a significantly longer median OS (13.0 vs 10.4 months; P < .0001) and PFS (6.01 vs 5.09 months; P < .0001) and a lower grade 3-4 toxicity rate (P < .0001), with bevacizumab being associated with better OS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.71; P  =  .0003) and PFS (aHR 0.70; P  =  .0001) even after confounder adjustment.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, real-world cohort study, BEFLICO, that included 681 patients with mCRC who received FOLFIRI-aflibercept (n = 326) or FOLFIRI-bevacizumab (n = 355) in the second-line setting.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Association des Gastro-entérologues Oncologues (AGEO). Some authors reported receiving speaker/advisor honoraria, consulting/personal fees, and/or research/travel funding from various sources.

Source: Torregrosa C et al. FOLFIRI plus BEvacizumab or aFLIbercept after FOLFOX-bevacizumab failure for COlorectal cancer (BEFLICO): An AGEO multicenter study. Int J Cancer. 2022 (Jun 15). Doi:  10.1002/ijc.34166

Key clinical point: Second-line fluorouracil-leucovorin-irinotecan (FOLFIRI)-bevacizumab is associated with a longer overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) and better tolerance than FOLFIRI-aflibercept in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after progression on fluorouracil-leucovorin-oxaliplatin (FOLFOX)-bevacizumab.

Major finding: After a 31.2-month median follow-up, the FOLFIRI-bevacizumab vs FOLFIRI-aflibercept group had a significantly longer median OS (13.0 vs 10.4 months; P < .0001) and PFS (6.01 vs 5.09 months; P < .0001) and a lower grade 3-4 toxicity rate (P < .0001), with bevacizumab being associated with better OS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.71; P  =  .0003) and PFS (aHR 0.70; P  =  .0001) even after confounder adjustment.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective, real-world cohort study, BEFLICO, that included 681 patients with mCRC who received FOLFIRI-aflibercept (n = 326) or FOLFIRI-bevacizumab (n = 355) in the second-line setting.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Association des Gastro-entérologues Oncologues (AGEO). Some authors reported receiving speaker/advisor honoraria, consulting/personal fees, and/or research/travel funding from various sources.

Source: Torregrosa C et al. FOLFIRI plus BEvacizumab or aFLIbercept after FOLFOX-bevacizumab failure for COlorectal cancer (BEFLICO): An AGEO multicenter study. Int J Cancer. 2022 (Jun 15). Doi:  10.1002/ijc.34166