Toxicity associated with combination oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidine with or without cetuximab in the MRC COIN trial experience

Association between imaging response and survival following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

The association between the imaging response (structural or metabolic) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (neoCT) before colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) and survival is unclear.

METHOD

A total of 201 patients underwent their first CRLM resection. A total of 94 (47%) patients were treated with neoCT. A multivariable, Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was performed to compare overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between response groups.

RESULTS

Multivariable regression analysis of the CT/MRI (n = 94) group showed no difference in survival (OS and PFS) in patients who had stable disease/partial response (SD/PR) or complete response (CR) versus patients who had progressive disease (PD) (OS: HR, 0.36 (95% CI: 0.11-1.19) p = .094, HR, 0.78 (95% CI: 0.13-4.50) p = .780, respectively), (PFS: HR, 0.70 (95% CI: 0.36-1.35) p = .284, HR, 0.51 (0.18-1.45) p = .203, respectively). In the FDG-PET group (n = 60) there was no difference in the hazard of death for patients with SD/PR or CR versus patients with PD for OS or PFS except for the PFS in the small CR subgroup (OS: HR, 0.75 (95% CI: 0.11-4.88) p = .759, HR, 1.21 (95% CI: 0.15-9.43) p = .857), (PFS: HR, 0.34% (95% CI: 0.09-1.22), p = .097, HR, 0.17 (95% CI: 0.04-0.62) p = .008, respectively).

CONCLUSION

There was no convincing evidence of association between imaging response to neoCT and survival following CRLM resection.

Effect of Reduced-Dose Capecitabine Plus Cetuximab as Maintenance Therapy for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Phase 2 Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Fluorouracil-based chemotherapy combined with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor/vascular endothelial growth factor therapy is the standard first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer followed by low-intensity maintenance therapy to balance the clinical efficacy and adverse effects (AEs). However, there have been concerns about the AEs of capecitabine plus cetuximab as a maintenance therapy in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the biological activity and safety of capecitabine plus cetuximab as a novel maintenance therapy for RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This phase 2 prospective clinical trial was conducted from April 29, 2016, to April 29, 2019, at 5 centers in China. Patients diagnosed as having RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer were recruited to receive fluorouracil-based cytotoxic agents combined with cetuximab followed by capecitabine plus cetuximab for maintenance therapy. Forty-seven patients with histologically confirmed metastatic colorectal cancer and genetic test results showing a wild-type RAS were enrolled in maintenance therapy.

INTERVENTIONS

Induction therapy for patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer was 8 to 12 cycles of fluorouracil-based chemotherapy combined with cetuximab. After stable disease status or better was achieved, reduced-dose capecitabine plus cetuximab was administered for maintenance therapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was progression-free survival during maintenance therapy. The secondary end points were total progression-free survival, overall survival, quality of life, safety, and toxic effects of treatment.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients were enrolled in maintenance therapy, with a median age of 52 years (range, 25-81 years) and 32 (68%) of them being men. The median maintenance progression-free survival was 7.2 (95% CI, 5.8-8.6) months. The median progression-free survival was 12.7 (95% CI, 11.8-15.4) months. The median overall survival was 27.4 (95% CI, 21.4-35.5) months. Grade 3 to 4 AEs during induction therapy included neutropenia (4 patients [9%]), diarrhea (4 patients [9%]), nausea or vomiting (3 patients [6%]), rash acneiform (10 patients [21%]), and hand-foot syndrome (8 patients [17%]). Grade 3 to 4 AEs during maintenance therapy included diarrhea (2 patients [4%]), rash acneiform (8 patients [17%]), and hand-foot syndrome (5 patients [11%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Reduced-dose capecitabine plus cetuximab after initial chemotherapy is a novel maintenance therapy for patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer that achieved good outcomes and tolerable nonserious AEs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02717923.

Efficacy of CapeOX plus Cetuximab Treatment as a First-Line Therapy for Patients with Extended RAS/BRAF/PIK3CA Wild-Type Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Background: Oxaliplatin and capecitabine (CapeOX) combined with cetuximab is rarely used to treat advanced and metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The present study aimed to clarify the clinical benefits of this treatment regimen when used as a first-line therapy in patients with expanded RAS/BRAF/PIK3CA wild-type mCRC, using the data and tumor specimens from two previously published Phase II clinical trials.

Methods: The gene mutation status and clinical data of 102 patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC, who received either of CapeOX + cetuximab or FOLFOX + cetuximab, were analyzed. The primary endpoint was response rate (RR) of CapeOX + cetuximab treatment in patients with extended RAS/BRAF/PIK3CA wild-type mCRC. RR comparisons and maximum tumor size changes between different treatment regimens and gene mutation status were set as key secondary endpoints.

Results: We identified 88 patients with extended RAS/BRAF/PIK3CA wild-type mCRC. Those treated with CapeOX + cetuximab (n = 52) had a 61.5% RR (95% CI, 47.0-74.7%), while those treated with FOLFOX + cetuximab (n = 36) had a 66.7% RR (95% CI, 49.0-81.4%). Patients with any mutation (n = 14) had a 42.9% RR (95% CI, 17.1-71.1%). There were no significant differences between these three groups (P = 0.298). The disease control rate was 86.5% (95% CI, 74.2-94.4%) in the CapeOX + cetuximab group, and 88.9% (95% CI, 73.9-96.9%) in the FOLFOX + cetuximab group. Maximum tumor size changes were largest in patients with wild-type mCRC treated with FOLFOX + cetuximab followed by patients with wild-type mCRC treated with CapeOX + cetuximab, and then by those with any mutation (-63.2%, -52.6%, and -27.3%, respectively; P = 0.035).

Conclusions: Patients with RAS/BRAF/PIK3CA wild-type mCRC had a sufficient RR following first-line treatment with CapeOX + cetuximab. These results suggest that this combination therapy should be considered as a treatment option for patients with advanced mCRC.

FOLFOX plus anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody (mAb) is an effective first-line treatment for patients with RAS-wild left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy combined with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody (mAb) remains controversial in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This meta-analysis aims to estimate the effect of adding panitumumab or cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in RAS wild type mCRC patients for the first-line treatment. The primary tumor location is also considered into this meta-analysis.

METHODS

RCT studies were identified by a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library to October 2017, supplemented by manually retrieving ASCO, ESMO conference abstracts. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and pooled odds ratios (OR) for the overall response rate (ORR) were calculated by Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

The results indicated that the addition of anti-EGFR mAbs to FOLFOX regimen in RAS wild-type mCRC patients for the first-line treatment resulted in considerable improvements in PFS (HR = 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.82; P < .0001), OS (HR = 0.79; 95%CI: 0.67-0.92; P = .003), and ORR (OR = 2.56; 95% CI: 1.77-3.70; P < .00001) compared with chemotherapy alone. However, in RAS/BRAF wild patients, no significant differences were observed when anti-EGFR mAb was added to FLOX or XELOX regimen compared with chemotherapy alone with regard to OS and PFS, whereas FOLFOX+anti-EGFR mAb showed a marked superior OS and PFS (OS, HR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.61-0.98; P = .03; PFS, HR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.57-0.82; P < .00001). A meta-analysis including TAILOR and PRIME study suggests that primary tumor location (PTL) predicted a survival benefit when adding the EGFR antibody to FOLFOX regimen in RAS-wild mCRC patients (OS, HR for left-sided: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.59-0.85; P = .0002 and HR for right-sided: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.65-1.25; P = .53). However, the HR for PFS and ORR still suggests a benefit from the addition of anti-EGFR mAb in right-sided mCRC patients.

CONCLUSION

So these results suggest anti-EGFR mAb and oxaliplatin are good partners in the FOLFOX regimen. The addition of EGFR antibody to FOLFOX markedly improved efficacy in RAS-wild patients with left-sided mCRC. In RAS/BRAF-wild patients, the efficacy is similar. For patients with right-sided tumor, a benefit showing a trendency in favor of anti-EGFR mAb can still seen. The molecular characteristics behind the tumor location need to be more explored urgently.

Rash management and treatment persistence of cancer patients treated with epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors in the Truven MarketScan® research database

PURPOSE

Rash toxicity is a common, expected class effect of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors. Although rash management is practiced, it is not well characterized in the real-world setting. We describe the management of rash that developed while receiving EGFR-inhibitor therapy and how rash affects treatment duration, using Truven MarketScan® Research Database, a US medical claims database.

