Search

Aim: To examine the impact of tumor sidedness on clinical outcomes in Chinese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with folinic acid/fluorouracil/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) ± cetuximab in the TAILOR trial. Patients & methods: Clinical data from 391 patients were evaluated for tumor sidedness. Results: Patients with left-sided tumors who received cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 had a significantly longer overall survival (medians: 22.0 vs 18.3 months; p = 0.007) and progression-free survival (medians: 9.3 vs 7.9 months; p = 0.006) compared with FOLFOX-4 alone. Overall survival (medians: 11.5 vs 9.4 months; p = 0.664) and progression-free survival (medians: 7.4 vs 4.5 months; p = 0.068) also improved in patients with right-sided tumors. Conclusion: Adding cetuximab to first-line FOLFOX-4 in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer improved clinical outcomes irrespective of primary tumor side.

Doublet or triplet chemotherapy regimens in combination with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) monoclonal antibodies (mAb), such as cetuximab or panitumumab, or the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor mAb bevacizumab, are the current recommended standard of care therapies for unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). While the recommended dosing schedule for the triplet chemotherapy regimen with 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) in combination with bevacizumab is well established, the optimal dosing of FOLFOXIRI in combination with anti-EGFR agents is unknown. Several randomized, phase 3 clinical trials of patients with mCRC have demonstrated improved survival and response rates with FOLFOXIRI, alone or when combined with bevacizumab, compared with doublet chemotherapy regimens. Trials of anti-EGFR agents in combination with FOLFOXIRI have also shown promising results. In this review, we summarize the emerging evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of anti-EGFR agents in combination with triplet chemotherapy regimens and discuss the potential for this combination as a future treatment option for patients with RAS-wild-type mCRC., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase III EPIC study (EMR 062202-025) investigated cetuximab plus irinotecan versus irinotecan in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-detectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that progressed on first-line fluoropyrimidine- and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy; we report the outcomes of patients with RAS-wild-type (wt) disease., Materials and Methods: Available DNA samples from RAS-unselected patients (n = 1,164 of 1,298 [89.7%]) were reanalyzed for RAS mutations using beads, emulsion, amplification, and magnetics. Baseline characteristics, efficacy, safety, and poststudy therapy were assessed. RAS-wt status was defined as a mutated RAS allele frequency of ≤5%, with all relevant alleles being analyzable., Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups (n = 452 patients with RAS-wt mCRC; cetuximab plus irinotecan n = 231, irinotecan n = 221) and between the RAS-wt and RAS-unselected populations. In the cetuximab plus irinotecan versus irinotecan arms, median overall survival was 12.3 versus 12.0 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.4 versus 2.6 months, and objective response rate (ORR) was 29.4% versus 5.0%, respectively. Quality of life (QoL) was improved in the cetuximab plus irinotecan arm. Serious adverse events occurred in 45.4% (cetuximab plus irinotecan) and 42.4% (irinotecan) of patients. In total, 47.1% of patients in the irinotecan arm received subsequent cetuximab therapy., Conclusion: PFS, ORR, and QoL were improved with cetuximab plus irinotecan as a second-line treatment in patients with RAS-wt mCRC, confirming that cetuximab-based therapy is suitable in this population. Almost half of patients in the irinotecan arm received poststudy cetuximab, masking a potential overall survival benefit of cetuximab addition., Implications for Practice: Cetuximab is approved for the treatment of RAS-wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In this retrospective analysis of the phase III EPIC study (cetuximab plus irinotecan vs. irinotecan alone as second-line treatment in patients with RAS-unselected mCRC), the subgroup of patients with RAS-wild-type mCRC who received cetuximab plus irinotecan had improved progression-free survival, objective response rate, and quality of life compared with the RAS-unselected population. These findings suggest that cetuximab-based therapy is a suitable second-line treatment for patients with RAS-wild-type mCRC., (© 2020 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AlphaMed Press.)

