A Single Arm, Phase II Study of Simvastatin Plus XELOX and Bevacizumab as First-Line Chemotherapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients

Youjin Kim; Tae Won Kim; Sae Won Han; Joong Bae Ahn; Seung Tae Kim; Jeeyun Lee; Joon Oh Park; Young Suk Park; Ho Yeong Lim; Won Ki Kang

doi:10.4143/crt.2018.379

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 51(3); 2019 > Article

Original Article A Single Arm, Phase II Study of Simvastatin Plus XELOX and Bevacizumab as First-Line Chemotherapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients: Youjin Kim, MD^1,2, Tae Won Kim, MD, PhD³, Sae Won Han, MD, PhD⁴, Joong Bae Ahn, MD, PhD⁵, Seung Tae Kim, MD, PhD¹, Jeeyun Lee, MD, PhD¹, Joon Oh Park, MD, PhD¹, Young Suk Park, MD, PhD¹, Ho Yeong Lim, MD, PhD¹, Won Ki Kang, MD, PhD^1,; Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2019;51(3):1128-1134.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2018.379
Published online: November 21, 2018

¹Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

²Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine Changwon, Korea

³Department of Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁴Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁵Department of Internal Medicine, Institute for Cancer Research, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence: Won Ki Kang MD, PhD Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 06351, Korea
Tel: 82-2-3410-1779 Fax: 82-2-3410-1754 E-mail: wkkang@skku.edu

• Received: June 28, 2018 • Accepted: November 16, 2018

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

9,340 Views
223 Download
18 Web of Science
14 Crossref
19 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

Purpose
Simvastatin has demonstrated anti-tumor activity in preclinical studies via tumor cell senescence, apoptosis, and anti-angiogenesis. This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy and toxicity profile of conventional XELOX and bevacizumab chemotherapy plus simvastatin in metastatic colorectal cancer patients (MCRC).
Materials and Methods
Patients with MCRC received first-line XELOX in 3-week treatment cycles of intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m² plus bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (day 1), followed by oral capecitabine 1,000 mg/m² twice daily (day 1-14). Simvastatin 80 mg tablets were taken orally once daily every day during the period of chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were response rate, duration of response, overall survival (OS), time to progression, and toxicity.
Results
From January 2014 to April 2015, 60 patients were enrolled and 55 patients were evaluable for tumor response. The median follow-up duration was 30.1 months (range, 28.5 to 31.7 months). The median PFS was 10.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.6 to 11.1). The median OS of all patients was 19.0 months (95% CI, 11.9 to 26.0). The disease-control rate and overall response rate were 88.3% (95% CI, 74 to 96) and 58.3% (95% CI, 44 to 77), respectively, by intent-to-treat protocol analysis. There was one complete response and 34 partial responses. One patient experienced grade 3 creatine kinase elevation and liver enzyme elevation.
Conclusion
Based on the current study, the addition of 80 mg simvastatin to XELOX and bevacizumab showed comparable clinical efficacy in patients with MCRC as first-line chemotherapy and did not increase toxicity.
Key words: Colorectal neoplasms, Simvastatin, XELOX, Bevacizumab

Introduction

Colorectal cancer is the second most deadly cancer world-wide and is the third and second most commonly diagnosed cancer in males and females, respectively [1]. The treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) has evolved significantly over the decades. The addition of oxaliplatin to oral capecitabine monotherapy led to higher response rates (RRs) and time-to-progression (TTP) in both first- and second-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer [2,3].

Angiogenesis and maintenance of the tumor vasculature are essential for cancer growth, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) is essential for both tumor angiogenesis and development [4]. Given the key role of VEGF in angiogenesis, bevacizumab, a humanized monoclonal immunoglobulin G1 antibody targeting circulating VEGF, has been shown to improve RR and survival when combined with any of the first-line and second-line standard cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens in patients with MCRC [5,6]. Bevacizumab plus double chemotherapy has become a standard treatment for patients with MCRC. However, limited efficacy and resistance remain outstanding problems [7,8].

