Skip to content

A Study of Bevacizumab (Avastin) in Combination With Capecitabine (Xeloda) in Elderly Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

A Randomised, Open-label Phase III Study to Assess Efficacy and Safety of Bevacizumab in Combination With Capecitabine as First-line Treatment for Elderly Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT00484939
Enrollment
280
Registered
2007-06-12
Start date
2007-07-31
Completion date
2013-03-31
Last updated
2015-01-08

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Colorectal Cancer

Brief summary

This 2-arm study assessed the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab (Avastin) in combination with capecitabine (Xeloda), compared with capecitabine alone, in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients were randomized to receive either bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg intravenously on Day 1 of each 3-week cycle) in combination with capecitabine (1000 mg/m\^2 orally twice a day on Days 1-14 of each 3-week cycle) or capecitabine (1000 mg/m\^2 orally twice a day on Days 1-14 of each 3-week cycle) alone. No notable trends or interactions in laboratory values, electrocardiogram, or vital signs suggesting an effect in either direction for capecitabine/bevacizumab combination therapy or capecitabine monotherapy were observed during the study.

Interventions

DRUGBevacizumab

Treatment continued until unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, disease progression, or a decision to terminate at the discretion of the Investigator if medically indicated. Bevacizumab was supplied in single-use vials.

DRUGCapecitabine

Treatment continued until unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, disease progression, or a decision to terminate at the discretion of the Investigator if medically indicated. Capecitabine was supplied as tablets.

Sponsors

Hoffmann-La Roche
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
70 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Adult patients, ≥ 70 years of age. * Cancer of the colon or rectum. * Metastatic disease diagnosed ≤ 6 months before enrollment. * ≥ 1 measurable metastatic lesion.

Exclusion criteria

* Adjuvant anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) treatment. * Prior chemotherapeutic treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. * Past or current history of other malignancies (with the exception of basal and squamous cell cancer of the skin, or in situ cancer of the cervix). * Clinically significant cardiovascular disease. * Current or recent daily use of aspirin (\> 325 mg/day) or other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), or full dose anticoagulants.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Progression-free SurvivalBaseline to the end of the study (up to 5 years 8 months)Progression-free survival was defined as the time in months from the date of randomization to the date of disease progression or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. All measurable lesions (maximum of 5 per organ and 10 in total, those with the longest diameter and suitability for accurate repeated measurements) were identified as target lesions (TL). A sum of the longest diameter for all TLs was calculated and reported as the baseline sum longest diameter (SLD). All other lesions were identified as non-TLs and recorded at baseline. PD was defined as ≥ 20% increase in the sum of the longest diameter of TLs, taking as reference the smallest SLD recorded since treatment started, the unequivocal progression of existing non-TLs, or the appearance of 1 or more new lesions.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Duration of ResponseBaseline to the end of the study (up to 5 years 8 months)Duration of response was defined as the time in months from the first confirmed complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) until disease progression or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. CR was defined as the disappearance of all target (TL) and non-target lesions (non-TL). PR was defined as ≥ 30% decrease in the sum of the longest diameter (SLD) of TLs, taking as reference the baseline SLD, or the persistence of 1 or more non-TLs.
Time to ResponseBaseline to the end of the study (up to 5 years 8 months)Time to response was defined as the time in months from the date of first study treatment to the date of the first documentation of complete response (CR) or partial response (PR), whichever occurred first. CR was defined as the disappearance of all target (TL) and non-target lesions (non-TL). PR was defined as ≥ 30% decrease in the sum of the longest diameter (SLD) of TLs, taking as reference the baseline SLD, or the persistence of 1 or more non-TLs. Participants who did not have a confirmed response were censored at the date of the last evaluable tumor assessment, or if that was unavailable, at the date of the first dose of study medication.
Overall SurvivalBaseline to the end of the study (up to 5 years 8 months)Overall survival was defined as the time in months from randomization to death from any cause.
Best Overall Response (BOR)Baseline to the end of the study (up to 5 years 8 months)BOR was defined as the best response (complete response \[CR\], partial response \[PR\], stable disease \[SD\], progressive disease \[PD\], not evaluable \[NE\], or not assessed \[NA\]) recorded from the start of study treatment until disease progression (PD) or death. CR was defined as the disappearance of all target (TL) and non-target lesions (non-TL). PR was defined as ≥ 30% decrease in the sum of the longest diameter (SLD) of TLs, taking as reference the baseline SLD, or the persistence of 1 or more non-TLs. For TLs, SD was defined as neither sufficient shrinkage to qualify for PR nor sufficient increase to qualify for PD, taking as reference the smallest SLD since treatment started. For non-TLs, SD was defined as the persistence of 1 or more lesions. PD was defined as ≥ 20% increase in the sum of the longest diameter of TLs, taking as reference the smallest SLD recorded since treatment started, the unequivocal progression of existing non-TLs, or the appearance of 1 or more new lesions.
Percentage of Participants Requiring Additional Treatment for MalignancyBaseline to the end of the study (up to 5 years 8 months)Reported is the percentage of participants requiring additional treatment for malignancy in the survival follow-up period.
Duration of Follow-upBaseline to the end of the study (up to 5 years 8 months)Duration of follow-up is defined as the time in days from randomization until disease progression or death, or time to censoring for overall survival.
AEs, Laboratory Parameters, Vital SignsThroughout study
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusBaseline to the Safety Follow-up which occurred 28 days after the last dose of treatment (up to 5 years 8 months).The ECOG performance status is a scale used to quantify cancer patients' general well-being and activities of daily life. The scale ranges from 0 to 5, with 0 denoting perfect health and 5 indicating death. The 6 categories are 0=Asymptomatic (Fully active, able to carry on all predisease activities without restriction), 1=Symptomatic but completely ambulatory (Restricted in physically strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out work of a light or sedentary nature), 2=Symptomatic, \< 50% in bed during the day (Ambulatory and capable of all self-care but unable to carry out any work activities. Up and about more than 50% of waking hours), 3=Symptomatic, \> 50% in bed, but not bedbound (Capable of only limited self-care, confined to bed or chair 50% or more of waking hours), 4=Bedbound (Completely disabled. Cannot carry on any self-care. Totally confined to bed or chair), 5=Death. Reported is the percentage of participants in each of the 6 ECOG performance status categories.