Aim: This study assessed whether cetuximab 500 mg/m 2 administered every 2 weeks (Q2W), when combined with chemotherapy as a first-line (1L) treatment, was noninferior to the approved dose (400 mg/m 2 followed by 250 mg/m 2 once weekly [Q1W]) for overall survival (OS) in adults with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)., Methods: This pooled analysis included patients receiving 1L treatment with cetuximab Q1W or Q2W in combination with chemotherapy from post-authorisation studies with patient-level data available to the sponsor. Baseline characteristics were adjusted with a propensity score using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Noninferiority in terms of OS was tested with a noninferiority margin for the hazard ratio (HR) of 1.25 using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and rates of lung/liver metastases resection and serious adverse events., Results: OS time was noninferior in the Q2W cohort (n = 554) compared to the Q1W cohort (n = 763), with a HR after IPTW (95% confidence interval) of 0.827 (0.715-0.956) and median OS times of 24.7 (Q1W) and 27.9 (Q2W) months. There were no major differences in PFS (HR: 0.915 [0.804-1.042]). The odds ratios (ORs) after IPTW for ORR (1.292 [1.031-1.617]) and the rates of lung/liver metastases resection (1.419 [1.043-1.932]) favoured the Q2W regimen. No differences were noted in the occurrence rate of any SAE between groups; the OR after IPTW was 1.089 (0.858-1.382)., Conclusions: The cetuximab Q2W regimen was noninferior to the Q1W regimen for OS in the 1L treatment of mCRC., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement SK discloses honoraria (self) from Merck, Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, Aventis, Servier, and Lilly; honoraria (institution) from Merck, Amgen, Roche, and Lilly; advisory/consultancy roles with Merck, Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, Aventis, Servier, and Lilly; research grants/funding (self) from Merck and Lilly; research grants/funding (institution) from Merck and Lilly; travel/accommodation expenses from Merck, Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, Aventis, Servier, and Lilly. FXL and CF are full-time employees of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. RE is a full-time employee of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, and holds shares of Merck KGaA. WC is a full-time employee of Merck Serono, Shanghai, China, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. TB discloses personal fees from Roche (lecture fee), personal fees from Amgen (lecture fee, advisory board), personal fees from Bayer (lecture fee, advisory board), personal fees from Novartis (lecture fee, advisory board), personal fees from PharmaMar (lecture fee, advisory board), personal fees from Eisai (lecture fee, advisory board), and personal fees from Lilly (lecture fee, advisory board), outside the submitted work. CZ discloses consultancy and speaker's honoraria from Roche, Novartis, BMS, MSD, Imugene, ARIAD, Pfizer, Merrimack, Merck KGaA, FibroGen, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Gilead, Servier, Shire, Lilly, and Athenex. DM and VR were employees of Prometris GmbH at the time the work was performed, which provided statistical services for Merck KGaA. All remaining authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The open-label, nonrandomized, phase II APEC study enrolled 167 patients with RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) to investigate the safety and efficacy of first-line, every-2-weeks cetuximab plus investigator's choice of FOLFIRI or FOLFOX in this patient population., Methods: A subgroup analysis of the APEC study population by primary tumor location was performed., Results: A total of 130 patients (81.8%) had left-sided and 29 (18.2%) had right-sided mCRC. Median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR) were 14.0 months, 30.6 months and 68.5% for patients with left-sided tumors and 8.9 months, 24.6 months and 51.7% for patients with right-sided mCRC, concurring with pivotal phase III trial results. In patients with right-sided tumors, median PFS was 15.4 months vs 8.3 months with cetuximab plus FOLFIRI vs cetuximab plus FOLFOX, respectively; median OS was 32.1 months vs 21.8 months with cetuximab plus FOLFIRI vs cetuximab plus FOLFOX, respectively., Conclusion: The APEC tumor-location subgroup analysis results were largely consistent with available literature regarding the equivalent efficacy of cetuximab plus FOLFIRI/FOLFOX in patients with left-sided