Statins are widely prescribed cholesterol-lowering drugs in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a favorable safety profile [9]. In addition to cholesterol reduction, the anti-proliferative effects of statins on different cancer cell lines have been demonstrated in numerous in vitro studies and in clinical data [10]. Statins act by reducing cholesterol synthesis through the inhibition of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutayl coenzyme A reductase, the rate-limiting enzyme of the mevalonate pathway [9]. Mevalonate production is reduced, along with its downstream products involved in carcinogenesis, farnesyl pyrophosphate (FPP) and geranylgeranyl pyrophosphate (GGPP) [9,11]. FPP and GGPP are essential substrates for posttranslational modifications of the Ras and Rho homolog gene family, member A (RHOA), which plays an important role in the intracellular signal transduction that is responsible for cell growth, proliferation, migration, and survival [11,12]. Thus, RHOA gene mutations have been implicated in various cancer types via aberrant cell signaling. Statins have been shown to stabilize the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors p21 and p27, thus inhibiting cell signaling pathways involved in metastatic properties of invasive cancers [13]. Based on the effects of statins on posttranscriptional modifications of RAS and RHOA, the anti-tumor effect of statins has been proposed in various cancers, including melanomas, adenocarcinomas, and neuroblastoma [14-16].

In our recent in vitro study, the addition of simvastatin to bevacizumab reduced proliferation, migration, invasion, and tumor formation of endothelial cells. Moreover, we found that colorectal cancer cell media to which simvastatin combined with bevacizumab was added inhibited endothelial cell invasion and was associated with reduced levels of mediators of angiogenesis such as angiopoietin 2, BiP, and heat shock protein 90α. Treatment with bevacizumab and simvastatin reduced the growth of xenograft tumors more than bevacizumab alone [17]. We previously reported a phase II trial of simvastatin plus FOLFIRI (irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) chemotherapy in MCRC patients and demonstrated the safety of adding simvastatin to chemotherapy [18]. Accordingly, we planned this study to investigate the synergistic effect of simvastatin combined with standard chemotherapy (XELOX [capecitabine plus oxaliplatin] plus bevacizumab) as first-line chemotherapy in patients with MCRC.

Materials and Methods

1. Phase II study design

This was an open-label, single-arm, phase II study conducted at four centers (Samsung Medical Center, Asan Medical Center, Seoul National University Hospital, and Yonsei Cancer Center) in South Korea (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier; NCT02026583). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from the start of treatment to progression or death, as assessed by the investigator. Secondary endpoints were independently reviewed RR and overall survival (OS), defined as the time from treatment initiation to death or safety.

2. Patient eligibility

Patients aged ≥ 20 years with histologically confirmed metastatic or recurrent colorectal cancer (CRC), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1, and a life expectancy > 3 months were enrolled. All patients had to have at least one measurable lesion according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST, ver. 1.1) [19]. Adjuvant chemotherapy, if administered, needed to have been completed at least 12 months before study entry. No previous chemotherapy for metastatic or advanced CRC was permitted, nor was previous exposure to bevacizumab. Patients had to have adequate hematological (absolute neutrophil count ≥ 1.5×10⁹/L; platelet count ≥ 100×10⁹/L; hemoglobin ≥ 10 g/dL), hepatic (total bilirubin ≤ 1.5×the upper limit of normal [ULN]; alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase ≤ 2.5×ULN, or ≤ 5×ULN in the case of hepatic metastases; alkaline phosphatase ≤ 2.5×ULN, or ≤ 5×ULN in the case of hepatic or ≤ 10×ULN osseous metastases, respectively), and renal function (creatinine clearance by Cockroft formula ≥ 50 mL/min or creatinine ≤ 1.5 mg/dL).

Key exclusion criteria were prior statin therapy within 1 year from the date of study entry, prior treatment with another anti-VEGF or anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor, prior chemotherapy for MCRC (adjuvant chemotherapy for CRC was permitted), surgery within 28 days of starting treatment, planned radiotherapy for underlying disease (completed radiotherapy in 4 weeks was allowed), and history of malignancy other than MCRC. Patients with uncontrolled hypertension; clinically significant cardiovascular disease, hemorrhagic diathesis, or coagulopathy; use of full-dose anticoagulants or thrombolytics; serious non-healing wounds; or other medications predisposing to gastrointestinal (GI) ulceration were also excluded.