Countries

Austria, Canada, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, United Kingdom

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Bevacizumab + Capecitabine
Participants received bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg intravenously on Day 1 of each 3-week treatment cycle. In addition, participants received capecitabine 1000 mg/m\^2 orally twice daily on Days 1-14 of each 3-week treatment cycle.
140
Capecitabine
Participants received capecitabine 1000 mg/m\^2 orally twice daily on Days 1-14 of each 3-week treatment cycle.
140
Total280

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyAdverse Event2212
Overall StudyDeath913
Overall StudyDiscretion of Investigator or Sponsor73
Overall StudyDisease progression6788
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up03
Overall StudyPatient Withdrew Consent1910
Overall StudyProtocol Violation33
Overall StudyReason Not Specified116
Overall StudyScreen Failure22

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicBevacizumab + CapecitabineCapecitabineTotal
Age, Continuous76.1 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.18
76.5 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.91
76.3 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.04
Sex: Female, Male
Female
56 Participants56 Participants112 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
84 Participants84 Participants168 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
129 / 134130 / 136
serious
Total, serious adverse events
40 / 13442 / 136

Outcome results

Primary

Progression-free Survival

Progression-free survival was defined as the time in months from the date of randomization to the date of disease progression or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. All measurable lesions (maximum of 5 per organ and 10 in total, those with the longest diameter and suitability for accurate repeated measurements) were identified as target lesions (TL). A sum of the longest diameter for all TLs was calculated and reported as the baseline sum longest diameter (SLD). All other lesions were identified as non-TLs and recorded at baseline. PD was defined as ≥ 20% increase in the sum of the longest diameter of TLs, taking as reference the smallest SLD recorded since treatment started, the unequivocal progression of existing non-TLs, or the appearance of 1 or more new lesions.