RAS wt mCRC. A trend toward improved efficacy with cetuximab plus FOLFIRI compared with cetuximab plus FOLFOX was observed in patients with right-sided tumors; however, a direct comparison between groups cannot be made due to the nonrandomized study design. Nevertheless, the similar ORR observed with either chemotherapy backbone in patients with right-sided RAS wt mCRC suggests a potential role for both regimens in this patient population when cytoreduction is a treatment goal., (© 2019 The Authors. Asia-Pacific Journal of Clinical Oncology Published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background: The phase III EXTREME and CRYSTAL studies demonstrated that the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy significantly improved survival in the first-line treatment of recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) and KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), high EGFR expression was identified as a tumour biomarker that can predict survival benefit associated with the addition of cetuximab to first-line chemotherapy. We investigated whether tumour EGFR expression level was predictive of cetuximab benefit in EXTREME and CRYSTAL study patients., Methods: Prospectively collected tumour immunohistochemistry data were used to generate an EGFR immunohistochemistry score (scale 1-300) for patients in the EXTREME and CRYSTAL studies. For each study, the association between tumour immunohistochemistry score and cetuximab benefit was investigated. The EXTREME and CRYSTAL studies are registered with Clinical Trials.gov, numbers NCT00122460 and NCT00154102, respectively., Findings: Tumour EGFR immunohistochemistry data were available for 411 of 442 (93%) patients from the EXTREME study intention-to-treat (ITT) population and 664 of 666 (100%) patients from the ITT population of the CRYSTAL study with EGFR-expressing, KRAS wild-type disease. The distribution of immunohistochemistry scores was similar between the treatment arms of each study, but differed between studies. A clinically relevant benefit for progression-free and overall survival associated with the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy was seen across the full score range in EXTREME study patients. Similarly, CRYSTAL study patients derived a clinical benefit across the full score range, with no meaningful association between EGFR expression level and benefit., Interpretation: The addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy improved survival in the first-line treatment of recurrent/metastatic SCCHN and KRAS wild-type mCRC regardless of tumour EGFR expression level, indicating that in contrast to findings in NSCLC, EGFR expression level is not a clinically useful predictive biomarker in these settings., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients from South-East Asia and Australia., Methods: In this open-label, phase II study, the main eligibility criteria were epidermal growth factor receptor-positive mCRC with progressive disease within 3 mo of an irinotecan-based regimen as the most recent chemotherapy. Patients received cetuximab 400 mg/m2 initially, then 250 mg/m2 every week, with the same regimen of irinotecan on which the patients had progressed (4 pre-defined regimens allowed). The primary objective was evaluation of progression-free survival (PFS) at 12 wk. Secondary objectives included a further investigation of PFS, and an assessment of the overall response rate (ORR), duration of response, time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival and the safety profile., Results: One hundred and twenty nine patients were enrolled from 25 centers in the Asia-Pacific region and of these 123 received cetuximab plus irinotecan. The most common recent irinotecan regimen used was 180 mg/m2 every 2 wk which had been used in 93 patients (75.6%). The PFS rate at 12 wk was 50% (95% confidence interval (CI, 41-59) and median PFS time was 12.1 wk (95% CI: 9.7-17.7). The ORR was 13.8% (95% CI: 8.3-21.2) and disease control rate was 49.6% (95% CI: 40.5-58.8). Median duration of response was 31.1 wk (95% CI: 18.0-42.6) and median overall survival was 9.5 mo (95% CI, 7.5-11.7). The median TTF was 11.7 wk (95% CI: 9.1-17.4). Treatment was generally well tolerated. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were diarrhea (13.8%), neutropenia (8.9%), rash (5.7%) and vomiting (5.7%)., Conclusion: In patients from Asia and Australia, this study confirms the activity and safety of cetuximab plus irinotecan observed in previous studies in Europe and South America.