3. Treatment

Patients received intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m² on day 1, then oral capecitabine 1,000 mg/m² twice daily from the evening of day 1 to the morning of day 15, followed by a 7-day treatment-free interval, repeated in a 3-week cycle. Bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg was administered intravenously as a 30- to 90-minute intravenous infusion before oxaliplatin on day 1 of each cycle. Simvastatin was taken orally in an 80 mg tablet once per day every day during the period of chemotherapy. Treatment cycles were repeated every 3 weeks until evidence of disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient refusal. Simvastatin was stopped upon termination of XELOX plus bevacizumab chemotherapy.

Administration of oxaliplatin or capecitabine was delayed as long as there was neutropenia less than 1,500/mm³ or thrombocytopenia less than 75,000/mm³. The dose of oxaliplatin was reduced by 25% for grade 3 or 4 thrombocytopenia, grade 4 neutropenia, and for paresthesia with pain or functional impairment > 7 days. In general, for nonhematologic toxicities greater than or equal to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 4.0 (CTCAE 4.0) grade 3 and considered related to study treatment, treatment was delayed until resolution to grade 1 or to the patient’s baseline value before treatment. However, exceptions were possible for grade 2 neurotoxicity. The investigator and patient could decide to continue treatment at a reduced dose with no delay required, as neurotoxicity was not expected to resolve to baseline values in all cases. Dose reductions at the start of the subsequent cycle were based on maximum non-hematologic toxicities from the dose administered in the preceding cycle. In case of grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity, oxaliplatin was discontinued, and only capecitabine, bevacizumab, and simvastatin were continued. Bevacizumab doses were not reduced or escalated; in cases of serious bevacizumab-related toxicity, bevacizumab was temporarily or permanently suspended. When bevacizumab was discontinued, continuation of XELOX plus simvastatin was considered.

4. Study assessments

Pre-study screening assessments included a full medical history, vital signs and physical measurements, and hematologic and blood chemistry tests. Tumor assessments were performed by computed tomography scan, X-ray, and/or magnetic resonance imaging during screening and every two cycles of treatment until disease progression or withdrawal from study medication. In patients whose disease had not progressed when treatment was stopped, tumor assessments were performed every 3 months until progression. In addition to investigator assessment, tumor imagery was evaluated by an independent review committee (IRC), using X-ray, magnetic resonance imaging, or computed tomography scans. Investigators and the IRC assessed the same scans. In addition, survival was monitored at intervals of every 3 months in each patient leaving the study. Tumor response was assessed according to RECIST ver. 1.1 criteria and confirmed at least 6 weeks later by the same evaluation. TTP was defined as the interval between the first dose of study treatment and the first recording of disease progression or death.

Toxicity was graded according to the CTCAE ver. 4.0. In addition, the incidence of the following specific adverse events (irrespective of their possible relationship to bevacizumab treatment) was assessed: GI perforation, woundhealing complications, bleeding, hypertension, proteinuria, and thromboembolism (venous and arterial).

5. Statistical considerations

In a phase III trial of bevacizumab combined with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy, median PFS was 9.4 months in the bevacizumab group and 8.0 months in the placebo group [8]. Based on those data, the median PFS of H0 was assumed as 9 months, and the median PFS of H1 as 13 months. Using a one-sided alpha at 0.05 and a power of 80%, 54 patients were needed for the trial. With consideration for dropouts and ineligibility of 10%, a total of 60 patients were needed. The efficacy analyses were based on the intent-to-treat population. The primary endpoint was PFS, as assessed by the investigators. Secondary endpoints were disease control rate, overall response rate, OS, and toxicity. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used in the analysis of time-to-event variables, and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the median time to event was computed. Safety was analyzed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. Descriptive statistics are reported as proportions and medians. Clinical cutoff for the study analysis was February 28, 2017.

6. Ethical statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki and the Ethical Guidelines for Clinical Studies. All patients gave their written informed consent, conforming to institutional guidelines, indicating that they were aware of the investigational nature of the study. This study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board (IRB) of the participating institutions (IRB No. 2013-07-088).

Results

1. Patient characteristics and treatment

From January 2014 to April 2015, 60 patients were enrolled. Baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The median age was 57 years (range, 24 to 74 years). Approximately one-third of the patients had recurrent disease after curative resection. Tumors were located in the cecum in three, ascending colon in 11, transverse colon in one, descending colon in four, sigmoid colon in 18, rectosigmoid colon in nine, and rectum in 14 patients. Collectively, 15 patients (25%) had a tumor in a proximal (from the cecum to transverse colon) location, and 45 patients (75%) had a tumor in a distal location.

