• <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
    国产毛片a区久久久久| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 性色avwww在线观看| 色视频www国产| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 午夜福利高清视频| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 69人妻影院| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 不卡一级毛片| 九色成人免费人妻av| 一本久久中文字幕| 久久精品国产鲁丝片午夜精品| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 老司机影院成人| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 亚洲av一区综合| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 精品久久久噜噜| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区 | 精品久久国产蜜桃| 在线免费十八禁| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 一夜夜www| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 悠悠久久av| 日韩中字成人| 国产成人福利小说| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 午夜激情欧美在线| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 一a级毛片在线观看| 久久这里只有精品中国| 精品午夜福利在线看| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 亚洲四区av| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 99热这里只有精品一区| 久久久久久久久中文| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 大香蕉久久网| 国产探花极品一区二区| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 亚洲成人久久性| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 国产 一区精品| 日日撸夜夜添| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 日本免费a在线| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 亚洲最大成人av| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 天天躁日日操中文字幕| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 日本在线视频免费播放| 久久久a久久爽久久v久久| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 国产在线男女| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 两个人的视频大全免费| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| .国产精品久久| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 国产精品,欧美在线| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 亚洲不卡免费看| 看黄色毛片网站| 中文资源天堂在线| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 不卡一级毛片| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看 | 久久人妻av系列| 99热这里只有精品一区| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 亚洲无线观看免费| 九九在线视频观看精品| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 十八禁网站免费在线| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 97热精品久久久久久| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 直男gayav资源| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| av.在线天堂| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 美女大奶头视频| 欧美bdsm另类| 在线免费观看的www视频| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 97超视频在线观看视频| 91久久精品国产一区二区三区| 禁无遮挡网站| 啦啦啦啦在线视频资源| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 国产综合懂色| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 黄片wwwwww| 黑人高潮一二区| 亚洲18禁久久av| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 有码 亚洲区| 国产精品女同一区二区软件| 午夜福利在线观看吧| a级毛色黄片| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 性欧美人与动物交配| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频| 久久久久久久久中文| 国产色婷婷99| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 国产成人freesex在线 | or卡值多少钱| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 十八禁网站免费在线| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 国产av在哪里看| 久久精品91蜜桃| 久久久久久久久久成人| 中文字幕久久专区| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 如何舔出高潮| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 亚洲色图av天堂| 亚洲欧美精品自产自拍| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 夜夜爽天天搞| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 成人二区视频| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 不卡一级毛片| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 深夜精品福利| 亚洲精品国产成人久久av| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看 | 少妇的逼好多水| 亚洲五月天丁香| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 免费av不卡在线播放| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 亚洲av美国av| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 黄色一级大片看看| 91久久精品电影网| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 日韩亚洲欧美综合| 久久久久久久久久久丰满| 久久久久久久久久成人| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站 | 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 99热6这里只有精品| 国产精品伦人一区二区| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 欧美中文日本在线观看视频| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 99热这里只有精品一区| aaaaa片日本免费| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 少妇的逼水好多| 日本成人三级电影网站| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 国产 一区精品| 十八禁网站免费在线| 色播亚洲综合网| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 一进一出抽搐动态| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 在线播放无遮挡| 成年版毛片免费区| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 97碰自拍视频| 黄片wwwwww| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 色哟哟·www| 搡老岳熟女国产| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 欧美bdsm另类| 日本与韩国留学比较| 亚洲av.av天堂| 深爱激情五月婷婷| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| www.色视频.com| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 亚洲四区av| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线 | 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 欧美日韩在线观看h| or卡值多少钱| 一本一本综合久久| 级片在线观看| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱 | 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 露出奶头的视频| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 国产综合懂色| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av| 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 一夜夜www| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 日韩欧美在线乱码| av天堂在线播放| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 99久久精品国产国产毛片| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 国产免费男女视频| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 毛片女人毛片| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 热99re8久久精品国产| 国产精品野战在线观看| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 1024手机看黄色片| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 在线国产一区二区在线| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 国产一区二区三区av在线 | av.