METHODS

Adult patients who received EGFR-inhibitor treatment between 2004 and 2015 after a diagnosis of colon, head and neck, lung, breast, or thyroid cancer were identified. Descriptive analyses were conducted to describe occurrence of rash during the EGFR-inhibitor treatment period, EGFR-inhibitor treatment persistence and management of rash, including treatment and cost.

RESULTS

Of 44,533 eligible patients, 4649 (10.4%) had records of rash during the EGFR-inhibitor treatment period, and of patients experiencing rash, 2891 (62.2%) received prescription drugs for rash treatment. Treatment persistence with an EGFR inhibitor was longer among patients experiencing rash compared with no rash (median 178 vs. 80 days for EGFR-TKIs, 85 vs. 57 days for EGFR-monoclonal antibodies), especially among patients with rash who were treated for rash (208 days for EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors, 104 days for EGFR- monoclonal antibodies). Annualized cost during EGFR-inhibitor treatment was lowest among patients not experiencing rash (US$185,619), followed by rash patients receiving drugs for rash management (US$215,561), and highest among rash patients not treated for rash (US$267,105).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that management of EGFR inhibitor-associated rash could be important for EGFR-inhibitor treatment persistence.

A triplet combination with capecitabine/oxaliplatin/irinotecan (XELOXIRI) plus cetuximab as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a dose escalation study

PURPOSE

The addition of cetuximab to triplet chemotherapy can increase treatment efficacy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We explored the dose-limiting toxicity and feasibility of a triweekly capecitabine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, plus cetuximab (XELOXIRI plus cetuximab) regimen in patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC.

METHODS

Patients received oxaliplatin (100 mg/m², day 1), capecitabine (1700 mg/m² per day from day 2 to 15), irinotecan (100, 120, and 150 mg/m² for dose levels 1, 2, 3, respectively, on day 1), and cetuximab (400 mg/m², day 1 and, thereafter, 250 mg/m² every week), repeated every 3 weeks. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed in the first 2 treatment cycles to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and the recommended dose (RD).

RESULTS

Twelve patients received a median of 7 cycles of therapy (range 2-10). The DLT was grade 4 neutropenia, observed in 1 of 6 patients at dose level 2. The MTD was not reached at dose level 3. Therefore, the RD of irinotecan was defined as 150 mg/m². Most common grade ≥ 3 toxicities were neutropenia (50%), diarrhea (17%), and febrile neutropenia (8%). The response rate was 83% (complete and partial response: 1 and 9 patient(s), respectively), including 4 conversion cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of XELOXIRI and cetuximab is feasible and has an acceptable toxicity profile; neutropenia was the DLT. The RD of irinotecan is 150 mg/m². The observed response rate was promising and warrants further investigation.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors for metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors prevent cell growth and have shown benefit in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, whether used as single agents or in combination with chemotherapy. Clear benefit has been shown in trials of EGFR monoclonal antibodies (EGFR MAb) but not EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKI). However, there is ongoing debate as to which patient populations gain maximum benefit from EGFR inhibition and where they should be used in the metastatic colorectal cancer treatment paradigm to maximise efficacy and minimise toxicity.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy, safety profile, and potential harms of EGFR inhibitors in the treatment of people with metastatic colorectal cancer when given alone, in combination with chemotherapy, or with other biological agents.The primary outcome of interest was progression-free survival; secondary outcomes included overall survival, tumour response rate, quality of life, and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2016; Ovid MEDLINE (from 1950); and Ovid Embase (from 1974) on 9 September 2016; and ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 14 March 2017. We also searched proceedings from the major oncology conferences ESMO, ASCO, and ASCO GI from 2012 to December 2016. We further scanned reference lists from eligible publications and contacted corresponding authors for trials for further information where needed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials on participants with metastatic colorectal cancer comparing: 1) the combination of EGFR MAb and 'standard therapy' (whether chemotherapy or best supportive care) to standard therapy alone, 2) the combination of EGFR TKI and standard therapy to standard therapy alone, 3) the combination of EGFR inhibitor (whether MAb or TKI) and standard therapy to another EGFR inhibitor (or the same inhibitor with a different dosing regimen) and standard therapy, or 4) the combination of EGFR inhibitor (whether MAb or TKI), anti-angiogenic therapy, and standard therapy to anti-angiogenic therapy and standard therapy alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures defined by Cochrane. Summary statistics for the endpoints used hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for overall survival and progression-free survival, and odds ratios (OR) for response rate (RR) and toxicity. Subgroup analyses were performed by Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) and neuroblastoma RAS viral (V-Ras) oncogene homolog (NRAS) status - firstly by status of KRAS exon 2 testing (mutant or wild type) and also by status of extended KRAS/NRAS testing (any mutation present or wild type).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 33 randomised controlled trials for analysis (15,025 participants), including trials of both EGFR MAb and EGFR TKI. Looking across studies, significant risk of bias was present, particularly with regard to the risk of selection bias (15/33 unclear risk, 1/33 high risk), performance bias (9/33 unclear risk, 9/33 high risk), and detection bias (7/33 unclear risk, 11/33 high risk).The addition of EGFR MAb to standard therapy in the KRAS exon 2 wild-type population improves progression-free survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.82; high-quality evidence), overall survival (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; high-quality evidence), and response rate (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.41; high-quality evidence). We noted evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity in all three of these analyses (progression-free survival: I² = 76%; overall survival: I² = 40%; and response rate: I² = 77%), likely due to pooling of studies investigating EGFR MAb use in different lines of therapy. Rates of overall grade 3 to 4 toxicity, diarrhoea, and rash were increased (moderate-quality evidence for all three outcomes), but there was no evidence for increased rates of neutropenia.For the extended RAS wild-type population (no mutations in KRAS or NRAS), addition of EGFR MAb improved progression-free survival (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.75; moderate-quality evidence) and overall survival (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88; high-quality evidence). Response rate was also improved (OR 4.28, 95% CI 2.61 to 7.03; moderate-quality evidence). We noted significant statistical heterogeneity in the progression-free survival analysis (I² = 61%), likely due to the pooling of studies combining EGFR MAb with chemotherapy with monotherapy studies.We observed no evidence of a statistically significant difference when EGFR MAb was compared to bevacizumab, in progression-free survival (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12; high quality evidence) or overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; moderate-quality evidence). We noted significant statistical heterogeneity in the overall survival analysis (I² = 51%), likely due to the pooling of first-line and second-line studies.The addition of EGFR TKI to standard therapy in molecularly unselected participants did not show benefit in limited data sets (meta-analysis not performed). The addition of EGFR MAb to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in people with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer did not improve progression-free survival (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.29; very low quality evidence), overall survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.47; low-quality evidence), or response rate (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.12; very low-quality evidence) but increased toxicity (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.45 to 4.57; low-quality evidence). We noted significant between-study heterogeneity in most analyses.Scant information on quality of life was reported in the identified studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of EGFR MAb to either chemotherapy or best supportive care improves progression-free survival (moderate- to high-quality evidence), overall survival (high-quality evidence), and tumour response rate (moderate- to high-quality evidence), but may increase toxicity in people with KRAS exon 2 wild-type or extended RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (moderate-quality evidence). The addition of EGFR TKI to standard therapy does not improve clinical outcomes. EGFR MAb combined with bevacizumab is of no clinical value (very low-quality evidence). Future studies should focus on optimal sequencing and predictive biomarkers and collect quality of life data.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors for metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors prevent cell growth and have shown benefit in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, whether used as single agents or in combination with chemotherapy. Clear benefit has been shown in trials of EGFR monoclonal antibodies (EGFR MAb) but not EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR TKI). However, there is ongoing debate as to which patient populations gain maximum benefit from EGFR inhibition and where they should be used in the metastatic colorectal cancer treatment paradigm to maximise efficacy and minimise toxicity.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy, safety profile, and potential harms of EGFR inhibitors in the treatment of people with metastatic colorectal cancer when given alone, in combination with chemotherapy, or with other biological agents.The primary outcome of interest was progression-free survival; secondary outcomes included overall survival, tumour response rate, quality of life, and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2016; Ovid MEDLINE (from 1950); and Ovid Embase (from 1974) on 9 September 2016; and ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 14 March 2017. We also searched proceedings from the major oncology conferences ESMO, ASCO, and ASCO GI from 2012 to December 2016. We further scanned reference lists from eligible publications and contacted corresponding authors for trials for further information where needed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials on participants with metastatic colorectal cancer comparing: 1) the combination of EGFR MAb and 'standard therapy' (whether chemotherapy or best supportive care) to standard therapy alone, 2) the combination of EGFR TKI and standard therapy to standard therapy alone, 3) the combination of EGFR inhibitor (whether MAb or TKI) and standard therapy to another EGFR inhibitor (or the same inhibitor with a different dosing regimen) and standard therapy, or 4) the combination of EGFR inhibitor (whether MAb or TKI), anti-angiogenic therapy, and standard therapy to anti-angiogenic therapy and standard therapy alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures defined by Cochrane. Summary statistics for the endpoints used hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for overall survival and progression-free survival, and odds ratios (OR) for response rate (RR) and toxicity. Subgroup analyses were performed by Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) and neuroblastoma RAS viral (V-Ras) oncogene homolog (NRAS) status - firstly by status of KRAS exon 2 testing (mutant or wild type) and also by status of extended KRAS/NRAS testing (any mutation present or wild type).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 33 randomised controlled trials for analysis (15,025 participants), including trials of both EGFR MAb and EGFR TKI. Looking across studies, significant risk of bias was present, particularly with regard to the risk of selection bias (15/33 unclear risk, 1/33 high risk), performance bias (9/33 unclear risk, 9/33 high risk), and detection bias (7/33 unclear risk, 11/33 high risk).The addition of EGFR MAb to standard therapy in the KRAS exon 2 wild-type population improves progression-free survival (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.82; high-quality evidence), overall survival (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98; high-quality evidence), and response rate (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.70 to 3.41; high-quality evidence). We noted evidence of significant statistical heterogeneity in all three of these analyses (progression-free survival: I2 = 76%; overall survival: I2 = 40%; and response rate: I2 = 77%), likely due to pooling of studies investigating EGFR MAb use in different lines of therapy. Rates of overall grade 3 to 4 toxicity, diarrhoea, and rash were increased (moderate-quality evidence for all three outcomes), but there was no evidence for increased rates of neutropenia.For the extended RAS wild-type population (no mutations in KRAS or NRAS), addition of EGFR MAb improved progression-free survival (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.75; moderate-quality evidence) and overall survival (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88; high-quality evidence). Response rate was also improved (OR 4.28, 95% CI 2.61 to 7.03; moderate-quality evidence). We noted significant statistical heterogeneity in the progression-free survival analysis (I2 = 61%), likely due to the pooling of studies combining EGFR MAb with chemotherapy with monotherapy studies.We observed no evidence of a statistically significant difference when EGFR MAb was compared to bevacizumab, in progression-free survival (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12; high quality evidence) or overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.01; moderate-quality evidence). We noted significant statistical heterogeneity in the overall survival analysis (I2 = 51%), likely due to the pooling of first-line and second-line studies.The addition of EGFR TKI to standard therapy in molecularly unselected participants did not show benefit in limited data sets (meta-analysis not performed). The addition of EGFR MAb to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in people with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer did not improve progression-free survival (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.29; very low quality evidence), overall survival (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.47; low-quality evidence), or response rate (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.12; very low-quality evidence) but increased toxicity (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.45 to 4.57; low-quality evidence). We noted significant between-study heterogeneity in most analyses.Scant information on quality of life was reported in the identified studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The addition of EGFR MAb to either chemotherapy or best supportive care improves progression-free survival (moderate- to high-quality evidence), overall survival (high-quality evidence), and tumour response rate (moderate- to high-quality evidence), but may increase toxicity in people with KRAS exon 2 wild-type or extended RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (moderate-quality evidence). The addition of EGFR TKI to standard therapy does not improve clinical outcomes. EGFR MAb combined with bevacizumab is of no clinical value (very low-quality evidence). Future studies should focus on optimal sequencing and predictive biomarkers and collect quality of life data.