Patients (n=60) had adenocarcinoma that was well, moderate, or poorly differentiated in 16 (26.7%), 37 (61.7%), and six (10.0%) of cases, respectively. Metastases were found in the liver in 49 cases (81.7%), the lung in 22 (36.7%), lymph nodes in 16 (26.7%), peritoneal seeding in eight (13.3%), bone in three (5.0%), and at two or more sites in 32 (53.3%).

2. Efficacy

In total, 689 cycles were administered with a median of nine cycles per patient (range, 1 to 45 cycles). The median follow-up duration was 30.1 months (range, 29.2 to 33.4 months). The median PFS was 10.4 months (95% CI, 9.6 to 11.1) (Fig. 1A), and median OS was 19.0 months (95% CI, 13.1 to 24.7) (Fig. 1B). Fifty-five of 60 patients (91.6%) were assessable for response. The disease-control rate and overall response rate were 88.3% (95% CI, 74 to 96) and 58.3% (95% CI, 44 to 77), respectively, by intent-to-treat protocol analysis. There was one complete response (CR) and 34 partial responses (PRs). All patients were included in the survival analysis. Two patients are currently still in the trial, and 58 patients discontinued study medication. The main reasons for discontinuation were disease progression (n=43, 74.1%) and patient refusal (n=7, 12.0%) (Table 2). Two patients wanted to stop after confirming CR or PR, and one patient underwent surgery after PR.

3. Toxicity

Table 3 details adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation and predefined adverse events of special interest in response to the statin. Most adverse events were mild to moderate, the most common being sensory neuropathy (48%), nausea (37%), fatigue or weakness (33%), and hand foot syndrome (32%). Significant toxicity (grade 3 or 4) presented as nausea (5%), neutropenia (5%), fatigue (2%), rash (2%), stomatitis (2%), hand foot syndrome (2%), vomiting (2%), and diarrhea (2%). Two patients experienced grade 3 creatine kinase (CK) elevation. One patient experienced grade 3 CK elevation and liver enzyme elevation, suggesting statin-induced myopathy; treatment was stopped. The other one seemed to experience grade 3 CK elevation without liver enzyme elevation as also statin related toxicity. Bowel perforation occurred in two patients after the first cycle of treatment.

Discussion

This was a single-arm, phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the addition of simvastatin, a synthetic 3-hydroxy-3-methyglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor, to XELOX and bevacizumab as first-line chemotherapy in MCRC. The median PFS was 10.1 months, which was not a significantly superior outcome compared to previous studies. Our observed median OS (19.0 months; 95% CI, 13.1 to 24.7) was similar to that observed in a prior trial in MCRC (XELOX plus bevacizumab) [8].

Preclinical studies continue to report the tremendous potential of simvastatin in cancer cell lines through inhibition of cell proliferation, promotion of apoptosis, promotion of tumor cell differentiation, modulation of the tumor microenvironment, and immunomodulation. Statins have been investigated for a variety of cancers, and there are also several ongoing trials of statin treatment in various cancers, including in our group. Combination therapy clinical trials with statins and other chemotherapeutic agents have shown encouraging results. Previously, our group conducted an open-label, phase II trial evaluating the efficacy and toxicity profile of conventional FOLFIRI chemotherapy in combination with simvastatin in patients with MCRC and found that this combination exhibited promising anti-tumor activity [18]. In that study, the median survival of all patients was 21.8 months (95% CI, 14.4 to 29.2), and the median TTP was 9.9 months (95% CI, 6.4 to 13.3). However, in this study, the PFS and OS of statin plus bevacizumab did not reach statistical significance. Given the promising results reported with statin use in various cancers, novel combination treatments with statins warrant further studies to explore and validate potential synergies in combinations. Further research is also needed to determine which subtypes of patients benefit from statin therapy, how statins may potentiate other anti-cancer approaches, and the appropriate dosing schedule to use.

