• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Primary tumor location and survival in colorectal cancer: A retrospective cohort study

    2020-05-16 03:05:04HimaniAggarwalKristinSheffieldLiLiDavidLenisRachaelSorgAfsanehBarziRebeccaMiksad
    關(guān)鍵詞:一氣盆中百里香

    Himani Aggarwal, Kristin M Sheffield, Li Li, David Lenis, Rachael Sorg, Afsaneh Barzi, Rebecca Miksad

    Himani Aggarwal, Kristin M Sheffield, Li Li, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN 46225,United States

    David Lenis, Rachael Sorg, Rebecca Miksad, Flatiron Health, New York, NY 10013, United States

    Afsaneh Barzi, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90033, United States

    Abstract

    Key words: Bevacizumab; Cetuximab; Cohort study; Colorectal neoplasms; Electronic health records; Prognosis; Retrospective studies; Survival

    INTRODUCTION

    Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a heterogeneous disease with differing outcomes and clinical responses, in part due to differences in chromosomal and molecular profiles between primary tumors that arise from the left (distal) and right(proximal) sides of the colon[1]. During gastrulation, both the left (hindgut) and right(midgut) sides of the gut develop from the endoderm. The left side gives rise to the distal third of the transverse colon, splenic flexure, descending colon, sigmoid rectum and the upper part of the anal canal, whereas the right side gives rise to the duodenum distal to the ampulla, the entire small bowel, the cecum, appendix,ascending colon, and the proximal two-thirds of the transverse colon[2].

    Right-sided primary tumor location (RPTL) has been shown to be associated with several adverse prognostic factors compared with left-sided primary tumor location(LPTL), including point mutations in codon 600 ofBRAF; point mutations in codons 12 and 13 ofKRASand 61 ofNRAS; point mutations in exons 9 and 20 of phosphoinositide 3-kinase; frameshift and nonsense mutations in transforming growth factor-β receptor-2; hypermutation; and microsatellite instability[3-6]. In contrast, LPTL is more likely than RPTL to be associated with overexpression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and vascular endothelial growth factor, high epiregulin, and chromosomal instability[3-5]. RPTL is more common in women than men and is associated with a higher median age at diagnosis than LPTL[7].

    As a result of these clinical and molecular differences between the left and right sides of the colon, primary tumor location is a prognostic factor; a meta-analysis of 66 studies showed that patients with LPTL have significantly longer overall survival(OS) than patients with RPTL[8]. This meta-analysis, which included over 1.4 million patients with early and advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), showed that LPTL was associated with a significantly reduced risk of death compared with RPTL (HR = 0.82,P< 0.001), and that this was independent of adjuvant chemotherapy, year of study,race, stage, quality of included studies, and number of study participants[8].

    Primary tumor location also appears to be a predictive factor of clinical outcomes of CRC treatment with EGFR inhibitors, most likely due to molecular differences between sides of the colon in tumor expression of proteins such as EGFR/HER2,BRAF, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, and excision repair cross complement group 1[9]. In the first-line setting, a retrospective post hoc analysis of the CRYSTAL and FIRE-3 studies showed that cetuximab plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/irinotecan (FOLFIRI) significantly improved OS compared with FOLFIRI alone or bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI for patients withRASwild-type (WT) mCRC LPTL (CRYSTAL: 28.7 movs21.7 mo, HR = 0.65,P= 0.002; FIRE-3: 38.3 movs28.0 mo,HR = 0.63,P= 0.002)[10]. Conversely, patients with RPTL derived little or no benefit from cetuximab plus FOLFIRI compared with FOLFIRI alone or bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI (CRYSTAL: 18.5 movs15.0 mo, HR = 1.08,P= 0.76; FIRE-3: 18.3 movs23.0 mo, HR = 1.31,P= 0.28)[10]. Furthermore, a post hoc analysis of the CALGB/SWOG 80405 study showed that cetuximab plus FOLFIRI or 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) significantly improved OS compared with bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI or FOLFOX for mCRC patients with LPTL (37.5 movs32.1 mo,P= 0.04)[11]. On the other hand, in patients with RPTL, bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI or FOLFOX significantly improved OS compared with cetuximab plus FOLFIRI or FOLFOX (24.5 movs16.4 mo,P= 0.03)[11]. Results for progression-free survival (PFS)were similar to those for OS[11]. Collectively, these studies indicated that primary tumor location may be predictive of survival outcomes associated with first-line treatment of mCRC with EGFR inhibitors.

    In the second-line setting, a retrospective analysis of the FIRE-3 study showed that OS was improved for patients with LPTL who received second-line cetuximab plus irinotecan (after first-line bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI on trial) compared with those who received second-line bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI (after first-line cetuximab plus FOLFIRI on trial) (OS: 17.6 movs14.1 mo, HR = 0.65,P= 0.002), with similar results observed for PFS[12]. For patients with RPTL, there was no difference in efficacy between those who received bevacizumab and those who received cetuximab[12].Furthermore, a post hoc analysis of the NCIC CO.17 study showed that, inKRASWT patients, those with LPTL had significantly improved PFS when treated with cetuximab monotherapy compared with best supportive care (5.4 movs1.8 mo, HR =0.28,P< 0.0001)[13]. On the other hand, those with RPTL did not experience a benefit with cetuximab monotherapy (1.9 movs1.9 mo, HR = 0.73,P= 0.26)[13]. These studies suggest that primary tumor location may also be predictive of survival outcomes following second-line treatment of mCRC with EGFR inhibitors.

    Based on an overall assessment of these and other studies, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends that only patients with LPTLRASWT mCRC be offered cetuximab or panitumumab as first-line treatment for mCRC,whereas bevacizumab can be considered in the first-line setting for patients with RPTLRASWT mCRC[14]. All patients withRASWT tumors should be considered for treatment with cetuximab or panitumumab in subsequent lines of therapy if neither was previously given[14].