Time frame: Baseline to the end of the study (up to 5 years 8 months)

Population: Intent-to-treat population: All participants randomized into the study.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineProgression-free Survival9.1 Months
CapecitabineProgression-free Survival5.1 Months
p-value: <0.001Log Rank
Secondary

AEs, Laboratory Parameters, Vital Signs

Time frame: Throughout study

Secondary

Best Overall Response (BOR)

BOR was defined as the best response (complete response \[CR\], partial response \[PR\], stable disease \[SD\], progressive disease \[PD\], not evaluable \[NE\], or not assessed \[NA\]) recorded from the start of study treatment until disease progression (PD) or death. CR was defined as the disappearance of all target (TL) and non-target lesions (non-TL). PR was defined as ≥ 30% decrease in the sum of the longest diameter (SLD) of TLs, taking as reference the baseline SLD, or the persistence of 1 or more non-TLs. For TLs, SD was defined as neither sufficient shrinkage to qualify for PR nor sufficient increase to qualify for PD, taking as reference the smallest SLD since treatment started. For non-TLs, SD was defined as the persistence of 1 or more lesions. PD was defined as ≥ 20% increase in the sum of the longest diameter of TLs, taking as reference the smallest SLD recorded since treatment started, the unequivocal progression of existing non-TLs, or the appearance of 1 or more new lesions.

Time frame: Baseline to the end of the study (up to 5 years 8 months)

Population: Intent-to-treat population: All participants randomized into the study. Only participants with a response were included in the analysis.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineBest Overall Response (BOR)Partial Response17.1 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineBest Overall Response (BOR)Progressive Disease10.0 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineBest Overall Response (BOR)Complete Response2.9 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineBest Overall Response (BOR)Not assessed15.7 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineBest Overall Response (BOR)Stable Disease54.3 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineBest Overall Response (BOR)Not assessed20.0 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineBest Overall Response (BOR)Partial Response8.6 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineBest Overall Response (BOR)Stable Disease48.6 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineBest Overall Response (BOR)Progressive Disease21.4 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineBest Overall Response (BOR)Complete Response1.4 Percentage of participants
Comparison: This statistical analysis compared the number of responders in the 2 treatment groups. A responder was defined as any participant with a best overall response of complete response or partial response. There were 28 responders in the bevacizumab + capecitabine group and 14 responders in the capecitabine group.p-value: 0.029Fisher Exact
Secondary

Duration of Follow-up

Duration of follow-up is defined as the time in days from randomization until disease progression or death, or time to censoring for overall survival.

Time frame: Baseline to the end of the study (up to 5 years 8 months)

Population: Intent-to-treat population: All participants randomized into the study.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineDuration of Follow-up540.5 DaysStandard Deviation 423.52
CapecitabineDuration of Follow-up479.2 DaysStandard Deviation 401.01
Secondary

Duration of Response

Duration of response was defined as the time in months from the first confirmed complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) until disease progression or death from any cause, whichever occurred first. CR was defined as the disappearance of all target (TL) and non-target lesions (non-TL). PR was defined as ≥ 30% decrease in the sum of the longest diameter (SLD) of TLs, taking as reference the baseline SLD, or the persistence of 1 or more non-TLs.

Time frame: Baseline to the end of the study (up to 5 years 8 months)

Population: Intent-to-treat population: All participants randomized into the study. Only participants with a complete response or partial response were included in the analysis.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineDuration of Response9.7 Months
CapecitabineDuration of Response9.4 Months
Secondary

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status

The ECOG performance status is a scale used to quantify cancer patients' general well-being and activities of daily life. The scale ranges from 0 to 5, with 0 denoting perfect health and 5 indicating death. The 6 categories are 0=Asymptomatic (Fully active, able to carry on all predisease activities without restriction), 1=Symptomatic but completely ambulatory (Restricted in physically strenuous activity but ambulatory and able to carry out work of a light or sedentary nature), 2=Symptomatic, \< 50% in bed during the day (Ambulatory and capable of all self-care but unable to carry out any work activities. Up and about more than 50% of waking hours), 3=Symptomatic, \> 50% in bed, but not bedbound (Capable of only limited self-care, confined to bed or chair 50% or more of waking hours), 4=Bedbound (Completely disabled. Cannot carry on any self-care. Totally confined to bed or chair), 5=Death. Reported is the percentage of participants in each of the 6 ECOG performance status categories.

Time frame: Baseline to the Safety Follow-up which occurred 28 days after the last dose of treatment (up to 5 years 8 months).