The anti-cancer effects of statins result from inhibition of endothelial cell proliferation and migration, as well as induction of apoptosis. Our previous experimental data suggested simvastatin had anti-angiogenic effect and potentiated the effect of bevacizumab in vitro and in vivo [17]. In one study, statin is associated with induced apoptosis of microvascular endothelial cells and lowered VEGF serum levels implicating a possible anti-angiogenic role in cancer treatment [20-23]. Statin can induce apoptosis (high dose), senescence (low dose), and antiangiogenic effect in various cancer cells, though the toxicity of statin is not significant. However, a limitation in using statins for cancer therapy is that the optimal dose and schedule of statin treatment have not been validated. Therefore it is worthy of further clinical study with addition of statin to conventional chemotherapeutic agents in cancer patients.

In terms of toxicity, two patients experienced GI perforation after 1 cycle. In previous randomized controlled trials, GI perforation occurred in 1%-2% of patients treated with bevacizumab for MCRC. The majority of GI perforation events (26/37) occurred ≤ 6 months after starting bevacizumab (median, 3.35 months) [24]. Compared to the incidence, treatment with the statin plus bevacizumab did not increase GI perforation risk. The results showed comparable clinical efficacy in MCRC patients as first-line chemotherapy without increased toxicity.

In conclusion, the addition of 80 mg simvastatin to XELOX and bevacizumab showed comparable clinical efficacy in patients with MCRC as first-line chemotherapy and did not increase toxicity. In the future, we hope further studies will be performed to investigate efficient combination strategies involving statins and cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens.

NOTES

Simvastatin was provided by CJ and bevacizumab by Roche. Neither company was involved in the collection or analysis of the data or in the preparation of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We thank all participating patients and their families, as well as the research nurses and study coordinators.

Fig. 1.

Progression-free survival (PFS) (A) and overall survival (OS) (B) with simvastatin plus XELOX and bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

Table 1.

Baseline patient characteristics

Characteristic	No. (%) (n=60)
Age, median (range, yr)	57 (27-74)
Sex
Male	35 (58.3)
Female	25 (41.7)
ECOG PS
0	15 (25.0)
1	45 (75.0)
Histology of adenocarcinoma
Well differentiated	16 (26.7)
Moderately differentiated	37 (61.7)
Mucinous adenocarcinoma	1 (1.7)
Poorly differentiated	6 (10.0)
B-Raf status
Wild type	45 (75.0)
Mutated	8 (13.3)
Unknown	7 (11.7)
K-Ras status
Wild type	39 (65.0)
Mutated	16 (26.7)
Unknown	5 (8.3)
Localization of the primary tumor
Right side colon	15 (25.0)
Left side colon	45 (75.0)
State at study enrollment
Recurrence	20 (33.3)
Locally advanced and distant metastasis	40 (66.7)
Site of distant metastasis
Liver	49 (81.7)
Lung	22 (36.7)
Lymph nodes	16 (26.7)
Peritoneal seeding	8 (13.3)
Bone	3 (5.0)

ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status.

Table 2.

Best response and reasons for discontinuation

	No. (%)
Best response (n=60)
Complete response	1 (1.7)
Partial response	34 (56.7)
Stable disease	18 (30.0)
Progression	2 (3.3)
Not evaluable	5 (8.3)
Reasons for discontinuation (n=58)
Progression	43 (74.1)
Consent withdrawal	7 (12.0)
Follow up loss	3 (5.2)
Severe adverse event^a)	2 (3.5)
Wait and see after CR or PR	2 (3.5)
Operation after PR	1 (1.7)

CR, complete response; PR, partial response.

^a) Bowel perforation occurred after one cycle in two patients.

Table 3.

Toxicity profile

Toxicity	Grade 1-2	Grade 3-4
Non-hematologic toxicities
Anorexia	11 (18.3)	0
Fatigue	20 (33.3)	1 (1.7)
Rash	9 (15.0)	1 (1.7)
Hyperpigmentation	17 (28.3)	0
Stomatitis	7 (11.7)	1 (1.7)
Hand foot syndrome	19 (31.7)	1 (1.7)
Dry skin	15 (25.0)	0
Nausea	22 (36.7)	3 (5.0)
Vomiting	2 (3.3)	1 (1.7)
Diarrhea	1 (1.7)	1 (1.7)
Constipation	10 (16.7)	0
Bowel perforation	0	2 (3.3)
Peripheral neuropathy	29 (48.3)	0
Increased CK	2 (3.3)	2 (3.3)
Increased AST/ALT	1 (1.7)	1 (1.7)
Hematologic toxicities
Neutropenia	10 (16.7)	3 (5.0)
Thrombocytopenia	3 (5.0)	0

Values are presented as number (%). CK, cytokeratin; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine transaminase.