    Most studies that investigated the effect of primary tumor location on biologic therapy efficacy were post hoc analyses of large randomized controlled trials not designed to answer questions about tumor sidedness, or were single institution analyses of small cohorts. Consequently, there is a lack of real-world evidence from large mCRC populations describing the association of primary tumor location with survival outcomes from biologic therapy. This study evaluated the prognostic and predictive role of primary tumor location and its association with survival benefit in real-world patients withKRASWT mCRC who initiated first-line therapy with cetuximab plus FOLFIRI or FOLFOXvswith bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI or FOLFOX in the United States.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    Study design and patients

    The patients in this retrospective cohort study were selected from Flatiron Health's electronic health record (EHR)-derived longitudinal demographically and geographically diverse database, which comprises de-identified patient-level structured and unstructured data, curated via technology-enabled abstraction. At the time of this study, it included data from more than 265 community clinics and academic institutions at more than 800 sites of care in the United States. The database has been described in detail previously[15]. In brief, the database was created by aggregating, normalizing, and harmonizing patient-level data. Data were processed centrally and stored in a secure format. Structured data (e.g. treatments) were semantically mapped to standard reference terminologies, whereas unstructured data,including primary tumor location, were extracted from EHR-based digital documents(e.g. medical care notes) via technology-enabled abstraction. Every data point sourced from unstructured documents was manually reviewed by trained chart abstractors[15].

    Quality control included duplicate chart abstraction of a sample of critical abstracted variables. Additional quality control was performed covering areas such as demographics and treatment length/dosage, and included both medical and data considerations. Any issues identified were logged, prioritized, investigated, and resolved[15].

    Inclusion and exclusion criteria

    Eligible patients aged at least 18 years had an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) code for CRC (ICD-9 153.x, 154.x, ICD-10 C18x, C19x, C20x, or C21x), at least 2 visits in the Flatiron database on or after January 1, 2013, a confirmed diagnosis of stage IV or recurrent metastatic disease on or after January 1, 2013, and documentedKRASWT biomarker status any time before or within 28 d of the start of first-line treatment with either cetuximab in combination with FOLFIRI or FOLFOX, or bevacizumab in combination with FOLFIRI or FOLFOX between January 1, 2013 and April 30, 2017. The enrollment end date of April 30, 2017 was selected to allow for 6 mo of follow-up before the data cutoff date of October 31,2017. Eligible patients could have less than 6 mo of follow-up data due to death or loss to follow-up.

    Exclusion criteria included a greater than 90-d gap between the metastatic diagnosis date and the first structured activity (visit, administration, or order) and receipt of both bevacizumab and cetuximab or FOLFIRI and FOLFOX, or any other drugs (e.g. panitumumab) as part of first-line therapy.

    Variables

    Primary tumor location was abstracted from patients' charts. For the main analysis,LPTL was defined as tumors that originated in the splenic flexure, descending colon,sigmoid colon, or rectum and RPTL was defined as tumors that originated in the appendix, cecum, ascending colon, hepatic flexure, or transverse colon.

    The index date was defined as the date on which first-line therapy containing cetuximab or bevacizumab was initiated, as determined by the first episode of the relevant drugs (i.e. administration or non-cancelled order). The start of first-line therapy was defined as the first episode of an eligible drug that was given after or up to 14 d before the metastatic diagnosis date. All eligible drugs given within 28 d of the start of first-line therapy (i.e. the first eligible drug episode) were considered part of the first-line therapy regimen.

    The primary outcome was OS, defined as the time from the index date to the patient's date of death. Patients without a date of death were censored at their last confirmed activity date (last structured visit or medication administration). The Flatiron Enhanced Mortality variable version 2.0[15]was used to amalgamate internal and external data sources to generate the best understanding of a patient's vital status and date of death.

    The baseline demographic and clinical variables were patients' age at index date,sex, race, ethnicity, geographic region, practice type (communityvsacademic), site of disease, stage at initial diagnosis, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG)performance status, modified Charlson Comorbidity Index,NRASandBRAFmutation status, first-line chemotherapy backbone (FOLFOXvsFOLFIRI), year of cetuximab or bevacizumab initiation, documented history of adjuvant chemotherapy(for patients initially diagnosed at an earlier stage disease who developed recurrent metastases), duration of follow-up time, and duration of first-line therapy. For duration of first-line therapy, patients were classified as having discontinued first-line therapy (i.e. an event) if any of the following occurred: (1) The patient started a subsequent line of therapy; (2) The patient died; or (3) There was a gap of more than 90 d between the patient's last administration or non-cancelled order for first-line therapy and the last activity date. Patients were censored at the last administration or non-cancelled order for first-line therapy.

    Institutional Review Board approval of the study protocol was obtained prior to conduct of the study and included a waiver of informed consent. Data were deidentified and provisions were in place to prevent re-identification in order to protect patient confidentiality. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki and that are consistent with Good Pharmacoepidemiology Practices and applicable laws and regulations.

    香腸大料降至溫?zé)?,百里香盛到干凈的盆中,置入豬圈。那豬已經(jīng)餓極,撲上前一氣老吃,將那一盆香噴噴的大料吃得一干二凈。

    Statistical analyses

    Descriptive statistics were generated by primary tumor location and treatment. Chisquare test (or Fisher's exact test if the expected frequency was less than five) for categorical variables ort-test or Wilcoxon rank sum test for means and Kruskall-Wallis test for medians of continuous variables were used to test for statistically significant differences in baseline patient characteristics between cetuximab and bevacizumab within primary tumor location.

    Propensity score method using 1:4 matching (i.e. one cetuximab patient matched to up to four bevacizumab patients) was used to balance patients' baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between the cetuximab and bevacizumab cohorts. The probability of receiving first-line cetuximabvsbevacizumab (i.e. the propensity score)was modeledviaa logistic regression model. The dependent variable was receipt of cetuximab (yes/no). Independent variables included age at index date, sex, race, stage at initial diagnosis, modified Charlson Comorbidity Index, ethnicity, year of cetuximab or bevacizumab initiation, history of adjuvant chemotherapy, geographic region, side of colon, indicator variable for rectum/rectosigmoid,NRASandBRAFmutation status, and first-line chemotherapy backbone (FOLFIRI/ FOLFOX). Patients were matched based on the logit of propensity scores using the nearest neighbor algorithm to find matches, and a caliper of 0.20 was used, which represents the number of standard deviations of the distance measure (i.e. logit of the propensity score) within which matches were acceptable. Covariate balance was assessed in the matched sampleviavisual inspection, computation of mean standardized differences andt-tests of difference-in-means.

    Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods were used for OS analyses in the matched population. The prognostic effect of primary tumor location was evaluated by comparing OS in patients with LPTLvsRPTLKRASWT mCRC by treatment. The predictive effect of primary tumor location on OS benefit with cetuximab or bevacizumab was investigated by evaluating the significance (P< 0.05) of the interaction term between primary tumor location (i.e. leftvsright) and treatment (i.e.cetuximabvsbevacizumab) in a Cox regression model that included treatment,primary tumor location, and an interaction term between primary tumor location and treatment. Consistent with the methods of Austinet al[16], a stratified (by each matched set) log-rank test was used to compare survival curves, given that the matched patients were not independent. Cox regressions were estimated using clusters defined by each matched set. Several sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the findings of the main analysis. Specifically, different propensity score matching procedures, such as: (1) 1:1 matching without a caliper; (2) 1:2 matching (i.e.one cetuximab patient matched to up to 2 bevacizumab patients); and (3) Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), were implemented. Additionally, an alternative definition for the index date and different definitions for left and right side of colon were also considered. Lastly, different subgroups of patients were considered in order to evaluate whether conclusions obtained in the main analysis held for different patient subgroups. These subgroups included: (1) LPTL mCRC patients only;(2) RPTL mCRC patients only; (3)NRASmutation-negative patients only; (4) Stage IV at initial diagnosis patients only; (5) Patients with a first-line chemotherapy backbone of FOLFIRI; and (6) Patients with a first-line chemotherapy backbone of FOLFOX.

    A two-sided significance level of α = 0.05 was used, wherebyP< α was considered statistically significant.

    The statistical methods of this study were reviewed by Yajun Emily Zhu from Eli Lilly and Company.

    RESULTS

    Patient characteristics

    Of the 1312 patients who met the study inclusion and exclusion criteria, 248 received first-line cetuximab plus FOLFIRI or FOLFOX, and 1064 received first-line bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI or FOLFOX. The study profile is shown in Figure 1.

    There were notable differences between patients who received cetuximab (n= 248)vspatients who received bevacizumab (n= 1064) (data not shown). Patients who received cetuximab were more likely to be stage III at initial diagnosis and less likely to be stages I, II, and IV than patients who received bevacizumab (stage I: cetuximab 1.2%vsbevacizumab 2.9%; stage II: cetuximab 7.3%vsbevacizumab 10.6%; stage III:cetuximab 32.7%vsbevacizumab 21.8%; stage IV: cetuximab 57.3%vsbevacizumab 62.4%;P= 0.003 for the overall comparison) and were less likely to be tested forNRASandBRAFmutations (tested forNRASmutations: cetuximab 31.9%vsbevacizumab 41.4%,P= 0.007; tested forBRAFmutations: cetuximab 32.7%vsbevacizumab 46.0%,P< 0.001). Furthermore, patients who received cetuximab were more likely to receive FOLFIRI as the chemotherapy backbone and less likely to receive FOLFOX as the chemotherapy backbonevspatients who received bevacizumab (FOLFIRI: cetuximab 68.1%vsbevacizumab 24.5%; FOLFOX: cetuximab 31.9%vsbevacizumab 75.5%;P<0.001), and more likely to have a documented history of adjuvant chemotherapy(cetuximab 36.3%vsbevacizumab 24.0%,P< 0.001) (data not shown).

    Of the 248 cetuximab plus FOLFIRI or FOLFOX patients, 164 had LPTL and 84 had RPTL, and of the 1064 bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI or FOLFOX patients, 679 had LPTL and 385 had RPTL. Table 1 compares patient characteristics for those receiving firstline cetuximabvsfirst-line bevacizumab stratified by primary tumor location before propensity score matching. Patients who received cetuximab were more likely to receive a backbone of FOLFIRI compared with patients who received bevacizumab(LPTL: 64.0%vs24.3%,P< 0.001; RPTL: 76.2%vs24.9%,P< 0.001). Patients with RPTL who received cetuximab were more likely to be stage III at initial diagnosis(44.0%vs22.6%) and less likely to be stage IV (48.8%vs65.7%) at initial diagnosis compared with RPTL patients who received bevacizumab (P= 0.001). Patients with RPTL who received cetuximab were more likely to have a documented history of adjuvant chemotherapy compared with patients with RPTL who received bevacizumab (47.6%vs22.3%,P< 0.001). Patients with LPTL who received cetuximab were less likely to be tested forNRASmutations (LPTL: 31.1%vs41.4%,P= 0.020) andBRAFmutations (LPTL: 28.0%vs46.1%,P< 0.001), compared with patients with LPTL who received bevacizumab. There was no significant difference between groups inNRASstatus among those tested.

    Propensity score matching

    Prognostic effect of primary tumor location

    In the propensity score-matched sample, median OS was 29.7 mo (95%CI: 26.9-35.2)for patients with LPTL and 18.3 mo (95%CI: 15.8-21.3) for patients with RPTL (P<0.001), indicating that there was a statistically significant difference in OS between patients with LPTLvsRPTL (Figure 3). Among the cetuximab cohort, the HR for patients with LPTLvsRPTL was 0.48 (95%CI: 0.32-0.74;P< 0.001), and among the bevacizumab cohort the HR for LPTLvsRPTL was 0.56 (95%CI: 0.42-0.75;P< 0.001).

    Predictive effect of primary tumor location

    In the propensity score-matched sample, median OS was 29.7 mo (95%CI: 27.4-NA)for patients with LPTL who received cetuximab and 29.1 mo (95%CI: 26.6-35.6) for patients with LPTL who received bevacizumab (Figure 4). Median OS was 17.0 mo(95%CI: 12.0-32.6) for patients with RPTL who received cetuximab and 18.8 mo(95%CI: 15.8-22.3) for patients with RPTL who received bevacizumab (Figure 4). The Cox proportional hazards model to test for differences in OS by primary tumor location and treatment after matching showed no significant difference in OS; the interaction term between primary tumor location and treatment was 0.87 (P= 0.566)(Table 3). The HR for cetuximabvsbevacizumab for patients with RPTL was 1.00(95%CI: 0.68-1.46;P= 0.996) and the HR for cetuximabvsbevacizumab with LPTL was 0.87 (95%CI: 0.63-1.19;P= 0.378).