Management of adverse events during treatment of gastrointestinal cancers with epidermal growth factor inhibitors

The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is involved in development and progression of some gastrointestinal cancers, and is targeted by monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) used to treat these conditions. Targeted agents are generally better tolerated than conventional chemotherapy, but have characteristic toxicities that can affect adherence, dosing, and outcomes. Skin conditions are the most common toxicities associated with EGFR inhibitors, particularly papulopustular rash. Other common toxicities include mucosal toxicity, electrolyte imbalances (notably hypomagnesaemia), and diarrhoea, while the chimaeric mAb cetuximab is also associated with increased risk of infusion reactions. With appropriate prophylaxis, the incidence and severity of these events can be reduced, while management strategies tailored to the patient and the degree of toxicity can help to ensure continuation of anti-cancer therapy. Here, we review the main toxicities associated with EGFR-inhibiting mAbs and TKIs in patients with gastrointestinal cancers, and provide recommendations for prophylaxis and treatment.

A Phase II Study of XELOX and Cetuximab as First-Line Therapy in Patients With KRAS Wild Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (FLEET2 Study)

BACKGROUND

Despite the comparable clinical benefit of XELOX (capecitabine with oxaliplatin) and FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin), the value of XELOX treatment in combination with cetuximab for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains largely unknown.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this clinical trial we evaluated the efficacy and safety of weekly/biweekly cetuximab administration combined with biweekly XELOX in patients with previously untreated v-Ki-ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) wild type mCRC. The primary end point was response rate (RR) with confirmation, and the secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR), dose intensity, and the safety of the protocol treatment.

RESULTS

Forty patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria participated in this study. The median treatment cycle number was 8 and the median dose intensities were 218 mg/m²/wk for cetuximab, 34 mg/m²/wk for oxaliplatin, and 821 mg/m²/d for capecitabine. One patient showed complete response and partial response was observed in 19 patients, giving an overall RR of 50% (95% confidence interval [CI], 33.8%-66.2%). Stable disease was obtained in 13 patients, resulting in a DCR of 82.5% (95% CI, 67.2%-92.7%). The PFS was 6.5 months (95% CI, 3.5-9.6 months), and the OS was 24.3 months (95% CI, 14.9-33.7 months). The safety profile revealed the common Grade 3/4 adverse events to be acneiform eruption (12.5%), peripheral neuropathy (7.5%), and elevated alanine transaminase levels (7.5%). Grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia and neutropenia occurred only in 5.0% and 2.5% of the patients, respectively. Grade 1 hand-foot syndrome (HFS) was not uncommon (20%), whereas Grade 2/3 HFS occurred in only 3 patients (7.5%). No deaths were reported within 30 days of the last dose.

CONCLUSION

Cetuximab with XELOX showed a confirmed overall RR of 50%, which was within the previously reported range of RR. The safety profile showed an acceptable rate and severity of adverse events. In light of the several advantages of XELOX, including convenience and the reported cost-saving aspects, further study of this combination therapy is warranted.

Intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy regimens and grade III-V toxicities among elderly stage III colon cancer patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to provide insight in the use, intensity and toxicity of therapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) and capecitabine monotherapy (CapMono) among elderly stage III colon cancer patients treated in everyday clinical practice.

METHODS

Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry were used. All stage III colon cancer patients aged ≥70 years diagnosed in the southeastern part between 2005 and 2012 and treated with CAPOX or CapMono were included. Differences in completion of all planned cycles, cumulative dosages and toxicity between both regimens were evaluated.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-three patients received CAPOX and 164 patients received CapMono; 33% (n = 63) of the patients receiving CAPOX completed all planned cycles of both agents, whereas 55% (n = 90) of the patients receiving CapMono completed all planned cycles (P < 0.0001). The median cumulative dosage capecitabine was lower for patients treated with CAPOX (163,744 mg/m(2), interquartile range [IQR] 83,397-202,858 mg/m(2)) than for patients treated with CapMono (189,195 mg/m(2), IQR 111,667-228,125 mg/m(2), P = 0.0003); 54% (n = 105) of the patients treated with CAPOX developed grade III-V toxicity, whereas 38% (n = 63) of the patients treated with CapMono developed grade III-V toxicity (P = 0.0026). After adjustment for patient and tumour characteristics, CapMono was associated with a lower odds of developing grade III-V toxicity than CAPOX (odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.33-0.89). For patients treated with CAPOX, the most common toxicities were gastrointestinal (29%), haematological (14%), neurological (11%) and other toxicity (13%). For patients treated with CapMono, dermatological (17%), gastrointestinal (13%) and other toxicity (11%) were the most common.