REFERENCES

1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fedewa SA, Ahnen DJ, Meester RG, Barzi A, et al. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67:177–93. Article PubMed
2. Matsui T, Nagata N, Hirata K, Okazaki S, Sato S, Nakamura M, et al. Bi-weekly capecitabine-oxaliplatin (XELOX) plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the PHOENiX Trial. Anticancer Res. 2016;36:3437–43. PubMed
3. Lee JJ, Chu E. An update on treatment advances for the first-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer J. 2007;13:276–81. Article PubMed
4. Carmeliet P. VEGF as a key mediator of angiogenesis in cancer. Oncology. 2005;69 Suppl 3:4–10. Article PubMed
5. Giantonio BJ, Catalano PJ, Meropol NJ, O'Dwyer PJ, Mitchell EP, Alberts SR, et al. Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX4) for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Study E3200. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1539–44. Article PubMed
6. Grothey A, Sugrue MM, Purdie DM, Dong W, Sargent D, Hedrick E, et al. Bevacizumab beyond first progression is associated with prolonged overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: results from a large observational cohort study (BRiTE). J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5326–34. Article PubMed
7. Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, Cartwright T, Hainsworth J, Heim W, et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2335–42. Article PubMed
8. Saltz LB, Clarke S, Diaz-Rubio E, Scheithauer W, Figer A, Wong R, et al. Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2013–9. Article PubMed
9. Goldstein JL, Brown MS. Regulation of the mevalonate pathway. Nature. 1990;343:425–30. Article PubMed PDF
10. Osmak M. Statins and cancer: current and future prospects. Cancer Lett. 2012;324:1–12. Article PubMed
11. Kubatka P, Kruzliak P, Rotrekl V, Jelinkova S, Mladosievicova B. Statins in oncological research: from experimental studies to clinical practice. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2014;92:296–311. Article PubMed
12. Chae YK, Yousaf M, Malecek MK, Carneiro B, Chandra S, Kaplan J, et al. Statins as anti-cancer therapy; Can we translate preclinical and epidemiologic data into clinical benefit? Discov Med. 2015;20:413–27. PubMed
13. Denoyelle C, Vasse M, Korner M, Mishal Z, Ganne F, Vannier JP, et al. Cerivastatin, an inhibitor of HMG-CoA reductase, inhibits the signaling pathways involved in the invasiveness and metastatic properties of highly invasive breast cancer cell lines: an in vitro study. Carcinogenesis. 2001;22:1139–48. Article PubMed PDF
14. Keyomarsi K, Sandoval L, Band V, Pardee AB. Synchronization of tumor and normal cells from G1 to multiple cell cycles by lovastatin. Cancer Res. 1991;51:3602–9. PubMed
15. Prasanna P, Thibault A, Liu L, Samid D. Lipid metabolism as a target for brain cancer therapy: synergistic activity of lovastatin and sodium phenylacetate against human glioma cells. J Neurochem. 1996;66:710–6. Article PubMed
16. Jakobisiak M, Bruno S, Skierski JS, Darzynkiewicz Z. Cell cycle-specific effects of lovastatin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991;88:3628–32. Article PubMed PMC
17. Lee SJ, Lee I, Lee J, Park C, Kang WK. Statins, 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors, potentiate the anti-angiogenic effects of bevacizumab by suppressing angiopoietin2, BiP, and Hsp90alpha in human colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2014;111:497–505. Article PubMed PMC PDF
18. Lee J, Jung KH, Park YS, Ahn JB, Shin SJ, Im SA, et al. Simvastatin plus irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRI) as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal patients: a multicenter phase II study. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2009;64:657–63. Article PubMed PDF
19. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, Wanders J, Kaplan RS, Rubinstein L, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:205–16. Article PubMed PDF
20. Negre-Aminou P, van Vliet AK, van Erck M, van Thiel GC, van Leeuwen RE, Cohen LH. Inhibition of proliferation of human smooth muscle cells by various HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors; comparison with other human cell types. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1997;1345:259–68. Article PubMed
21. Pirillo A, Jacoviello C, Longoni C, Radaelli A, Catapano AL. Simvastatin modulates the heat shock response and cytotoxicity mediated by oxidized LDL in cultured human endothelial smooth muscle cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1997;231:437–41. Article PubMed