    Figure 1 Study profile. 1Patients who received both 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/irinotecan (i.e. 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/irinotecan) in the first-line were excluded. In addition, patients who received any other drugs as part of first-line therapy were excluded. 2Biomarker status for KRAS wild-type before or within 28 d of starting first-line therapy. If a patient had more than one successful test with a conflicting result during this window, the test result closest to the index date was used. In cases with conflicting test results on the same day, patients were excluded. CRC: Colorectal cancer; ICD: International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems; FOLFIRI: 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/irinotecan; FOLFOX: 5-fluorouracil/ leucovorin/oxaliplatin;mCRC: Metastatic colorectal cancer; WT: Wild-type.

    Sensitivity analyses

    Sensitivity analyses using different methodologic approaches to account for potential imbalance in the observed confounders confirmed the main OS analysis findings in terms of magnitude, significance, and directionality (Table 4). After IPTW among patients who wereNRASWT (n= 149), median OS was 28.9 mo for patients who received cetuximab and 26.0 mo for patients who received bevacizumab; the HR for cetuximabvsbevacizumab was 0.77 (95%CI: 0.40-1.50) for patients with LPTL, and 1.03 (95%CI: 0.54-1.97) for patients with RPTL. Among patients who received a backbone of FOLFIRI (n= 336), median OS was 24.6 mo for those who received cetuximab and 23.1 mo for those who received bevacizumab after IPTW; the HR for cetuximabvsbevacizumab was 0.96 (95%CI: 0.64-1.44) for patients with LPTL, and 1.05 (95%CI: 0.62-1.77) for patients with RPTL. Among patients who received a backbone of FOLFOX (n= 158), median OS was not reached for those who received cetuximab and 25.9 mo for those who received bevacizumab after IPTW; the HR for cetuximabvsbevacizumab was 0.63 (95%CI: 0.37-1.08) for patients with LPTL and 0.52 (95%CI: 0.23-1.17) for patients with RPTL.

    Table 1 Patient characteristics before propensity score matching

    1Left-sided primary tumor location was defined as tumors that originated in the splenic flexure, descending colon, sigmoid colon, or rectum, and rightsided primary tumor location was defined as tumors that originated in the appendix, cecum, ascending colon, hepatic flexure, or transverse colon.2Index date defined as the start date (first administration or non-cancelled order) of a first-line regimen containing cetuximab or bevacizumab.3ECOG PS may have been recorded up to 30 d prior, or up to 7 d after, the index date, whichever was closest to the index date.4CCI calculations exclude cancer diagnoses and include only comorbidities that were documented by the treating physician at any time prior to metastatic diagnosis date.5Biomarker testing could occur at any point on, or up to, 28 d after the index date. For instances where multiple biomarker tests were available, the result from the successful test closest to the index date was used. Only the positive result among those tested is shown here; other categories included mutation negative, results pending, unknown, and unsuccessful/indeterminate test.6Adjuvant therapy was only measured in non-stage IV patients.7To account for potential censoring of patients on first-line therapy, the duration of first-line regimen was calculated using the following survival analysis methods: 1) the first administration or non-cancelled order for first-line therapy was the start date, 2) the last administration or non-cancelled order for first-line therapy was the end date, and 3) patients were classified as having discontinued first-line therapy (i.e. an event) if any of the following occurred:a) a patient started a subsequent line of therapy, b) a patient died, or c) a gap of more than 90 d occurred between a patient's last administration or noncancelled order for first-line therapy and the last activity date.8Median follow-up time was calculated using observed time for all individuals, regardless of their outcome (i.e. not using survival analysis). Median was assessed using Kruskall-Wallis test. CCI: Charlson Comorbidity Index; ECOG PS: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; FOLFIRI: 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/irinotecan; FOLFOX: 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin; LPTL: Left-sided primary tumor location; NA: Not applicable; RPTL:Right-sided primary tumor location.

    DISCUSSION

    In this retrospective cohort study of real-world patients from clinical practice in the United States, median OS was significantly longer for mCRCKRASWT patients with LPTL than for those with RPTL, regardless of first-line treatment, substantiating the prognostic effect of primary tumor location. The prognostic role of primary tumor location has been demonstrated in other studies[17-20]. A more favorable prognosis for LPTL was demonstrated in a retrospective pooled analysis of mCRC randomized controlled studies of first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (PROVETTA,AVF2107, and NO16966)[21]and of six studies of chemotherapy plus anti-EGFR therapies (first-line: CALGB 80405, FIRE-3, and CRYSTAL; second-line: PEAK,PRIME, and 20050181)[22]. An updated meta-analysis that included the Chinese phase 3 TAILOR study showed that cetuximab or panitumumab plus FOLFOX significantly benefited PFS and ORR in patients withRASWT LPTL mCRC[23]. Furthermore, a meta-analysis of 66 mCRC clinical studies conducted over several decades to evaluate different treatments demonstrated that LPTL was associated with improved prognosis compared with RPTL[8]. An analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program confirmed the prognostic effect of primary tumor location[24].These studies vary in their design for selection of patients and treatment plan and some lack data about stage at diagnosis.

    Primary tumor location was not predictive of treatment effect for cetuximabcompared with bevacizumab in this study. There was no significant difference in median OS between patients who received cetuximab and those who received bevacizumab by primary tumor location. A number of sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the analytic approach, as well as additional subgroup analyses,confirmed the results obtained in the main analysis in terms of magnitude,significance, and directionality. However, subgroup analyses by chemotherapy backbone showed a significant treatment benefit for cetuximab compared with bevacizumab, regardless of primary tumor location, in patients who received FOLFOX as the chemotherapy backbone. Among these patients, median OS was not reached in the cetuximab groupvs25.9 mo in the bevacizumab group. The analyses(IPTW) by primary tumor location showed an HR of 0.63 (95%CI: 0.37-1.08) in patients with LPTL and 0.52 (95%CI: 0.23-1.17) in patients with RPTL, favoring cetuximab in both LPTL and RPTL patients who received FOLFOX. In a subgroup of patients who received a backbone of FOLFIRI, a treatment benefit for cetuximab compared with bevacizumab was not observed. Among these patients, median OS was 24.6 mo in the cetuximab groupvs23.1 mo in the bevacizumab group, with an HR of 0.96 (95%CI: 0.64-1.44) in patients with LPTL and 1.05 (95%CI: 0.62-1.77) in patients with RPTL.

