***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: PURPOSE In metastatic colorectal cancer , phase III studies have demonstrated the superiority of fluorouracil ( FU ) with leucovorin ( LV ) in combination with irinotecan or oxaliplatin over FU + LV alone . This phase III study investigated two sequences : folinic acid , FU , and irinotecan ( FOLFIRI ) followed by folinic acid , FU , and oxaliplatin ( FOLFOX6 ; arm A ) , and FOLFOX6 followed by FOLFIRI ( arm B ) . PATIENTS AND METHODS Previously untreated patients with assessable disease were r and omly assigned to receive a 2-hour infusion of l-LV 200 mg/m(2 ) or dl-LV 400 mg/m(2 ) followed by a FU bolus 400 mg/m(2 ) and 46-hour infusion 2,400 to 3,000 mg/m(2 ) every 46 hours every 2 weeks , either with irinotecan 180 mg/m(2 ) or with oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2 ) as a 2-hour infusion on day 1 . At progression , irinotecan was replaced by oxaliplatin ( arm A ) , or oxaliplatin by irinotecan ( arm B ) . RESULT Median survival was 21.5 months in 109 patients allocated to FOLFIRI then FOLFOX6 versus 20.6 months in 111 patients allocated to FOLFOX6 then FOLFIRI ( P = .99 ) . Median second progression-free survival ( PFS ) was 14.2 months in arm A versus 10.9 in arm B ( P = .64 ) . In first-line therapy , FOLFIRI achieved 56 % response rate ( RR ) and 8.5 months median PFS , versus FOLFOX6 which achieved 54 % RR and 8.0 months median PFS ( P = .26 ) . Second-line FOLFIRI achieved 4 % RR and 2.5 months median PFS , versus FOLFOX6 which achieved 15 % RR and 4.2 months PFS . In first-line therapy , National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria grade 3/4 mucositis , nausea/vomiting , and grade 2 alopecia were more frequent with FOLFIRI , and grade 3/4 neutropenia and neurosensory toxicity were more frequent with FOLFOX6 . CONCLUSION Both sequences achieved a prolonged survival and similar efficacy . The toxicity profiles were different Colorectal cancer continues to be an important public health concern , despite improvements in screening and better systemic chemotherapy . The integration of targeted therapies in the treatment of colon cancer has result ed in significant improvements in efficacy outcomes . Angiogenesis is important for tumor growth and metastasis and is an important target for new biological agents . Bevacizumab is a humanized recombinant antibody that prevents vascular endothelial growth factor ( VEGF ) receptor binding , and inhibits angiogenesis and tumor growth . The addition of bevacizumab to fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy , with or without irinotecan or oxaliplatin , in both the first- and second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer , significantly increased median progression-free survival and overall survival in select r and omized phase III studies . Ongoing studies are evaluating the role of bevacizumab in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer . Common toxicities associated with bevacizumab include hypertension , bleeding episodes , and thrombotic events . This review will focus on the integration of bevacizumab in the treatment paradigm of colon cancer and the management of its side effects Summary Background In the Medical Research Council ( MRC ) COIN trial , the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted antibody cetuximab was added to st and ard chemotherapy in first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer with the aim of assessing effect on overall survival . Methods In this r and omised controlled trial , patients who were fit for but had not received previous chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer were r and omly assigned to oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy ( arm A ) , the same combination plus cetuximab ( arm B ) , or intermittent chemotherapy ( arm C ) . The choice of fluoropyrimidine therapy ( capecitabine or infused fluouroracil plus leucovorin ) was decided before r and omisation . R and omisation was done central ly ( via telephone ) by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit using minimisation . Treatment allocation was not masked . The comparison of arms A and C is described in a companion paper . Here , we present the comparison of arm A and B , for which the primary outcome was overall survival in patients with KRAS wild-type tumours . Analysis was by intention to treat . Further analyses with respect to NRAS , BRAF , and EGFR status were done . The trial is registered , IS RCT N27286448 . Findings 1630 patients were r and omly assigned to treatment groups ( 815 to st and ard therapy and 815 to addition of cetuximab ) . Tumour sample s from 1316 ( 81 % ) patients were used for somatic molecular analyses ; 565 ( 43 % ) had KRAS mutations . In patients with KRAS wild-type tumours ( arm A , n=367 ; arm B , n=362 ) , overall survival did not differ between treatment groups ( median survival 17·9 months [ IQR 10·3–29·2 ] in the control group vs 17·0 months [ 9·4–30·1 ] in the cetuximab group ; HR 1·04 , 95 % CI 0·87–1·23 , p=0·67 ) . Similarly , there was no effect on progression-free survival ( 8·6 months [ IQR 5·0–12·5 ] in the control group vs 8·6 months [ 5·1–13·8 ] in the cetuximab group ; HR 0·96 , 0·82–1·12 , p=0·60 ) . Overall response rate increased from 57 % ( n=209 ) with chemotherapy alone to 64 % ( n=232 ) with addition of cetuximab ( p=0·049 ) . Grade 3 and higher skin and gastrointestinal toxic effects were increased with cetuximab ( 14 vs 114 and 67 vs 97 patients in the control group vs the cetuximab group with KRAS wild-type tumours , respectively ) . Overall survival differs by somatic mutation status irrespective of treatment received : BRAF mutant , 8·8 months ( IQR 4·5–27·4 ) ; KRAS mutant , 14·4 months ( 8·5–24·0 ) ; all wild-type , 20·1 months ( 11·5–31·7 ) . Interpretation This trial has not confirmed a benefit of addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer .  Cetuximab  increases response rate , with no evidence of benefit in progression-free or overall survival in KRAS wild-type patients or even in patients selected by additional mutational analysis of their tumours . The use of cetuximab in combination with oxaliplatin and capecitabine in first-line chemotherapy in patients with widespread metastases can not be recommended . Funding Cancer Research UK , Cancer Research Wales , UK Medical Research Council , Merck BACKGROUND Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer that harbors KRAS mutations in exon 2 do not benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR ) therapy . Other activating RAS mutations may also be negative predictive biomarkers for anti-EGFR therapy . METHODS In this prospect ive-retrospective analysis , we assessed the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus oxaliplatin , fluorouracil , and leucovorin ( FOLFOX4 ) as compared with FOLFOX4 alone , according to RAS ( KRAS or NRAS ) or BRAF mutation status . A total of 639 patients who had metastatic colorectal cancer without KRAS mutations in exon 2 had results for at least one of the following : KRAS exon 3 or 4 ; NRAS exon 2 , 3 , or 4 ; or BRAF exon 15 . The overall rate of ascertainment of RAS status was 90 % . RESULTS Among 512 patients without RAS mutations , progression-free survival was 10.1 months with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus 7.9 months with FOLFOX4 alone ( hazard ratio for progression or death with combination therapy , 0.72 ; 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] , 0.58 to 0.90 ; P=0.004 ) . Overall survival was 26.0 months in the panitumumab-FOLFOX4 group versus 20.2 months in the FOLFOX4-alone group ( hazard ratio for death , 0.78 ; 95 % CI , 0.62 to 0.99 ; P=0.04 ) . A total of 108 patients ( 17 % ) with nonmutated KRAS exon 2 had other RAS mutations . These mutations were associated with inferior progression-free survival and overall survival with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment , which was consistent with the findings in patients with KRAS mutations in exon 2 .  BRAF mutations were a negative prognostic factor . No new safety signals were identified . CONCLUSIONS Additional RAS mutations predicted a lack of response in patients who received panitumumab-FOLFOX4 . In patients who had metastatic colorectal cancer without RAS mutations , improvements in overall survival were observed with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 therapy . ( Funded by Amgen and others ; PRIME Clinical Trials.gov number , NCT00364013 . ) PURPOSE The phase III CRYSTAL study demonstrated that addition of cetuximab to fluorouracil , leucovorin , and irinotecan ( FOLFIRI ) significantly improved overall survival , progression-free survival , and objective response in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS codon 12/13 ( exon 2 ) wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer ( mCRC ) . Outcome was reassessed in subgroups defined by extended RAS mutation testing . PATIENTS AND METHODS Existing DNA sample s from KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumors from CRYSTAL study patients were reanalyzed for other RAS mutations in four additional KRAS codons ( exons 3 and 4 ) and six NRAS codons ( exons 2 , 3 , and 4 ) using beads , emulsion , amplification , and magnetics technology . No tissue microdissection was performed . A ≥ 5 % mutant allele cutoff was used to call mutations . RESULTS Mutation status was evaluable in 430 ( 64.6 % ) of 666 patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumors . Other RAS mutations were detected in 63 ( 14.7 % ) of 430 patients . In those with RAS wild-type tumors , a significant benefit across all efficacy end points was associated with the addition of cetuximab to FOLFIRI . In patients with other RAS tumor mutations , no difference in efficacy outcomes between treatment groups was seen . The safety profile in RAS subgroups was similar and in line with expectations . CONCLUSION In the first-line treatment of mCRC , patients with RAS wild-type tumors derived a significant benefit from the addition of cetuximab to FOLFIRI ; patients with RAS tumor mutations did not . Molecular testing of tumors for all activating RAS mutations is essential before considering anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy , thereby allowing the further tailoring of cetuximab administration to maximize patient benefit PURPOSE We performed this phase III study to compare the irinotecan , leucovorin ( LV ) , and fluorouracil ( FU ) regimen ( FOLFIRI ) versus the oxaliplatin , LV , and FU regimen ( FOLFOX4 ) in previously untreated patients with advanced colorectal cancer . PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 360 chemotherapy-naive patients were r and omly assigned to receive , every 2 weeks , either arm A ( FOLFIRI : irinotecan 180 mg/m(2 ) on day 1 with LV 100 mg/m(2 ) administered as a 2-hour infusion before FU 400 mg/m(2 ) administered as an intravenous bolus injection , and FU 600 mg/m(2 ) as a 22-hour infusion immediately after FU bolus injection on days 1 and 2 [ LV5FU2 ] ) or arm B ( FOLFOX4 : oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2 ) on day 1 with LV5FU2 regimen ) . RESULTS One hundred sixty-four and 172 patients were assessable in arm A and B , respectively . Overall response rates ( ORR ) were 31 % in arm A ( 95 % CI , 24.6 % to 38.3 % ) and 34 % in arm B ( 95 % CI , 27.2 % to 41.5 % ; P = .60 ) . In both arms A and B , median time to progression ( TTP ; 7 v 7 months , respectively ) , duration of 
    Output:
    
Finally , metastatic colorectal cancer patients progressing after all st and ard therapies ( maintaining a good ECOG performance status ) could be c and i date s for further therapies such as regorafenib and TAS-102 .