22. Schaefer CA, Kuhlmann CR, Gast C, Weiterer S, Li F, Most AK, et al. Statins prevent oxidized low-density lipoprotein- and lysophosphatidylcholine-induced proliferation of human endothelial cells. Vascul Pharmacol. 2004;41:67–73. Article PubMed
23. Alber HF, Dulak J, Frick M, Dichtl W, Schwarzacher SP, Pachinger O, et al. Atorvastatin decreases vascular endothelial growth factor in patients with coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:1951–5. Article PubMed
24. Kabbinavar FF, Flynn PJ, Kozloff M, Ashby MA, Sing A, Barr CE, et al. Gastrointestinal perforation associated with bevacizumab use in metastatic colorectal cancer: results from a large treatment observational cohort study. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:1126–32. Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Anticancer properties of histone deacetylase inhibitors – what is their potential?
Kajetan Kiełbowski, Agata Szwedkowicz, Paulina Plewa, Estera Bakinowska, Rafał Becht, Andrzej Pawlik
Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy.2025; 25(2): 105. CrossRef
Therapeutic Effects of Statins: Promising Drug for Topical and Transdermal Administration
Fatemeh Zahedipour, Seyede Atefe Hosseini, Željko Reiner, Eugenia Tedeschi-Reiner, Tannaz Jamialahmadi, Amirhossein Sahebkar
Current Medicinal Chemistry.2024; 31(21): 3149. CrossRef
Are statins onco- suppressive agents for every type of tumor? A systematic review of literature
Luca Filaferro, Fabiana Zaccarelli, Giovanni Francesco Niccolini, Andrea Colizza, Federica Zoccali, Michele Grasso, Massimo Fusconi
Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy.2024; 24(6): 435. CrossRef
Cholesterol synthesis is essential for the growth of liver metastasis‐prone colorectal cancer cells
Kumiko Taniguchi, Kei Sugihara, Takashi Miura, Daisuke Hoshi, Susumu Kohno, Chiaki Takahashi, Eishu Hirata, Etsuko Kiyokawa
Cancer Science.2024; 115(11): 3817. CrossRef
Statins in Mitigating Anticancer Treatment-Related Cardiovascular Disease
Rong Jiang, Lian Lou, Wen Shi, Yuxiao Chen, Zhaoming Fu, Shuo Liu, Thida Sok, Zhihang Li, Xuan Zhang, Jian Yang
International Journal of Molecular Sciences.2024; 25(18): 10177. CrossRef
Assessment in vitro of interactions between anti-cancer drugs and noncancer drugs commonly used by cancer patients
Claes R. Andersson, Jiawei Ye, Kristin Blom, Mårten Fryknäs, Rolf Larsson, Peter Nygren
Anti-Cancer Drugs.2023; 34(1): 92. CrossRef
A phase 1 study of simvastatin in combination with topotecan and cyclophosphamide in pediatric patients with relapsed and/or refractory solid and CNS tumors
Thomas Cash, Hunter C. Jonus, Maya Tsvetkova, Jan H. Beumer, Arhanti Sadanand, Jasmine Y. Lee, Curtis J. Henry, Dolly Aguilera, R. Donald Harvey, Kelly C. Goldsmith
Pediatric Blood & Cancer.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
New insights into the therapeutic potentials of statins in cancer
Chengyu Liu, Hong Chen, Bicheng Hu, Jiajian Shi, Yuchen Chen, Kun Huang
Frontiers in Pharmacology.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
The Association of Metformin, Other Antidiabetic Medications, and Statins With the Prognosis of Colon Cancer in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Sami Erkinantti, Ari Hautakoski, Reijo Sund, Martti Arffman, Elina Urpilainen, Ulla Puistola, Arja Jukkola, Karihtala Peeter, Esa Läärä
Cancer Control.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Performance of capecitabine in novel combination therapies in colorectal cancer
Fahima Danesh Pouya, Yousef Rasmi, Irem Yalim Camci, Yusuf Tutar, Mohadeseh Nemati
Journal of Chemotherapy.2021; 33(6): 375. CrossRef
The potential use of simvastatin for cancer treatment: A review
Jaqueline Aparecida Duarte, Andre Luis Branco de Barros, Elaine Amaral Leite
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy.2021; 141: 111858. CrossRef
Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs on Akt Signaling for Prevention of Tumorigenesis
Navneet Kumar, Chandi C. Mandal
Frontiers in Genetics.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Targeting Inflammatory Signaling in Prostate Cancer Castration Resistance
Shangwei Zhong, Changhao Huang, Zhikang Chen, Zihua Chen, Jun-Li Luo
Journal of Clinical Medicine.2021; 10(21): 5000. CrossRef
Osteolytic metastasis in breast cancer: effective prevention strategies
Chandi C Mandal
Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy.2020; 20(9): 797. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