    Table 2 Patient characteristics after propensity score matching

    1Index date defined as the start date (first administration or non-cancelled order) of a first-line regimen containing cetuximab or bevacizumab.2ECOG PS may have been recorded up to 30 d prior, or up to 7 d after, the index date, whichever was closest to the index date.3Charlson Comorbidity Index calculations exclude cancer diagnoses and include only comorbidities that were documented by the treating physician at any time prior to metastatic diagnosis date.4Biomarker testing could occur at any point on, or up to, 28 d after the index date. For instances where multiple biomarker tests were available, the result from the successful test closest to the index date was used.5Adjuvant therapy was only measured in non-stage IV patients.6To account for potential censoring of patients on first-line therapy, the duration of first-line regimen was calculated using the following survival analysis methods: (1) The first administration or non-cancelled order for first-line therapy was the start date; (2) The last administration or non-cancelled order for first-line therapy was the end date; and (3) Patients were classified as having discontinued first-line therapy (i.e. an event) if any of the following occurred:(a) A patient started a subsequent line of therapy; (b) A patient died; or (c) A gap of more than 90 d occurred between a patient's last administration or non-cancelled order for first-line therapy and the last activity date.7Median follow-up time was calculated using observed time for all individuals, regardless of their outcome (i.e. not using survival analysis). Median was assessed using Kruskall-Wallis test. CCI: Charlson Comorbidity Index; ECOG PS: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; FOLFIRI: 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/irinotecan; FOLFOX: 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin.

    The choice of 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy backbone for the treatment of metastatic disease depends on, among other factors, prior adjuvant chemotherapy use and response, and adjuvant therapy regimen choice for earlier stage disease. In this study, patients who received FOLFIRI (n= 430) as the chemotherapy backbone in the metastatic setting more often had a group stage of III at initial diagnosis (55.1% for FOLFIRIvs8.6% for FOLFOX), whereas patients who received FOLFOX (n= 882)more often had a group stage of IV at initial diagnosis (30.0% for FOLFIRIvs76.8% for FOLFOX) (P< 0.001) (data not shown). This translated into a greater proportion of FOLFIRI patients having a documented history of adjuvant chemotherapy compared with patients who received FOLFOX (64.0% for FOLFIRIvs7.9% for FOLFOX,P<0.001).

    Figure 2 Standardized mean differences between groups across covariates before and after propensity score matching. CCI: Charlson Comorbidity Index;FOLFOX: 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin.

    The lack of evidence of predictive effect of primary tumor location in this realworld cohort contrasts with post hoc analyses of the CALGB/SWOG 80405 trial,which closely mirrors the current study, and other studies (a meta-analysis of FIRE-3,CRYSTAL, PRIME, CALGB/SWOG 80405, and other studies as well as a populationbased cohort study)[11,17,18]. We explored differences in patient characteristics and treatment-related variables between this study and CALGB/SWOG 80405 to elucidate the divergent findings of our analysis. One of the key differences between the two studies is that 32% of cetuximab patients in the current study received FOLFOX whereas 74% of cetuximab patients received FOLFOX in the CALGB/SWOG 80405 study[25]. Although the chemotherapy backbone data by biologic type are not published for the CALGB/SWOG 80405 study patients included in post hoc primary tumor location analyses[11,22], it is likely that the proportion of cetuximab patients receiving FOLFOX was also higher than in the current study.

    In the current study, a smaller proportion of patients who received cetuximab compared with bevacizumab were stage IV at initial diagnosis (57.3%vs62.4%), and a greater proportion were stage III at initial diagnosis (32.7%vs21.8%) (P= 0.003). This difference in stage distribution between the cetuximab and bevacizumab groups was primarily observed in patients with RPTL. In contrast, the proportion of patients with stage IV disease at initial diagnosis was almost the same for the cetuximab (77.3%)and bevacizumab (79.6%) groups in the CALGB/SWOG 80405 study, although the stage distribution by biologic type was not reported in primary tumor location analyses[11,22]. A greater proportion of cetuximabvsbevacizumab patients in the current study had a documented history of adjuvant therapy (36.3%vs24.0%,P<0.001), whereas the proportion of patients who had a documented history of adjuvant therapy was similar for the cetuximabvsbevacizumab cohorts in the CALGB/SWOG 80405 study (13.7%vs14.5%)[11]. Overall, these findings suggest that the chemotherapy backbone, among other factors, may contribute to outcomes, either alone, by interacting with the biologic agent, or as a proxy for disease biology if the backbone choice is driven by clinical history: Stage at initial diagnosis and features of prior adjuvant chemotherapy (use, regimen choice, disease response, and the time since completion of adjuvant therapy).

    Classification of colorectal tumors as right- and left-sided is considered a surrogate for biological differences associated with embryologic differences by location in the large intestine. However, more granular information about specific tumor location(e.g. ascending colon, transverse colon, or descending colon) may add more nuance about the underlying biology, particularly for the transverse colon, for which there is no anatomical divide between the first portion, which is associated with RPTL embryonal biology, and the latter portion, which is associated with LPTL embryonal biology[26]. The sensitivity analysis in this study defining RPTLvsLPTL using different granular tumor location groupings (e.g. transverse colon considered RPTLvsLPTL)did not change outcomes (Table 4).

    Figure 3 Kaplan-Meier overall survival curves for patients with left-sided primary tumor location vs rightsided primary tumor location in the propensity score-matched sample. CI: Confidence interval; LPTL: Left-sided primary tumor location; OS: Overall survival; RPTL: Right-sided primary tumor location.

    Based on post hoc analyses of clinical trials, such as CALGB/SWOG 80405, FIRE-3,CRYSTAL, PEAK, PRIME and others, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network has recommended that only patients with LPTL should be offered cetuximab or panitumumab in combination with 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment for mCRC[14]. However, the findings from this real-world cohort found no significant difference in survival benefit between cetuximab and bevacizumab by primary tumor location. The difference in these results compared with published post hoc analyses of randomized clinical trials highlights potential limitations of post hoc analyses and points to differences between clinical trials and the real-world study population that may warrant further research.

    In conclusion, the analysis of this real-world cohort of mCRCKRASWT patients who received first-line treatment found a prognostic effect by primary tumor location,but not a predictive effect for survival by biologic agent given with 5-fluoroucil-based chemotherapy. These findings contribute to the growing body of literature describing the potential impact of chemotherapy backbone on survival benefit associated with biologic therapy for patients with mCRC. Future research is needed to better understand if biologic treatment recommendations by side of colon should incorporate the potential impact of chemotherapy backbone, expandedRASandBRAFmutations, and history of adjuvant chemotherapy. Furthermore, additional studies are required to elucidate tumor, patient, and treatment factors that contributed to these real-world findings, as well as differences between real-world and clinical trial populations that may have contributed to the divergent results.