CONCLUSION

CAPOX is associated with significantly more grade III-V toxicities than CapMono, which had a pronounced impact on the cumulative dosage received and completion of all planned cycles. In this light, CapMono seems preferable over CAPOX.

Effectiveness and safety of monoclonal antibodies for metastatic colorectal cancer treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of chemotherapy (CT) for select cases of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) has been well established in the literature, however, it provides limited benefits and in many cases constitutes a treatment with high toxicity. The use of specific molecular biological treatments with monoclonal antibodies (MA) has been shown to be relevant, particularly for its potential for increasing the response rate of the host to the tumour, as these have molecular targets present in the cancerous cells and their microenvironment thereby blocking their development. The combination of MA and CT can bring a significant increase in the rate of resectability of metastases, the progression-free survival (PFS), and the global survival (GS) in MCRC patients.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and safety of MA in the treatment of MCRC.

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out with a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comparing the use of cetuximab, bevacizumab, and panitumumab in the treatment of MCRC.

RESULTS

Sixteen randomised clinical trials were selected. The quality of the evidence on the question was considered moderate and data from eight randomised clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis. The GS and PFS were greater in the groups which received the MA associated with CT, however, the differences were not statistically significant between the groups (mean of 17.7 months versus 17.1 months; mean difference of 1.09 (CI: 0.10-2.07); p = 0.84; and 7.4 versus 6.9 months. mean difference of 0.76 (CI: 0.08-1.44); p = 0.14 respectively). The meta-analysis was not done for any of the secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The addition of MA to CT for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer does not prolong GS and PFS.

Multicenter Phase II study of FOLFOX or biweekly XELOX and Erbitux (cetuximab) as first-line therapy in patients with wild-type KRAS/BRAF metastatic colorectal cancer: The FLEET study

Background

The clinical benefit of cetuximab combined with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy remains under debate. The aim of the present multicenter open-label Phase II study was to explore the efficacy and safety of biweekly administration of cetuximab and mFOLFOX-6 or XELOX as first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Methods

Sixty-two patients with previously untreated KRAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer were recruited to the study between April 2010 and May 2011. Patients received one of two treatment regimens, either cetuximab plus mFOLFOX-6 (FOLFOX + Cmab) or cetuximab plus biweekly XELOX (XELOX + Cmab), according to their own preference. Treatment was continued until disease progression or the appearance of intolerable toxicities. The primary endpoint was response rate; secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, overall survival, disease control rate, dose intensity, conversion rate to surgical resection, and safety.

Results

The response rates in the FOLFOX + Cmab (n = 37) and XELOX + Cmab (n = 25) groups were 64.9 % (24/37) and 72.0 % (18/25), respectively. The median PFS in the FOLFOX + Cmab and XELOX + Cmab groups was 13.1 months (95 % confidence interval [CI] 12.1–17.5) and 13.4 months (95 % CI 10.1–17.9), respectively. Neutropenia was the most frequent grade 3/4 adverse event in both groups (33.9 %), followed by anorexia, acneiform eruption, skin fissure and paronychia. A waterfall plot of tumor diameter showed prominent shrinkage of the tumors in 88.7 % of patients.

Conclusions

The results of the present study indicate that biweekly cetuximab plus mFOLFOX-6/XELOX is an effective and tolerable treatment regimen. Biweekly administration of cetuximab requires only one hospital visit every 2 weeks, and may become a convenient treatment option for patients with KRAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer.

Trial registration

This study is registered with University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN 000003253). Registration date is 02/24/2010.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1685-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Single-Agent Panitumumab in Frail Elderly Patients With Advanced RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Colorectal Cancer: Challenging Drug Label to Light Up New Hope

BACKGROUND

No prospective trials have specifically addressed the efficacy and safety of panitumumab in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed at assessing the efficacy and safety of single agent panitumumab in "frail" elderly patients diagnosed with metastatic RAS and BRAF wild-type CRC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty elderly patients (aged ≥ 75 years) with metastatic RAS-BRAF wild-type CRC received off-label prescriptions of single-agent panitumumab at seven Italian institutions. Treatment was administered as first line in patients with absolute contraindication to any chemotherapy or as second-line treatment after failure of a fluoropyrimidine-based treatment, in the presence of contraindication to irinotecan. The outcome measures included objective response rate (ORR), as well as progression-free survival (PFS), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), and safety.

RESULTS

The median PFS and OS were 6.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.9-8 months) and 14.3 months (95% CI: 10.9-17.7 months), respectively. ORR was 32.5%, and DCR was 72.5%. Dose reductions related to adverse events (AEs) were reported in 9 (23%) patients, but no permanent treatment discontinuation caused by was reported. The most frequent grade 3 AE was skin rash, with an incidence of 20%.

CONCLUSION

Panitumumab is effective and well-tolerated in frail elderly patients with RAS-BRAF wild-type metastatic CRC and deemed unfit for chemotherapy. A randomized study is needed to confirm these data.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Treatment of elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer represents a difficult challenge in clinical practice. A significant proportion of frail elderly patients do not receive treatment, reflecting ongoing uncertainty of clinical benefit and toxicity of chemotherapy. Unfit condition in this cohort of patients further limits antineoplastic prescription and consequently patient survival. RAS and BRAF wild-type status could help select an elderly and unfit population that could benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor receptor single agent therapy. In the present study, single-agent off-label panitumumab was effective and well-tolerated as first-line treatment in frail elderly patients deemed unfit for chemotherapy for metastatic RAS and BRAF wild-type colorectal cancer.

Phase II Trial of S-1 and Oxaliplatin Plus Cetuximab for Colorectal Cancer Patients with Initially Unresectable or Not Optimally Resectable Liver Metastases (KSCC1002)

BACKGROUND

The Kyushu Study Group of Clinical Cancer (KSCC) conducted phase II trials of KSCC1002 (UMIN000001308) concerning liver resectability after first-line treatment of initially unresectable or not optimally resectable colorectal liver metastases in a prospective, multicenter study.

METHODS

Patients with wild-type KRAS received 4-6 cycles of S-1 and oxaliplatin (SOX) plus cetuximab. Liver resectability was evaluated subsequently with the liver resection rate as the primary endpoint.

RESULTS

Of the 33 patients enrolled between March 2010 and July 2013, the median number of administration cycles was 4 (range 0-10). The overall response rate was 63.6 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 45.1-79.6 %). Liver resection was possible in 16 of 33 (48.5 %) patients, and there were 13 R0 cases (39.4 %). We conducted a central review of liver resectability evaluated by five liver surgeons, and the resectability increased from 18.2 to 66.7 % after chemotherapy, based on imaging. The median overall survival for all 33 cases was 31.6 months (95 % CI 14.8-not reached). The median progression-free survival was 9.7 months (95 % CI 6.2-11.8).

CONCLUSIONS

SOX plus cetuximab is safe and effective for advanced colorectal cancer with limited liver metastasis, and may lead to high liver resectability.

Neoadjuvant FOLFOX 4 versus FOLFOX 4 with Cetuximab versus immediate surgery for high-risk stage II and III colon cancers: a multicentre randomised controlled phase II trial--the PRODIGE 22--ECKINOXE trial

Background

In patients with high risk stage II and stage III colon cancer (CC), curative surgery followed by adjuvant FOLFOX-4 chemotherapy has become the standard of care. However, for 20 to 30 % of these patients, the current curative treatment strategy of surgical excision followed by adjuvant chemotherapy fails either to clear locoregional spread or to eradicate distant micrometastases, leading to disease recurrence. Preoperative chemotherapy is an attractive concept for these CCs and has the potential to impact upon both of these causes of failure. Optimum systemic therapy at the earliest possible opportunity may be more effective at eradicating distant metastases than the same treatment given after the delay and immunological stress of surgery. Added to this, shrinking the primary tumor before surgery may reduce the risk of incomplete surgical excision, and the risk of tumor cell shedding during surgery.