Population: Intent-to-treat population: All participants randomized into the study.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 34 ECOG = 40.0 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 16 ECOG = 23.4 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 7 ECOG = 0 (n=117,110)50.4 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 7 ECOG = 147.0 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 7 ECOG = 21.7 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 7 ECOG = 30.9 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 7 ECOG = 40.0 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 7 ECOG = 50.0 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 16 ECOG = 0 (n=88,77)50.0 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 16 ECOG = 145.5 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 16 ECOG = 31.1 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 16 ECOG = 40.0 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 16 ECOG = 50.0 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 25 ECOG = 0 (n=66,42)43.9 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 25 ECOG = 148.5 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 25 ECOG = 26.1 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 25 ECOG = 31.5 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 25 ECOG = 40.0 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 25 ECOG = 50.0 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 34 ECOG = 0 (n=48,24)39.6 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 34 ECOG = 158.3 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 34 ECOG = 20.0 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 34 ECOG = 32.1 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 34 ECOG = 50.0 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusSafety Follow-up ECOG = 0 (n=89,82)33.7 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusSafety Follow-up ECOG = 147.2 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusSafety Follow-up ECOG = 212.4 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusSafety Follow-up ECOG = 36.7 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusSafety Follow-up ECOG = 40.0 Percentage of participants
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusSafety Follow-up ECOG = 50.0 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 7 ECOG = 50.0 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 25 ECOG = 29.5 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 25 ECOG = 40.0 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 34 ECOG = 40.0 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 7 ECOG = 0 (n=117,110)34.5 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 25 ECOG = 30.0 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 7 ECOG = 158.2 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusSafety Follow-up ECOG = 214.6 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 7 ECOG = 25.5 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusSafety Follow-up ECOG = 41.2 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 7 ECOG = 31.8 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 25 ECOG = 50.0 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 7 ECOG = 40.0 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusSafety Follow-up ECOG = 0 (n=89,82)32.9 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 34 ECOG = 0 (n=48,24)33.3 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 16 ECOG = 0 (n=88,77)36.4 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusSafety Follow-up ECOG = 34.9 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 16 ECOG = 151.9 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 16 ECOG = 211.7 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 34 ECOG = 158.3 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 16 ECOG = 30.0 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusSafety Follow-up ECOG = 145.1 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 16 ECOG = 40.0 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 34 ECOG = 28.3 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 16 ECOG = 50.0 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusSafety Follow-up ECOG = 51.2 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 34 ECOG = 50.0 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 25 ECOG = 0 (n=66,42)45.2 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 34 ECOG = 30.0 Percentage of participants
CapecitabineEastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance StatusWeek 25 ECOG = 145.2 Percentage of participants
Secondary

Overall Survival

Overall survival was defined as the time in months from randomization to death from any cause.

Time frame: Baseline to the end of the study (up to 5 years 8 months)

Population: Intent-to-treat population: All participants randomized into the study.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineOverall Survival20.7 Months
CapecitabineOverall Survival17.0 Months
p-value: 0.13Log Rank
Secondary

Percentage of Participants Requiring Additional Treatment for Malignancy

Reported is the percentage of participants requiring additional treatment for malignancy in the survival follow-up period.

Time frame: Baseline to the end of the study (up to 5 years 8 months)

Population: Intent-to-treat population: All participants randomized into the study.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Bevacizumab + CapecitabinePercentage of Participants Requiring Additional Treatment for Malignancy50.7 Percentage of participants
CapecitabinePercentage of Participants Requiring Additional Treatment for Malignancy49.3 Percentage of participants
Secondary

Time to Response

Time to response was defined as the time in months from the date of first study treatment to the date of the first documentation of complete response (CR) or partial response (PR), whichever occurred first. CR was defined as the disappearance of all target (TL) and non-target lesions (non-TL). PR was defined as ≥ 30% decrease in the sum of the longest diameter (SLD) of TLs, taking as reference the baseline SLD, or the persistence of 1 or more non-TLs. Participants who did not have a confirmed response were censored at the date of the last evaluable tumor assessment, or if that was unavailable, at the date of the first dose of study medication.

Time frame: Baseline to the end of the study (up to 5 years 8 months)

Population: Intent-to-treat population: All participants randomized into the study.

ArmMeasureValue (MEDIAN)
Bevacizumab + CapecitabineTime to ResponseNA Months
CapecitabineTime to ResponseNA Months

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 22, 2026