    Limitations of the study

    The limitations of this real-world study include those common in retrospective observational studies based on EHR data, such as selection biases and unobserved confounders, which may impact treatment effect estimates. For example, ECOG PS was missing for over 50% of patients in this study. It is not known if the beneficial effect of a therapy is lost if the regimen is used for a patient with an ECOG PS of 2 or 3 compared with an ECOG PS of 0 or 1. This loss of efficacy may be more pronounced with the addition of a biologic therapy that can significantly add to the toxicity of the chemotherapy backbone. Furthermore, in this study, approximately 60% of patients were untested forNRASmutations and 57% of patients were untested for theBRAFmutation. IfBRAForNRASmutations were present in these patients, they may have impacted the study results and explained, in part, why the predictive effect of primary tumor location on treatment with cetuximabvsbevacizumab in combination with 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy was not observed. The study may also not be generalizable to other patient populations. A further limitation was missing data,since data availability was limited to what was documented in the EHR; for example,if patients moved from or to the oncology practices represented within this EHR database, there may have been periods of missing data when care was received elsewhere. Patients with greater than a 90-d gap between advanced diagnosis and structured activity were excluded to mitigate the possibility of including data frompatients who received some of their initial care outside of the Flatiron network. The relatively short follow-up time may have impacted findings due to the number of events for evaluation, consequently leading to insufficient study power; that is, there were 366 events observed over the follow-up period in the 792 patients from the matched analysis; the median length of follow-up time available was 434 d (data not shown). Furthermore, some potential confounders for propensity score-based estimation procedures may not have been observed.

    Table 3 Cox regression estimation in the propensity score-matched sample (n = 792)

    Table 4 Overall survival sensitivity analyses

    Figure 4 Kaplan-Meier overall survival curves for patients treated with first-line cetuximab versus first-line bevacizumab by primary tumor location in the propensity score-matched sample.1P value indicates that a significant difference exists across the 4 categories. CI: Confidence interval; LPTL: Left-sided primary tumor location; NA: Not available; OS: Overall survival; RPTL: Right-sided primary tumor location.

    ARTICLE HIGHLIGHTS

    Research background

    Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a heterogeneous disease with differing outcomes and clinical responses, in part due to differences in chromosomal and molecular profiles between primary tumors that arise from the left (distal) and right (proximal) sides of the colon. Primary tumor location has been shown to be a prognostic factor, with left-sided primary tumor location(LPTL) demonstrating significantly longer survival than right-sided primary tumor location(RPTL). Additionally, primary tumor location may be a predictive factor of survival outcomes associated with cetuximab or bevacizumab in combination with 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. Current first-line treatment recommendations for mCRC per the National Comprehensive Cancer Network are cetuximab or panitumumab only for patients with LPTLRASwild-type (WT) disease or bevacizumab for patients with RPTLRASWT disease; secondline treatment recommendations for subsequent lines are cetuximab or panitumumab for all patients withRASWT tumors. However, most of the studies that investigated the effect of primary tumor location on biologic therapy efficacy and that led to treatment recommendations were post hoc analyses of large randomized controlled trials (such as CALGB/SWOG 80405,FIRE-3, CRYSTAL, PEAK, PRIME and others) not designed to examine tumor sidedness, or were single institution analyses of small cohorts. Consequently, there is a need for real-world evidence from large mCRC populations describing the association of primary tumor location with survival outcomes from biologic therapy, which is the aim of the current study.

    Research motivation

    This study was conducted to evaluate the prognostic and/or predictive roles of primary tumor location in real-world mCRC patients treated with cetuximab or bevacizumab plus 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. The findings of this study are important because they contribute to the growing body of literature describing the potential impact of primary tumor location on survival benefit associated with biologic therapy for patients with mCRC.

    Research objectives

    The main objectives of this study were to evaluate the prognostic and predictive role of primary tumor location and its association with survival benefit in real-world patients withKRASWT mCRC who initiated first-line therapy with cetuximab plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/irinotecan(FOLFIRI) or 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX)vswith bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI or FOLFOX in the United States. The analysis of this real-world cohort of mCRCKRASWT patients who received first-line treatment found a prognostic effect by primary tumor location, but not a predictive effect for survival by biologic agent given with 5-fluoroucil-based chemotherapy. The difference in these real-world results regarding predictive findings compared with published post hoc analyses of randomized clinical trials highlights challenges with the generalizability of clinical trial findings and the need for further research to elucidate tumor, patient, and treatment factors that contributed to these real-world findings, as well as differences between real-world and clinical trial populations that may have contributed to the divergent results.

    Research methods

    This retrospective cohort study selected patients withKRASwild-type mCRC who initiated firstline therapy with cetuximab or bevacizumab in combination with FOLFIRI or FOLFOX between January 2013 and April 2017 from the Flatiron Health electronic health record derived database of de-identified patient-level data in the United States. Primary tumor location was abstracted from patients' charts. LPTL was defined as tumors that originated in the splenic flexure,descending colon, sigmoid colon, or rectum; RPTL was defined as tumors that originated from the appendix, cecum, ascending colon, hepatic flexure, or transverse colon. Propensity score matching was used to balance the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between patients treated with cetuximab and patients treated with bevacizumab. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods were used for survival analyses.

    Research results

    In this retrospective cohort study of real-world patients from clinical practice in the United States, median OS was significantly longer for mCRCKRASWT patients with LPTL than for those with RPTL, regardless of first-line treatment, substantiating the prognostic effect of primary tumor location reported in previous studies. Primary tumor location was not predictive of treatment effect for cetuximab compared with bevacizumab in this study; there was no significant difference in median OS between patients who received cetuximab and those who received bevacizumab by primary tumor location. However, subgroup analyses by chemotherapy backbone showed a significant treatment benefit for cetuximab compared with bevacizumab, regardless of primary tumor location, in patients who received FOLFOX as the chemotherapy backbone. Factors that may have affected treatment-related findings include that cetuximab patients were more likely to receive FOLFIRIvsbevacizumab patients; cetuximab RPTL patients were more likely to have stage III disease while bevacizumab RPTL patients were more likely to have stage IV disease; and cetuximab RPTL patients were more likely to have a documented history of adjuvant chemotherapyvsbevacizumab RPTL patients. In addition,mutations inNRASandKRASexons 3 and 4 may have impacted the study results, yet approximately 70% of patients were not evaluated for expandedRASmutations in this study.Future research should examine these treatment factors further.