Methods/Design

PRODIGE 22 - ECKINOXE is a multicenter randomized phase II trial designed to evaluate efficacy and feasibility of two chemotherapy regimens (FOLFOX-4 alone and FOLFOX-4 + Cetuximab) in a peri-operative strategy in patients with bulky CCs. Patients with CC deemed as high risk T3, T4 and/or N2 on initial abdominopelvic CT scan are randomized to either colectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy (control arm), or 4 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFOX-4 (for RAS mutated patients). In RAS wild-type patients a third arm testing FOLFOX+ cetuximab has been added prior to colectomy. Patients in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy arms will receive postoperative treatment for 4 months (8 cycles) to complete their therapeutic schedule. The primary endpoint of the study is the histological Tumor Regression Grade (TRG) as defined by Ryan. The secondary endpoints are: treatment strategy safety (toxicity, primary tumor related complications under chemotherapy, peri-operative morbidity), disease-free and recurrence free survivals at 3 years, quality of life, carcinologic quality and completeness of the surgery, initial radiological staging and radiological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and the correlation between histopathological and radiological response. Taking into account a 50 % prevalence of CC without RAS mutation, accrual of 165 patients is needed for this Phase II trial.

Trial Registration

NCT01675999 (ClinicalTrials.gov)

First-line anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies in panRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) is restricted in Europe to RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. While up today these targeted agents have been mainly chosen as salvage treatment in later lines, their use in first-line in combination with chemotherapy is highly debated.

METHODS

MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, ASCO University, ESMO/ECCO conferences were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing first-line anti-EGFR MoAbs cetuximab or panitumumab plus chemotherapy to chemotherapy alone or with bevacizumab in patients with RAS wild-type colorectal cancer. Data extraction was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.

RESULTS

Seven eligible RCTs were identified. In the overall RAS wild-type population (N=2719), anti-EGFR MoAbs significantly improved OS (HR=0.81; 95%CI, 0.71-0.92; p=0.002), PFS (HR=0.77; 95%CI, 0.60-0.98; p=0.03) and objective response rate (ORR) (RR=1.33; 95%CI, 1.09-1.62; p=0.004). The addition of an anti-EGFR MoAb to chemotherapy alone improved PFS (p<0.001) and ORR (p<0.001) with a trend toward longer OS (p=0.07). As compared to bevacizumab, anti-EGFR MoAbs significantly improved OS (HR=0.80; 95%CI, 0.69-0.92; p=0.003), but not PFS (HR=0.94; 95%CI, 0.74-1.19; p=0.59) or ORR (RR=1.10; 95%CI, 0.97-1.25; p=0.12). No significant differences were found with respect to the chemotherapy backbone (oxaliplatin- versus irinotecan-based).

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of an anti-EGFR MoAb as first-line biologic is a valid option in RAS wild-type patients candidate to a doublet with infusional 5-FU. While attempting to further refine molecular selection, clinical considerations are crucial in planning the treatment strategy.

A pilot study: dose adaptation of capecitabine using mobile phone toxicity monitoring - supporting patients in their homes

PURPOSE

Real-time symptom monitoring using a mobile phone is potentially advantageous for patients receiving oral chemotherapy. We therefore conducted a pilot study of patient dose adaptation using mobile phone monitoring of specific symptoms to investigate relative dose intensity of capecitabine, level of toxicity and perceived supportive care.

METHODS

Patients with breast or colorectal cancer receiving capecitabine completed a symptom, temperature and dose diary twice a day using a mobile phone application. This information was encrypted and automatically transmitted in real time to a secure server, with moderate levels of toxicity automatically prompting self-care symptom management messages on the screen of the patient's mobile phone or in severe cases, a call from a specialist nurse to advise on care according to an agreed protocol.

RESULTS

Patients (n = 26) completed the mobile phone diary on 92.6 % of occasions. Twelve patients had a maximum toxicity grade of 3 (46.2 %). The average dose intensity for all patients as a percentage of standard dose was 90 %. In eight patients, the dose of capecitabine was reduced, and in eight patients, the dose of capecitabine was increased. Patients and healthcare professionals involved felt reassured by the novel monitoring system, in particular, during out of hours.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to optimise the individual dose of oral chemotherapy safely including dose increase and to manage chemotherapy side effects effectively using real-time mobile phone monitoring of toxicity parameters entered by the patient.

Systemic chemotherapy with or without cetuximab in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis: the New EPOC randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Surgery for colorectal liver metastases results in an overall survival of about 40% at 5 years. Progression-free survival is increased with the addition of oxaliplatin and fluorouracil chemotherapy. The addition of cetuximab to these chemotherapy regimens results in an overall survival advantage in patients with advanced disease who have the KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumour genotype. We aimed to assess the benefit of addition of cetuximab to standard chemotherapy in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis.

METHODS

Patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type resectable or suboptimally resectable colorectal liver metastases were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive chemotherapy with or without cetuximab before and after liver resection. Randomisation was done using minimisation with factors of surgical centre, poor prognostic tumour (one or more of: ≥ 4 metastases, N2 disease, or poor differentiation of primary tumour), and previous adjuvant treatment with oxaliplatin. Chemotherapy consisted of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) intravenously over 2 h and fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m(2) intravenously over 5 min, followed by a 46 h infusion of fluorouracil 2400 mg/m(2) repeated every 2 weeks (regimen one) or oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) intravenously over 2 h and oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 repeated every 3 weeks (regimen two). Patients who had received adjuvant oxaliplatin could receive irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) intravenously over 30 min with fluorouracil instead of oxaliplatin (regimen three). Cetuximab was given as an intravenous dose of 500 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks with regimen one and three or a loading dose of 400 mg/m(2) followed by a weekly infusion of 250 mg/m(2) with regimen two. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. This is an interim analysis, up to Nov 1, 2012, when the trial was closed, having met protocol-defined futility criteria. This trial is registered, ISRCTN22944367.

FINDINGS

128 KRAS exon 2 wild-type patients were randomised to chemotherapy alone and 129 to chemotherapy with cetuximab between Feb 26, 2007, and Nov 1, 2012. 117 patients in the chemotherapy alone group and 119 in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group were included in the primary analysis. The median follow-up was 21.1 months (95% CI 12.6-33.8) in the chemotherapy alone group and 19.8 months (12.2-28.7) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group. With an overall median follow-up of 20.7 months (95% CI 17.9-25.6) and 123 (58%) of 212 required events observed, progression-free survival was significantly shorter in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group than in the chemotherapy alone group (14.1 months [95% CI 11.8-15.9] vs 20.5 months [95% CI 16.8-26.7], hazard ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.04-2.12, p=0.030). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were low neutrophil count (15 [11%] preoperatively in the chemotherapy alone group vs six [4%] in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group; four [4%] vs eight [8%] postoperatively), embolic events (six [4%] vs eight [6%] preoperatively; two [2%] vs three [3%] postoperatively), peripheral neuropathy (six [4%] vs one [1%] preoperatively; two [2%] vs four [4%] postoperatively), nausea or vomiting (four [3%] vs six [4%] preoperatively; four [4%] vs two [2%] postoperatively), and skin rash (two [1%] vs 21 [15%] preoperatively; 0 vs eight [8%] postoperatively). There were three deaths in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group (one interstitial lung disease and pulmonary embolism, one bronchopneumonia, and one pulmonary embolism) and one in the chemotherapy alone group (heart failure) that might have been treatment related.

INTERPRETATION

Addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy and surgery for operable colorectal liver metastases in KRAS exon 2 wild-type patients results in shorter progression-free survival. Translational investigations to explore the molecular basis for this unexpected interaction are needed but at present the use of cetuximab in this setting cannot be recommended.

Intermittent chemotherapy plus either intermittent or continuous cetuximab for first-line treatment of patients with KRAS wild-type advanced colorectal cancer (COIN-B): a randomised phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Advanced colorectal cancer is treated with a combination of cytotoxic drugs and targeted treatments. However, how best to minimise the time spent taking cytotoxic drugs and whether molecular selection can refine this further is unknown. The primary aim of this study was to establish how cetuximab might be safely and effectively added to intermittent chemotherapy.