在线天堂| av在线观看视频网站免费| 色哟哟·www| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 国产精品永久免费网站| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 日韩av在线大香蕉| 老司机福利观看| 亚洲最大成人中文| 国产三级在线视频| a级毛片a级免费在线| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 老女人水多毛片| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 国产成人91sexporn| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 亚洲久久久久久中文字幕| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 美女免费视频网站| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 亚洲av中文av极速乱| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| av在线播放精品| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 看片在线看免费视频| 国产三级中文精品| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 在线看三级毛片| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 97超视频在线观看视频| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 给我免费播放毛片高清在线观看| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| av在线观看视频网站免费| 欧美zozozo另类| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看 | 麻豆一二三区av精品| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 九九久久精品国产亚洲av麻豆| a级毛片a级免费在线| 久99久视频精品免费| 精品久久久噜噜| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 日本爱情动作片www.在线观看 | 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 日韩欧美三级三区| 亚洲va在线va天堂va国产| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 色播亚洲综合网| 老师上课跳d突然被开到最大视频| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 99热精品在线国产| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 亚洲va在线va天堂va国产| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| av天堂在线播放| 97热精品久久久久久| 午夜视频国产福利| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 亚洲av熟女| 午夜久久久久精精品| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 久久精品影院6| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 搞女人的毛片| 国产成人91sexporn| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 少妇的逼好多水| 成人av在线播放网站| 亚洲性久久影院| 欧美bdsm另类| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 热99在线观看视频| 久久久久九九精品影院| 联通29元200g的流量卡| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| av在线老鸭窝| 国产三级在线视频| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 99热这里只有精品一区| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 波多野结衣高清作品| 久久久久性生活片| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 99热网站在线观看| 1024手机看黄色片| 国产亚洲精品综合一区在线观看| 免费看a级黄色片| 一夜夜www| 亚洲在线观看片| av中文乱码字幕在线| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 老女人水多毛片| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 熟女电影av网| 欧美激情国产日韩精品一区| 国产精品一区二区免费欧美| 国产三级在线视频| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄 | 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区 | 国产精品野战在线观看| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区 | 亚洲内射少妇av| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 十八禁网站免费在线| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| av在线蜜桃| 我要搜黄色片| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| videossex国产| 日韩成人伦理影院| 一进一出好大好爽视频| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区 | 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 看片在线看免费视频| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 91av网一区二区| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 国产亚洲欧美98| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看 | 成人无遮挡网站| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 美女高潮的动态| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在 | 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 九色成人免费人妻av| 老司机福利观看| 不卡一级毛片| 69av精品久久久久久| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 高清日韩中文字幕在线| a级毛色黄片| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 国产在线男女| 亚洲18禁久久av| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 日韩高清综合在线| 成年版毛片免费区| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 久久精品影院6| 联通29元200g的流量卡| www.色视频.com| 高清毛片免费看| 日韩中字成人| 51国产日韩欧美| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 一区二区三区四区激情视频 | 老司机福利观看| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 亚洲最大成人手机在线| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 小蜜桃在线观看免费完整版高清| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 97碰自拍视频| 给我免费播放毛片高清在线观看| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 欧美一区二区国产精品久久精品| 直男gayav资源| 少妇丰满av| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜 | 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 中文资源天堂在线| 床上黄色一级片| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆 | 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 成人综合一区亚洲| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 一级av片app| 此物有八面人人有两片| 久久久久九九精品影院| 老熟妇乱子伦视频在线观看| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 国产精品一及| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 三级毛片av免费| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站 | 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 午夜免费激情av| 免费看光身美女| 中国国产av一级| 一级毛片aaaaaa免费看小| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 亚洲久久久久久中文字幕| 国产 一区精品| aaaaa片日本免费| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 在线a可以看的网站| 色播亚洲综合网| 伦精品一区二区三区| 综合色av麻豆| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 国产高潮美女av| 亚洲国产精品成人久久小说 | 悠悠久久av| 日本一二三区视频观看| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 国产片特级美女逼逼视频| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 99热6这里只有精品| www日本黄色视频网| 欧美成人精品欧美一级黄| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 精品久久久久久成人av| 久久精品国产自在天天线| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| 丰满的人妻完整版| 99热这里只有是精品50| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 国产一区二区亚洲精品在线观看| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 免费看光身美女| 亚洲av熟女| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 中国美女看黄片| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 毛片女人毛片| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看| 午夜激情欧美在线| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕 | 春色校园在线视频观看| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 午夜精品在线福利| av福利片在线观看| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 国产真实乱freesex| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 男人舔奶头视频| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 亚洲自拍偷在线|