    Research conclusions

    Although the analysis of this real-world cohort of mCRCKRASWT patients who received firstline treatment found a prognostic effect by primary tumor location, it did not confirm a predictive effect for survival by biologic agent given with 5-fluoroucil-based chemotherapy as expected from previous post hoc analyses of clinical trials and treatment guidelines. Possible reasons for this divergence from previously reported findings, current guidelines, and current practice regarding treatment recommendations for mCRC by primary tumor location may include limitations of post hoc analyses; the potential impact of chemotherapy backbone on survival benefit associated with biologic therapy; tumor, patient, and treatment factors that contributed to these real-world findings; and differences between real-world and clinical trial populations. Future research is needed to definitively confirm these reasons in order to optimize treatment for patients with mCRC.

    Research perspectives

    These findings confirmed primary tumor location as a prognostic factor in mCRC but did not confirm its predictive effect in contrast with previous findings. Chemotherapy backbone may contribute to outcomes, either alone, by interacting with the biologic agent, or as a proxy for disease biology if the backbone choice is driven by clinical history: Stage at initial diagnosis and features of prior adjuvant chemotherapy (use, regimen choice, disease response, and the time since completion of adjuvant therapy). Future research is needed to better understand if biologic treatment recommendations by side of colon should incorporate the potential impact of chemotherapy backbone and other factors, such as expandedRASandBRAFmutations, and history of adjuvant chemotherapy. Furthermore, additional studies are required to elucidate tumor, patient, and treatment factors that contributed to these real-world findings, as well as differences between real-world and clinical trial populations.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

    This study was sponsored by Eli Lilly and Company. Medical writing support was provided by Andrew Sakko, PhD, CMPP, and editorial support was provided by Noelle Gasco of Syneos Health and funded by Eli Lilly and Company in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines (http://www.ismpp.org/gpp3).