METHODS

COIN-B was an open-label, multicentre, randomised, exploratory phase 2 trial done at 30 hospitals in the UK and one in Cyprus. We enrolled patients with advanced colorectal cancer who had received no previous chemotherapy for metastases. Randomisation was done centrally (by telephone) by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit using minimisation with a random element. Treatment allocation was not masked. Patients were assigned (1:1) to intermittent chemotherapy plus intermittent cetuximab or to intermittent chemotherapy plus continuous cetuximab. Chemotherapy was FOLFOX (folinic acid and oxaliplatin followed by bolus and infused fluorouracil). Patients in both groups received FOLFOX and weekly cetuximab for 12 weeks, then either had a planned interruption (those taking intermittent cetuximab) or planned maintenance by continuing on weekly cetuximab (continuous cetuximab). On RECIST progression, FOLFOX plus cetuximab or FOLFOX was recommenced for 12 weeks followed by further interruption or maintenance cetuximab, respectively. The primary outcome was failure-free survival at 10 months. The primary analysis population consisted of patients who completed 12 weeks of treatment without progression, death, or leaving the trial. We tested BRAF and NRAS status retrospectively. The trial was registered, ISRCTN38375681.

FINDINGS

We registered 401 patients, 226 of whom were enrolled. Results for 169 with KRAS wild-type are reported here, 78 (46%) assigned to intermittent cetuximab and 91 (54%) to continuous cetuximab. 64 patients assigned to intermittent cetuximab and 66 of those assigned to continuous cetuximab were included in the primary analysis. 10-month failure-free survival was 50% (lower bound of 95% CI 39) in the intermittent group versus 52% (lower bound of 95% CI 41) in the continuous group; median failure-free survival was 12.2 months (95% CI 8.8-15.6) and 14.3 months (10.7-20.4), respectively. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were skin rash (21 [27%] of 77 patients vs 20 [22%] of 92 patients), neutropenia (22 [29%] vs 30 [33%]), diarrhoea (14 [18%] vs 23 [25%]), and lethargy (20 [26%] vs 19 [21%]).

INTERPRETATION

Cetuximab was safely incorporated in two first-line intermittent chemotherapy strategies. Maintenance of biological monotherapy, with less cytotoxic chemotherapy within the first 6 months, in molecularly selected patients is promising and should be validated in phase 3 trials.

Prevention strategies for chemotherapy-induced hand-foot syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomised trials

PURPOSE

Hand-foot syndrome (HSF) is a distinctive adverse event relatively frequent to some chemotherapeutic agents as capecitabine, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, sorafenib and other tyrosine-kinase inhibitors. Since the prevention of HFS would be crucial to avoid treatment interruptions and delays, many studies have been conducted with this purpose.

METHODS

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the clinical efficacy of prevention strategies for HFS, through a wide search of electronic databases as well as congress abstracts. The endpoints evaluated were the dichotomic data for mild (Grade 1), moderate to severe (Grades 2 to 3) and all-grade HFS. Meta-analysis was calculated through RevMan v5.1 software.

RESULTS

Amongst 295 studies identified, only ten met the inclusion criteria. Celecoxib prevented both moderate to severe (odds ratio [OR] 0.39, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.73, P = 0.003) and all-grade HFS (OR 0.47, 95 % CI 0.29-0.78, P = 0.003), whereas pyridoxine and topical urea/lactic acid formulations failed to prove efficacy. There were no proven benefits in mild HFS. The use of topical antiperspirant has not been shown to improve results, according to a single trial.

CONCLUSIONS

From all available possibilities for the prevention of HFS, celecoxib appears to be the most promising, with statistically significant results. Larger, multicentric studies are required to reinforce this finding.

Evaluating many treatments and biomarkers in oncology: a new design

There is a pressing need for more-efficient trial designs for biomarker-stratified clinical trials. We suggest a new approach to trial design that links novel treatment evaluation with the concurrent evaluation of a biomarker within a confirmatory phase II/III trial setting. We describe a new protocol using this approach in advanced colorectal cancer called FOCUS4. The protocol will ultimately answer three research questions for a number of treatments and biomarkers: (1) After a period of first-line chemotherapy, do targeted novel therapies provide signals of activity in different biomarker-defined populations? (2) If so, do these definitively improve outcomes? (3) Is evidence of activity restricted to the biomarker-defined groups? The protocol randomizes novel agents against placebo concurrently across a number of different biomarker-defined population-enriched cohorts: BRAF mutation; activated AKT pathway: PI3K mutation/absolute PTEN loss tumors; KRAS and NRAS mutations; and wild type at all the mentioned genes. Within each biomarker-defined population, the trial uses a multistaged approach with flexibility to adapt in response to planned interim analyses for lack of activity. FOCUS4 is the first test of a protocol that assigns all patients with metastatic colorectal cancer to one of a number of parallel population-enriched, biomarker-stratified randomized trials. Using this approach allows questions regarding efficacy and safety of multiple novel therapies to be answered in a relatively quick and efficient manner, while also allowing for the assessment of biomarkers to help target treatment.

Current opinion on optimal treatment for colorectal cancer

The medical treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) has evolved greatly in the last 10 years, involving complex combined chemotherapy protocols and, in more recent times, new biologic agents. Advances in adjuvant therapy have been limited to the addition of oxaliplatin and the substitution of oral fluoropyrimidine (e.g., capecitabine) for intravenous 5-fluorouracil with no evidence for improved outcome with biological agents. Clinical benefit from the use of the targeted monoclonal antibodies, bevacizumab, cetuximab and panitumumab, in the treatment of metastatic CRC is now well established, but the optimal timing of their use requires careful consideration to derive the maximal benefit. Evidence to date suggests potentially distinct roles for bevacizumab and EGF receptor-targeted biological agents (cetuximab and panitumumab) in the treatment of metastatic CRC. This article reviews the evidence in support of modern treatments for CRC and the decision-making behind the treatment choices, their benefits and toxicities.

Incidence and risk of hypomagnesemia in advanced cancer patients treated with cetuximab: A meta-analysis

Hypomagnesemia is a serious adverse event for patients treated with cetuximab, an inhibitor of endothelial growth factor receptor (EGFR). However, no significant association has yet been established between cetuximab and hypomagnesemia in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs). The present study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published RCTs to assess the overall risk of hypomagnesemia associated with cetuximab. PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase and the American Society of Clinical Oncology conferences were searched for relevant RCTs. Quantitative analysis was carried out to evaluate the association between hypomagnesemia and cetuximab. A total of 7,045 patients with a variety of advanced cancers from 10 trials were included in the analysis. The overall incidence of grade 3/4 hypomagnesemia in patients receiving cetuximab was 3.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.6–4.3%]. Patients treated with cetuximab had a significantly increased risk of grade 3/4 hypomagnesemia compared with patients treated with control medication, with a relative risk (RR) of 8.60 (95% CI, 5.08–14.54). Risk was observed to vary with tumor type. The study concluded that cetuximab is associated with a significant risk of hypomagnesemia in patients with advanced cancer receiving concurrent chemotherapy.

How many diseases are colorectal cancer?

The development of personalised therapy and mechanism-targeted agents in oncology mandates the identification of the patient populations most likely to benefit from therapy. This paper discusses the increasing evidence as to the heterogeneity of the group of diseases called colorectal cancer. Differences in the aetiology and epidemiology of proximal and distal cancers are reflected in different clinical behaviour, histopathology, and molecular characteristics of these tumours. This may impact response both to standard cytotoxic therapies and mechanism-targeted agents. This disease heterogeneity leads to challenges in the design of clinical trials to assess novel therapies in the treatment of "colorectal cancer."

Oxaliplatin/capecitabine vs oxaliplatin/infusional 5-FU in advanced colorectal cancer: the MRC COIN trial

Background:

COIN compared first-line continuous chemotherapy with the same chemotherapy given intermittently or with cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC).

Methods:

Choice between oxaliplatin/capecitabine (OxCap) and oxaliplatin/leucovorin (LV)/infusional 5-FU (OxFU) was by physician and patient choice and switching regimen was allowed. We compared OxCap with OxFU and OxCap+cetuximab with OxFU+cetuximab retrospectively in patients and examined efficacy, toxicity profiles and the effect of mild renal impairment.

Results:

In total, 64% of 2397 patients received OxCap(±cetuximab). Overall survival, progression free survival and overall response rate were similar between OxCap and OxFU but rate of radical surgeries was higher for OxFU. Progression free survival was longer for OxFU+cetuximab compared with OxCap+cetuximab but other efficacy measures were similar. Oxaliplatin/LV/infusional 5-FU (±cetuximab) was associated with more mucositis and infection whereas OxCap(±cetuximab) caused more gastrointestinal toxicities and palmar-plantar erythema. In total, 118 patients switched regimen, mainly due to toxicity; only 16% came off their second regimen due to intolerance. Patients with creatinine clearance (CrCl) 50–80 ml min⁻¹ on OxCap(±cetuximab) or OxFU+cetuximab had more dose modifications than those with better renal function.

