Fruquintinib versus placebo in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: safety analysis of FRESCO-2

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Fruquintinib is a highly selective, oral inhibitor of all 3 VEGF receptors. The global, randomized, double-blind phase 3 FRESCO-2 trial (NCT04322539) met its primary endpoint demonstrating significantly improved overall survival in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who received fruquintinib plus best supportive care (BSC) versus placebo plus BSC. Here we report detailed safety data from FRESCO-2 including an analysis of treatment-related adverse events of special interest (AESIs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mCRC eligible for FRESCO-2 had received all standard chemotherapies and prior anti-VEGF and anti-EGFR therapies if indicated, and displayed progression on, or intolerance to, TAS-102 and/or regorafenib. Prespecified AESIs based on VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor drug classes were evaluated. RESULTS: Incidences of treatment-related AESIs were 64.9% with fruquintinib + BSC versus 23.0% with placebo + BSC. The most frequent all-grade treatment-related AESIs for fruquintinib were hypertension (28.9%; grade ≥3 10.7%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome/hand-foot skin reaction (PPE 18.6%; grade ≥3 6.1%), and hypothyroidism (15.6%; grade ≥3 0.4%). Dose reductions due to treatment-related AESIs were reported in 10.3% of patients who received fruquintinib + BSC versus 0.4% with placebo + BSC. The most common treatment-related AESIs resulting in dose reduction for fruquintinib were PPE syndrome (5.0%), hypertension (2.9%), and proteinuria (1.3%). Overall, 5.9% versus 0.9% had treatment-related AESIs resulting in study drug discontinuation. CONCLUSION: Fruquintinib + BSC demonstrated a predictable and manageable safety profile in pretreated patients with mCRC and is a novel oral treatment option that prolongs survival and enriches the continuum of care in this population.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.