Background: The aim of this multicenter phase II study was to demonstrate the activity of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeting monoclonal antibody cetuximab combined with irinotecan in the treatment of Latin American patients with EGFR-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in whom previous treatment with an irinotecan-containing regimen had failed., Patients and Methods: Patients received cetuximab, as a 400 mg/m2 initial infusion followed by 250 mg/m2 weekly, plus the same irinotecan regimen that had previously failed, until the occurrence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was response. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, overall survival (OS), and safety., Results: Seventy-nine patients received treatment. One patient had a complete response, 20 had partial responses, and disease was stabilized in 23 patients, giving an overall response rate of 27% and a disease control rate of 56%. The median duration of response was 23.9 weeks. Median PFS was 17.4 weeks, median OS was 9.2 months, and the 12-month OS rate was 38%. The most common adverse events according to System Organ Class were skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (91% of the patients). Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 45 patients (57%), with the most common being diarrhea (20%), neutropenia (11%), and rash (6%). Seven patients (9%) had grade 3/4 acne-like skin rash. No grade 3/4 infusion-related reactions were reported., Conclusion: Cetuximab in combination with irinotecan is active and tolerable in Latin American patients with mCRC progressing on irinotecan, with a safety profile similar to that described in European studies.

Aim: To investigate efficacy and safety of cetuximab combined with two chemotherapy regimens in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)., Methods: Randomized patients received cetuximab with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), folinic acid (FA) and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) 6 (arm A, n = 74) or 5-FU, FA and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) (arm B, n = 77). KRAS mutation status was determined retrospectively in a subset of tumors (n = 117)., Results: No significant difference was found between treatment arms A and B in the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 9 mo, 45% vs 34%; median PFS, 8.6 mo vs 8.3 mo [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.06]; overall response rate (ORR) 43% vs 45% [odds ratio (OR) = 0.93] and median overall survival (OS), 17.4 mo vs 18.9 mo (HR = 0.98). Patients with KRAS wild-type tumors demonstrated improved PFS (HR = 0.55, P = 0.0051), OS, (HR = 0.62, P = 0.0296) and ORR (53% vs 36%) and in arm A, improved PFS (HR = 0.49, P = 0.0196), OS (HR = 0.48, P = 0.0201) and ORR (56% vs 30%), compared with patients with KRAS mutated tumors. In arm B no significant differences were found in efficacy by KRAS mutation status. Treatment in arms A and B was generally well tolerated., Conclusion: This study confirms that combinations of cetuximab with FOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI are effective and significantly improve clinical outcome in KRAS wild-type compared with KRAS mutated mCRC.

Background: : The multinational MABEL study of 1147 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who had recently failed an irinotecan-containing regimen confirmed in a community practice setting the efficacy and safety of cetuximab combined with irinotecan., Methods: : This report describes a post hoc analysis of the influence of prophylactic premedication on the incidence of infusion-related reactions (IRRs) in the MABEL study. The analysis was focused on the subpopulation of patients premedicated with antihistamines either with (n = 700) or without (n = 422) corticosteroids. Stepwise Cox regression modeling was used to examine the explanatory value of the type of premedication on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) times., Results: : The incidence of IRRs was lower in the group of patients who received antihistamine plus corticosteroid (9.6%) compared with those who received antihistamine alone (25.6%). A similar trend was seen for grade 3 or 4 IRRs (1.0% vs 4.7%, respectively). The 12-week PFS rates (61% vs 60%), median PFS (16.1 vs 13.1 weeks) and OS (9.2 vs 9.0 months) times for patients who received, respectively, antihistamines with and without corticosteroids were similar. Cox regression modeling did not identify any impact of type of premedication used (antihistamine with or without corticosteroids) on the efficacy of treatment in relation to PFS or OS., Conclusions: : Prophylactically premedicating mCRC patients with both antihistamine and a corticosteroid appeared to reduce the frequency of cetuximab-associated IRRs. Given that this was a post hoc analysis, caution must be exercised in the interpretation of these data, which require formal confirmation in a randomized study. Cancer 2010. (c) 2010 American Cancer Society.

Purpose: This large, multinational study aimed to confirm in a community practice setting the efficacy and safety of cetuximab plus irinotecan in patients with epidermal growth factor-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who had recently failed an irinotecan-containing regimen., Patients and Methods: The primary objective was to determine the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 12 weeks. The initial cetuximab dose was 400 mg/m(2) and was followed weekly by 250 mg/m(2); irinotecan (according to prestudy regimen) was given weekly (125 mg/m(2) weekly for 4 of 6 weeks), every 2 weeks (180 mg/m(2) each), or every 3 weeks (350 mg/m(2) each)., Results: The intention-to-treat/safety population comprised 1,147 treated patients who received irinotecan weekly (n = 93); every 2 weeks (n = 670); every 3 weeks (n = 356); or another dose (n = 28). The PFS rate at 12 weeks was 61%, and the median survival was 9.2 months. Treatment was generally well tolerated. The most common treatment-related grades 3 to 4 adverse events were diarrhea (19%), neutropenia (10%), rash (7%), and asthenia (6%). The rate of grades 3 to 4 infusion-related reactions (IRRs; composite adverse event category) was 1% for patients who received both antihistamine and corticosteroid premedication. CONCLUSION Tolerability (except IRR incidence), PFS rate, and overall survival rate were in line with previous results. At 1%, the rate of IRRs in patients who received prophylactic premedication with both antihistamine and corticosteroid is lower than previously reported. MABEL clearly confirms in a community practice setting the efficacy and safety of cetuximab plus irinotecan in the treatment of mCRC.