Conclusions:

Overall, OxFU and OxCap are equally effective in treating aCRC. However, the toxicity profiles differ and switching from one regimen to the other for poor tolerance is a reasonable option. Patients with CrCl 50–80 ml min⁻¹ on both regimens require close toxicity monitoring.

Incidence and risk of severe neutropenia in advanced cancer patients treated with cetuximab: a meta-analysis

Background and Aim: Neutropenia is a serious adverse event for patients who are treated with cetuximab, an inhibitor of endothelial growth factor receptor. However, there is no consistent result of the relationship between cetuximab and neutropenia in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of published RCTs to assess the overall risk of neutropenia associated with cetuximab.

Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and American Society of Clinical Oncology conferences were searched for relevant RCTs. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were carried out to evaluate the association between neutropenia and cetuximab. Both the fixed-effect model and random-effects model were used.

Results: A total of 7186 patients with a variety of advanced cancers from 14 trials were included in our analysis. The overall incidence of neutropenia in patients receiving cetuximab was 33% (95% CI 26, 43). Patients treated with cetuximab had a significantly increased risk of neutropenia compared with patients treated with control medication, with a relative risk (RR) of 1.12 (95% CI 1.05, 1.19; fixed-effect model). Risk varied with tumor type. Higher risks were observed in patients with colorectal carcinoma (RR 1.17; 95% CI 1.04, 1.32; fixed-effect model) and non-small cell lung cancer (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.99, 1.16; fixed-effect model).

Conclusion: Cetuximab is associated with a significant risk of neutropenia in patients with advanced cancer receiving concurrent chemotherapy.

Safety profiles of current antiangiogenic therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer

The biological agents approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer - bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets vascular endothelial growth factor A, along with cetuximab and panitumumab, two monoclonal antibodies that target the epidermal growth factor receptor - are associated with a number of adverse events that range in severity from relatively mild to potentially life threatening. Hypertension, thromboembolic events, proteinuria, bleeding, and gastrointestinal perforation have all been associated with bevacizumab, while dermatologic toxicities are common with cetuximab and panitumumab. Hypersensitivity reactions and hypomagnesemia are also a concern with cetuximab and panitumumab. The frequency of these adverse events in randomized clinical trials is reviewed, and recommendations for managing these events in patients undergoing treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer are provided.

Cetuximab in the first-line treatment of K-ras wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: the choice and schedule of fluoropyrimidine matters

BACKGROUND

Cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor, inconsistently improves response rates (RR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer patients with K-ras wild-type (WT) tumors.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of four trials where K-ras WT Pts received a fluoropyrimidine (infusional vs. bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) vs. capecitabine) and oxaliplatin or irinotecan with and without cetuximab (CRYSTAL, OPUS, COIN and NORDIC VII trials) and two trials, where K-ras WT and mutant patients received cetuximab and a fluoropyrimidine (capecitabine in a German AIO study and infusional 5-FU in the CECOG study) with oxaliplatin versus irinotecan. We sought to determine whether the choice of fluoropyrimidine or of oxaliplatin versus irinotecan affects the response to cetuximab. Meta-analysis was performed in the context of a mixed effects model with a random effect for each study.

RESULTS

Only patients treated with infusional 5-FU-based chemotherapy derived benefit from cetuximab. Relative to infusional 5-FU, patients treated with capecitabine/bolus 5-FU-based doublet chemotherapy had a 42 % (95 % CI 21-58 %; p < 0.001) decrease in response probability and a 52 % (95 % CI 20-93 %; p < 0.001) and 33 % (95 % CI 7-65 %; p = 0.012) increase, respectively, in risk of progression and death. The choice of oxaliplatin or irinotecan did not affect benefit from cetuximab.

CONCLUSION

The lack of benefit for cetuximab with capecitabine/bolus 5-FU regimens is unexpected. Cetuximab should only be used with infusional 5-FU regimens in the first-line treatment of K-ras WT colorectal cancer patients. Further study is urgently needed to elucidate the basis of this observation.

Where now for anti-EGF receptor therapies in colorectal cancer?

Current US FDA-approved monoclonal antibodies targeting the EGF receptor (EGFR) include cetuximab and panitumumab. In this article, we discuss the clinical evidence concerning the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the EGFR in the setting of advanced colorectal cancer and the emergence of predictive molecular biomarkers. In addition, we also consider the evidence surrounding the evolution of anti-EGFR-resistance mechanisms evoked by targeted anti-EGFR therapy and potential therapeutic strategies that may counteract resistant tumor growth.

Effect of oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin with or without cetuximab on survival among patients with resected stage III colon cancer: a randomized trial

CONTEXT

Leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) is the standard adjuvant therapy for resected stage III colon cancer. Adding cetuximab to FOLFOX benefits patients with metastatic wild-type KRAS but not mutated KRAS colon cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the potential benefit of cetuximab added to the modified sixth version of the FOLFOX regimen (mFOLFOX6) in patients with resected stage III wild-type KRAS colon cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A randomized trial of 2686 patients aged 18 years or older at multiple institutions across North America enrolled following resection and informed consent between February 10, 2004, and November 25, 2009. The primary randomized comparison was 12 biweekly cycles of mFOLFOX6 with and without cetuximab. KRAS mutation status was centrally determined. The trial was halted after a planned interim analysis of 48% of predicted events (246/515) occurring in 1863 (of 2070 planned) patients with tumors having wild-type KRAS. A total of 717 patients with mutated KRAS and 106 with indeterminate KRAS were accrued. The 2070 patients with wild-type KRAS provided 90% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.33 (2-sided α = .05), with planned interim efficacy analyses after 25%, 50%, and 75% of expected relapses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Disease-free survival in patients with wild-type KRAS mutations. Secondary end points included overall survival and toxicity.

RESULTS

Median (range) follow-up was 28 (0-68) months. The trial demonstrated no benefit when adding cetuximab. Three-year disease-free survival for mFOLFOX6 alone was 74.6% vs 71.5% with the addition of cetuximab (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.98-1.49; P = .08) in patients with wild-type KRAS, and 67.1% vs 65.0% (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.46; P = .38) in patients with mutated KRAS, with no significant benefit in any subgroups assessed. Among all patients, grade 3 or higher adverse events (72.5% vs 52.3%; odds ratio [OR], 2.4; 95% CI, 2.1-2.8; P < .001) and failure to complete 12 cycles (33% vs 23%; OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4-1.9; P < .001) were significantly higher with cetuximab. Increased toxicity and greater detrimental differences in all outcomes were observed in patients aged 70 years or older.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with stage III resected colon cancer, the use of cetuximab with adjuvant mFOLFOX6 compared with mFOLFOX6 alone did not result in improved disease-free survival.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00079274.

Folliculitis induced by EGFR inhibitors, preventive and curative efficacy of tetracyclines in the management and incidence rates according to the type of EGFR inhibitor administered: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Folliculitis is the most common side effect of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors (EGFRIs). It is often apparent, altering patients' quality of life and possibly impacting compliance. Variations in terms of the treatment-related incidence and intensity have not been fully elucidated. Tetracyclines have been recommended for the prophylaxis and treatment of folliculitis but their efficacy is yet to be established.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We carried out two systematic literature reviews. The first assessed the preventive and curative efficacy of tetracyclines. The second assessed the incidence of grade 3-4 folliculitis in the main clinical studies published.

RESULTS

In four randomized studies, preventive tetracycline treatment was associated with a significantly lower incidence of grade 2-3 folliculitis and a better quality of life in three of the four studies. In curative terms, tetracycline efficacy was not evaluated in any randomized study, but an improvement in grade ≥2 folliculitis was reported in case series. The frequency and severity of folliculitis seem to be greater with the antibodies than with the tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Analysis restricted to lung cancer studies showed a statistically greater incidence in terms of grade 3-4 folliculitis with cetuximab (9%) and erlotinib (8%) than with gefitinib (2%) (p < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Unless contraindicated, a tetracycline should be routinely prescribed prophylactically for patients treated with an EGFRI (level of evidence, B2). In curative therapy, the level of evidence for tetracycline efficacy is low (level of evidence, D). The incidence of grade 3-4 folliculitis induced by EGFRIs appears to be lower with gefitinib.

