Real-World Outcomes of First-Line FOLFIRI Plus Bevacizumab with Irinotecan Dose Escalation versus FOLFOXIRI Plus Bevacizumab in BRAF^V600E-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The Preliminary Data from a Single-Center Observational Study

Background and Objectives: Approximately 5-10% of all patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) harbor a BRAF(V600E) mutation. These patients exhibit distinct metastatic patterns, poor prognosis, and heterogenous survival outcomes. The findings from the TRIBE study indicated that the administration of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment extended the median duration of overall survival (OS). In this study, we explored the effects of UGT1A1 polymorphism on the outcomes of irinotecan dose escalation versus FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab in patients with BRAF(V600E)-mutant mCRC. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 25 patients who had received a diagnosis of BRAF(V600E)-mutant mCRC between October 2015 and August 2022. All patients underwent UGT1A1 genotyping before receiving bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoints were OS and adverse events (AEs). The two treatment arms were compared in terms of 6-month PFS and 12-month OS. Results: Over a median follow-up duration of 15.0 (interquartile range, 10.0-30.5) months, no significant differences were noted between the treatment arms in severe AEs (SAEs), 6-month PFS, or 12-month OS (all p < 0.05). Regarding AEs, the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab regimen was associated with a lower incidence of anorexia than was the FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab regimen (p = 0.042). Conclusions: Our findings indicate that FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab with irinotecan dose escalation is an effective first-line treatment regimen for patients with BRAF(V600E)-mutant mCRC. This regimen leads to acceptable clinical outcomes with manageable AEs. However, the effects on survival and safety outcomes could only be speculated, and further studies are needed because of the sample size, the follow-up for the OS evaluation, and the non-uniformity in all the variables considered in the two groups.