A Single Arm, Phase II Study of Simvastatin Plus XELOX and Bevacizumab as First-Line Chemotherapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients

Cancer Res Treat. 2019;51(3):1128-1134. Published online November 21, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2018.379

XML Download

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
NOTES
REFERENCES

A Single-Arm Phase II Study of Nab-Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin for Locally Advanced or Metastatic Biliary Tract Cancer

A Single Arm, Phase II Study of Simvastatin Plus XELOX and Bevacizumab as First-Line Chemotherapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients

Fig. 1. Progression-free survival (PFS) (A) and overall survival (OS) (B) with simvastatin plus XELOX and bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

Fig. 1.

A Single Arm, Phase II Study of Simvastatin Plus XELOX and Bevacizumab as First-Line Chemotherapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients

Characteristic	No. (%) (n=60)
Age, median (range, yr)	57 (27-74)
Sex
Male	35 (58.3)
Female	25 (41.7)
ECOG PS
0	15 (25.0)
1	45 (75.0)
Histology of adenocarcinoma
Well differentiated	16 (26.7)
Moderately differentiated	37 (61.7)
Mucinous adenocarcinoma	1 (1.7)
Poorly differentiated	6 (10.0)
B-Raf status
Wild type	45 (75.0)
Mutated	8 (13.3)
Unknown	7 (11.7)
K-Ras status
Wild type	39 (65.0)
Mutated	16 (26.7)
Unknown	5 (8.3)
Localization of the primary tumor
Right side colon	15 (25.0)
Left side colon	45 (75.0)
State at study enrollment
Recurrence	20 (33.3)
Locally advanced and distant metastasis	40 (66.7)
Site of distant metastasis
Liver	49 (81.7)
Lung	22 (36.7)
Lymph nodes	16 (26.7)
Peritoneal seeding	8 (13.3)
Bone	3 (5.0)

	No. (%)
Best response (n=60)
Complete response	1 (1.7)
Partial response	34 (56.7)
Stable disease	18 (30.0)
Progression	2 (3.3)
Not evaluable	5 (8.3)
Reasons for discontinuation (n=58)
Progression	43 (74.1)
Consent withdrawal	7 (12.0)
Follow up loss	3 (5.2)
Severe adverse event^a)	2 (3.5)
Wait and see after CR or PR	2 (3.5)
Operation after PR	1 (1.7)

Toxicity	Grade 1-2	Grade 3-4
Non-hematologic toxicities
Anorexia	11 (18.3)	0
Fatigue	20 (33.3)	1 (1.7)
Rash	9 (15.0)	1 (1.7)
Hyperpigmentation	17 (28.3)	0
Stomatitis	7 (11.7)	1 (1.7)
Hand foot syndrome	19 (31.7)	1 (1.7)
Dry skin	15 (25.0)	0
Nausea	22 (36.7)	3 (5.0)
Vomiting	2 (3.3)	1 (1.7)
Diarrhea	1 (1.7)	1 (1.7)
Constipation	10 (16.7)	0
Bowel perforation	0	2 (3.3)
Peripheral neuropathy	29 (48.3)	0
Increased CK	2 (3.3)	2 (3.3)
Increased AST/ALT	1 (1.7)	1 (1.7)
Hematologic toxicities
Neutropenia	10 (16.7)	3 (5.0)
Thrombocytopenia	3 (5.0)	0

Table 1. Baseline patient characteristics

ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status.

Table 2. Best response and reasons for discontinuation

CR, complete response; PR, partial response.

Bowel perforation occurred after one cycle in two patients.

Table 3. Toxicity profile

Values are presented as number (%). CK, cytokeratin; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine transaminase.