    猜你喜歡
    一氣盆中百里香
    黑龍江省4種野生百里香揮發(fā)油成分GC-MS分析
    全真一氣湯治療中青年高血壓病驗(yàn)案舉隅
    賞自家仙人掌開(kāi)花
    一氣周瑜(二)
    一氣周瑜(一)
    響應(yīng)面優(yōu)化百里香多糖提取工藝及其抗氧化作用
    巧去除大米中的沙粒
    飲食保健(2017年13期)2017-07-31 23:58:35
    讓百里香為中餐效勞
    婦女之友(2016年11期)2017-01-20 19:43:01
    新飼料添加劑對(duì)百里香酚的開(kāi)發(fā)和應(yīng)用研究
    蛋殼的妙用
    一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说 | 一级作爱视频免费观看| 男女高潮啪啪啪动态图| 精品福利观看| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 伦理电影免费视频| 手机成人av网站| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 色94色欧美一区二区| 亚洲人成电影观看| 91大片在线观看| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 国产精品偷伦视频观看了| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 色在线成人网| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 久久久精品国产亚洲av高清涩受| 亚洲av片天天在线观看| 久久人人97超碰香蕉20202| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 国产精品二区激情视频| 精品福利永久在线观看| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 日韩视频一区二区在线观看| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 精品久久久久久,| 黄色视频不卡| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| av免费在线观看网站| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 久久久国产成人精品二区 | 男人舔女人的私密视频| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 精品亚洲成国产av| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| av网站在线播放免费| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点 | 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 极品教师在线免费播放| 国产单亲对白刺激| 亚洲色图av天堂| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 亚洲精品成人av观看孕妇| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| www日本在线高清视频| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| av网站免费在线观看视频| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 日本欧美视频一区| 国产精品久久视频播放| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| av片东京热男人的天堂| 精品卡一卡二卡四卡免费| 嫩草影视91久久| 91成年电影在线观看| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 欧美黑人精品巨大| 一区在线观看完整版| 脱女人内裤的视频| 亚洲成人免费av在线播放| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 一级黄色大片毛片| 国产午夜精品久久久久久| 99香蕉大伊视频| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 国产精品永久免费网站| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 99热只有精品国产| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| av电影中文网址| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 久久亚洲真实| av国产精品久久久久影院| 18禁观看日本| 亚洲成av片中文字幕在线观看| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 成人精品一区二区免费| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 电影成人av| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3 | 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 国产有黄有色有爽视频| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 黑人操中国人逼视频| videos熟女内射| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| aaaaa片日本免费| 国产免费男女视频| 一本一本久久a久久精品综合妖精| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 国产xxxxx性猛交| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 国产1区2区3区精品| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 1024视频免费在线观看| 怎么达到女性高潮| av中文乱码字幕在线| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 91精品三级在线观看| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 欧美性长视频在线观看| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 不卡av一区二区三区| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 国产精华一区二区三区| 午夜福利影视在线免费观看| 宅男免费午夜| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 在线观看66精品国产| 成年人免费黄色播放视频| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| www日本在线高清视频| 欧美午夜高清在线| 99热网站在线观看| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 18禁观看日本| 亚洲黑人精品在线| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频 | 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 午夜精品在线福利| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 另类亚洲欧美激情| aaaaa片日本免费| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区 | 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 极品教师在线免费播放| 午夜免费鲁丝| 欧美在线黄色| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站 | 国产精品久久久久成人av| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 性少妇av在线| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽 | a级毛片黄视频| 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院 | 精品国产国语对白av| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 咕卡用的链子| 一本一本久久a久久精品综合妖精| 很黄的视频免费| 9热在线视频观看99| 十八禁网站免费在线| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 精品福利观看| 极品教师在线免费播放| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 亚洲国产看品久久| 欧美乱妇无乱码| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 亚洲av成人av| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 国产av一区二区精品久久| av福利片在线| 久久国产精品影院| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 亚洲第一av免费看| 日本wwww免费看| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 国产亚洲精品久久久久5区| 欧美大码av| av天堂在线播放| 亚洲av熟女| 国产99久久九九免费精品| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 丰满饥渴人妻一区二区三| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 在线播放国产精品三级| 日韩欧美在线二视频 | 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址 | 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 中文字幕人妻丝袜制服| 热re99久久国产66热| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 涩涩av久久男人的天堂| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| www日本在线高清视频| 在线天堂中文资源库| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 男人操女人黄网站| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 欧美日韩乱码在线| 美女福利国产在线| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 免费av中文字幕在线| 国产精品影院久久| 超色免费av| 香蕉久久夜色| 亚洲av美国av| 成人18禁在线播放| 免费黄频网站在线观看国产| 美女 人体艺术 gogo| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 伦理电影免费视频| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免费看| 国产区一区二久久| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 视频在线观看一区二区三区| 成年版毛片免费区| 老司机影院毛片| 久久人妻av系列| 午夜福利欧美成人| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费 | 国产一卡二卡三卡精品| 91麻豆av在线| 精品久久久久久,| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 久久亚洲精品不卡| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 欧美国产精品va在线观看不卡| 成年人免费黄色播放视频| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 国产区一区二久久| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 免费在线观看黄色视频的| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频| 精品国产美女av久久久久小说| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 老司机靠b影院| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 成人精品一区二区免费| av有码第一页| 久久国产亚洲av麻豆专区| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 国内久久婷婷六月综合欲色啪| 午夜福利视频在线观看免费| av福利片在线| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 亚洲片人在线观看| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91| 乱人伦中国视频| 中文欧美无线码| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| av不卡在线播放| 91成年电影在线观看| 免费观看精品视频网站| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产 | 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 乱人伦中国视频| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 美国免费a级毛片| 国产主播在线观看一区二区| 久久草成人影院| 午夜免费成人在线视频| aaaaa片日本免费| 纯流量卡能插随身wifi吗| 青草久久国产| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 亚洲五月天丁香| 欧美性长视频在线观看| а√天堂www在线а√下载 | 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| www日本在线高清视频| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 看黄色毛片网站| 亚洲av成人av| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 亚洲第一青青草原| 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 国产野战对白在线观看| 成人国语在线视频| 免费看a级黄色片| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 国产色视频综合| 久久香蕉精品热| 日韩人妻精品一区2区三区| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 久久国产精品大桥未久av| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 久久香蕉国产精品| 看黄色毛片网站| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 黄色视频不卡| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 无限看片的www在线观看| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 丁香六月欧美| 露出奶头的视频| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 极品教师在线免费播放| 不卡av一区二区三区| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 天天躁日日躁夜夜躁夜夜| 天天添夜夜摸| 午夜91福利影院| 成人亚洲精品一区在线观看| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 亚洲精品一二三| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 99热只有精品国产| 脱女人内裤的视频| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 午夜日韩欧美国产| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 久久精品亚洲精品国产色婷小说| 日韩欧美免费精品| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 日韩人妻精品一区2区三区| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 久久久久久久久久久久大奶| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片 | 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 女人高潮潮喷娇喘18禁视频| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| videos熟女内射| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看 | 两个人看的免费小视频| 99re6热这里在线精品视频| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸| 午夜91福利影院| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 久久精品亚洲精品国产色婷小说| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 女性被躁到高潮视频| a级毛片在线看网站| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 91国产中文字幕| 婷婷成人精品国产| 女警被强在线播放| 精品亚洲成国产av| 午夜久久久在线观看| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 久久热在线av| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 丁香六月欧美| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 亚洲人成电影观看| 日韩免费av在线播放| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 可以免费在线观看a视频的电影网站| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 在线国产一区二区在线| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说 | 在线播放国产精品三级| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 丰满的人妻完整版| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 丁香欧美五月| 久9热在线精品视频| 不卡一级毛片| 中文欧美无线码| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 亚洲精品乱久久久久久| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 亚洲国产精品一区二区三区在线| 看免费av毛片| 亚洲精品一二三| 男女高潮啪啪啪动态图| 国产淫语在线视频| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 亚洲欧美激情在线| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| www日本在线高清视频| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 久久 成人 亚洲| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 黄片播放在线免费| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 日韩有码中文字幕| 一区二区三区激情视频| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 亚洲国产欧美网| 国产精品九九99| 亚洲在线自拍视频| 久久狼人影院| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 久久久久久久国产电影| 中国美女看黄片| 9热在线视频观看99| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 亚洲精品在线美女| 99热网站在线观看| 国产欧美日韩一区二区三| 啦啦啦在线免费观看视频4| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 国产精品永久免费网站| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 成人手机av| 精品亚洲成a人片在线观看| 亚洲国产中文字幕在线视频| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看 | 两个人免费观看高清视频| 看免费av毛片| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 一区二区三区激情视频| 国产亚洲欧美98| 国产高清激情床上av| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址 | 两个人免费观看高清视频| 免费在线观看日本一区| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 80岁老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 老司机靠b影院| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 曰老女人黄片| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 精品久久久久久,| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费 | 久久精品亚洲av国产电影网| 91成人精品电影| 男女高潮啪啪啪动态图| 老司机影院毛片| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 精品国产一区二区久久| 欧美黑人精品巨大| 在线国产一区二区在线| 久久久久国内视频| av天堂在线播放| 久久影院123| 国产成人精品在线电影| 久久香蕉精品热| 亚洲免费av在线视频| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 美国免费a级毛片| 中文欧美无线码| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 久久热在线av| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 欧美日韩黄片免| 亚洲综合色网址| 在线免费观看的www视频| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 久久精品亚洲av国产电影网| 国产在线观看jvid| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 国产精品久久久久久人妻精品电影| 国产精品久久久久久精品古装| 99久久综合精品五月天人人| 国产精品九九99| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| av电影中文网址| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区| 免费少妇av软件| 免费在线观看日本一区| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 乱人伦中国视频| 9色porny在线观看| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼 | 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 极品人妻少妇av视频| 1024香蕉在线观看| 国产免费男女视频| 在线观看日韩欧美| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 成年人黄色毛片网站| 亚洲国产看品久久| 色综合婷婷激情| 中文欧美无线码| 午夜福利欧美成人| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 青草久久国产| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 青草久久国产| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 美女午夜性视频免费| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 1024视频免费在线观看| 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 一级毛片精品| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 91成人精品电影| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 精品一区二区三卡| 亚洲av片天天在线观看| 亚洲色图 男人天堂 中文字幕| 亚洲国产看品久久| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 男人操女人黄网站| 国产精品国产av在线观看|