6% in the bevacizumab arm. The bolus administration of 5-fluorouracil, such as in the IFL regimen, has fallen out of favor, due to the more palatable side effect profile of gastrointestinal toxicity that is associated with an Carfilzomib FDA infusional administration. Indeed, in the above study, patients who received IFL with placebo still had a grade 3 or 4 adverse event rate of 74% (4). Several studies have evaluated the combination of bevacizumab with an irinotecan-containing regimen with an infusional administration Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical of 5-fluorouracil for the first line management of metastatic colorectal

cancer. One study, the BICC-C study, initially compared three different chemotherapeutic regimens that combined irinotecan with different methods of fluoropyrimidine

administration in the front line management of metastatic colorectal cancer (10). Patients were randomized to these three different treatment arms, which consisted of FOLFIRI (which administers 5-fluorouracil as both Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical a bolus and an infusion), mIFL (which administers 5-fluorouracil just as a bolus), Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical and CapeIRI. During the study, the protocol was amended, after which time patients randomized to the FOLFIRI or mIFL arms of the study received bevacizumab as well; due to unacceptable toxicity levels, the CapeIRI arm was discontinued. This amendment allowed for all patients going forward to receive bevacizumab in addition to their chemotherapy regimen, thus the study results Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical cannot directly compare patients to receive chemotherapy

with bevacizumab versus chemotherapy alone, even though there were patients enrolled under both circumstances at different points in the trial. In the FOLFIRI arm, bevacizumab was administered at 5 mg/kg with each 14-day cycle; in the mIFL arm, bevacizumab was administered at 7.5 mg/kg with each 21-day cycle. For those patients treated prior to the amendment adding bevacizumab, a statistically significant difference in the primary objective of median progression free survival time was noted in the FOLFIRI arm over the mIFL arm (10). For those patients who were treated following the Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical protocol amendment and thus received bevacizumab, the median progression free survival time was 11.2 months for patients treated with FOLFIRI and bevacizumab and 8.3 months for patients treated with mIFL and bevacizumab; the difference read me between these two arms, however, did not achieve statistical significance. The secondary Entinostat endpoint of median overall survival prior to the bevacizumab amendment resulted in a non-statistically significant difference of 23.1 months in the FOLFIRI arm versus 17.6 months in the mIFL arm (10). In a follow up of the BICC-C study, however, a statistically significant difference in median overall survival was noted when patients were treated with FOLFIRI and bevacizumab versus mIFL and bevacizumab (11). This survival was 28 months in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab arm versus 19.2 months in the mIFL plus bevacizumab arm.