Economic burden of toxicities associated with metastatic colorectal cancer treatment regimens containing monoclonal antibodies

OBJECTIVES

Little is known about toxicity-related costs of monoclonal antibody treatments in metastatic colorectal cancer. This study aimed to identify toxicities associated with bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab and estimate the direct costs of these toxicities.

METHODS

Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were identified by a comprehensive literature search. Inpatient costs were estimated using ICD-9 codes and 2007 Medicare payments from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database; costs were converted to 2010 dollars. Outpatient costs were estimated by applying 2010 Medicare reimbursement rates to resource use assumptions (based on in-depth clinical interviews).

RESULTS

Toxicities associated with bevacizumab included hypertension, arterial thrombosis, hemorrhage, gastrointestinal (GI) perforation, fistula, and wound-healing complications; toxicities associated with cetuximab and panitumumab included skin rash, hypomagnesemia, and infusion reactions. The inpatient cost per event was highest for GI perforation (USD 32,443), followed by fistula (USD 29,062), arterial thrombosis (USD 20,346), and wound-healing complications (USD 13,240), while inpatient costs per event for hypomagnesemia and skin rash were among the lowest. The cost per event of toxicities treated in the outpatient setting included USD 185 for skin rash up to USD 585 for wound-healing complications.

LIMITATIONS

Treatment costs of toxicities for the outpatient setting were determined using assumptions validated by clinicians, and unit costs were based on Medicare reimbursement rates, which are often lower than the reimbursement rates for commercial health insurance plans. Toxicities included were only grades 3 and 4 adverse events and might be limited by differences between clinical studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Monoclonal antibodies have different toxicity profiles and the costs associated with managing these toxicities vary greatly.

Platinum anticancer drugs. From serendipity to rational design

The discovery of cis-platin was serendipitous. In 1965, Rosenberg was looking into the effects of an electric field on the growth of Escherichia coli bacteria. He noticed that bacteria ceased to divide when placed in an electric field but what Rosenberg also observed was a 300-fold increase in the size of the bacteria. He attributed this to the fact that somehow the platinum-conducting plates were inducing cell growth but inhibiting cell division. It was later deduced that the platinum species responsible for this was cis-platin. Rosenberg hypothesized that if cis-platin could inhibit bacterial cell division it could also stop tumor cell growth. This conjecture has proven correct and has led to the introduction of cis-platin in cancer therapy. Indeed, in 1978, six years after clinical trials conducted by the NCI and Bristol-Myers-Squibb, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved cis-platin under the name of Platinol(®) for treating patients with metastatic testicular or ovarian cancer in combination with other drugs but also for treating bladder cancer. Bristol-Myers Squibb also licensed carboplatin, a second-generation platinum drug with fewer side effects, in 1979. Carboplatin entered the U.S. market as Paraplatin(®) in 1989 for initial treatment of advanced ovarian cancer in established combination with other approved chemotherapeutic agents. Numerous platin derivatives have been further developed with more or less success and the third derivative to be approved in 1994 was oxaliplatin under the name of Eloxatin(®). It was the first platin-based drug to be active against metastatic colorectal cancer in combination with fluorouracil and folinic acid. The two others platin-based drugs to be approved were nedaplatin (Aqupla(®)) in Japan and lobaplatin in China, respectively. More recently, a strategy to overcome resistance due to interaction with thiol-containing molecules led to the synthesis of picoplatin in which one of the amines linked to Pt was replaced by a bulky methyl substituted pyridine allowing the drug more time to reach its target, DNA. On the other hand, efforts which were made to find new orally administered analog led to satraplatin bearing to axial acetate groups. Both drugs are still under clinical trials. An alternatively route to the discovery of new derivatives turns to the development of improved delivery strategies such as liposomes and polymers. Liposomal cis-platin or lipoplatin in under a phase III randomized clinical trial for patients suffering from small cell lung cancer whereas polymer-based drug, Prolindac™ is currently under investigation for pretreated ovarian cancers in up to eight European centers.

Liver metastases from colorectal cancer: how to best complement medical treatment with surgical approaches

Colorectal liver metastases (CLM) represent a major challenge for oncologists and surgeons. In fact, in this setting, the optimal treatment of patients can achieve a long-term survival and sometimes a definitive cure of disease. In recent years, improvements in both medical therapies and surgical approaches have led to an increased rate of patients considered amenable for surgery on CLM. New perspectives in the management of CLM underline the need for a comprehensive assessment of patient and tumor characteristics, to integrate technical and prognostic issues into an individualized therapeutic strategy in different patient subgroups. The multidisciplinary evaluation from the onset and during treatment remains the key element to maximizing the benefit of more intensive treatment modalities.

Risk of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody-related hypomagnesemia: systematic review and pooled analysis of randomized studies

INTRODUCTION

The typical class side effect of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies (panitumumab and cetuximab) is a cutaneous maculopapular rash, although hypomagnesemia is also described to be a frequent adverse event. The purpose of our meta-analysis is to evaluate the frequency and the relative risk of hypomagnesemia in patients treated with cetuximab or panitumumab in randomized trials.

AREA COVERED

Eligible studies included prospective randomized Phase III controlled trials in which cetuximab or panitumumab were compared with standard anti-neoplastic therapy or best supportive care. Summary incidence rates and relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

EXPERT OPINION

The overall incidence of hypomagnesemia was 17% among the patients who received the treatment, whose risk of developing hypomagnesemia turned out to be significantly increased compared with the patients treated with control medication, with an overall relative risk of 5.83 (p < 0.00001), where 3.87 refers to cetuximab and 12.55 to panitumumab. The addition of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies to standard anticancer therapy showed a significantly increased risk of hypomagnesemia compared with controls. The risk seems to be even higher for panitumumab, probably correlated with the increased risk of other adverse events (e.g., diarrhea and dehydration). Hypomagnesemia does not seem to be linked with any serious complications.

Rash rates with egfr inhibitors: meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Currently marketed epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (egfris) have been associated with high rates of dermatologic toxicity.

METHODS

We formally reviewed the literature at medline and embase. Additional searches were conducted using Internet search engines. Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled clinical trials of egfris, specifically cetuximab and panitumumab, in which at least one arm consisted of a non-egfri treatment and rash safety data were reported. The random effects method was used to pool differences in incident rash rates. Results are summarized as differences in incident rash (egfri therapy rate minus the non-egfri therapy rate) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (cis) for all severity grades of rash and for grades 3 and 4 rash.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies met the initial inclusion criteria of randomized controlled trials comparing egfri with non-egfri therapy. Seven publications that provided information on all severity grades of rash were found to have an overall difference in incident rash rate of 0.74 (95% ci: 0.68 to 0.81; p < 0.01). Thirteen studies that reported the incidence of grades 3 and 4 rash showed an overall difference in the incident rash rate of 0.12 (95% ci: 0.09 to 0.14; p < 0.01) between egfri and non-egfri therapy. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results were generally robust, but sensitive to small samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Results quantify the difference in rash rates between egfri and non-egfri therapy.

Addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based first-line combination chemotherapy for treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: results of the randomised phase 3 MRC COIN trial

BACKGROUND

In the Medical Research Council (MRC) COIN trial, the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted antibody cetuximab was added to standard chemotherapy in first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer with the aim of assessing effect on overall survival.

METHODS

In this randomised controlled trial, patients who were fit for but had not received previous chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy (arm A), the same combination plus cetuximab (arm B), or intermittent chemotherapy (arm C). The choice of fluoropyrimidine therapy (capecitabine or infused fluouroracil plus leucovorin) was decided before randomisation. Randomisation was done centrally (via telephone) by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit using minimisation. Treatment allocation was not masked. The comparison of arms A and C is described in a companion paper. Here, we present the comparison of arm A and B, for which the primary outcome was overall survival in patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. Analysis was by intention to treat. Further analyses with respect to NRAS, BRAF, and EGFR status were done. The trial is registered, ISRCTN27286448.

FINDINGS

1630 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (815 to standard therapy and 815 to addition of cetuximab). Tumour samples from 1316 (81%) patients were used for somatic molecular analyses; 565 (43%) had KRAS mutations. In patients with KRAS wild-type tumours (arm A, n=367; arm B, n=362), overall survival did not differ between treatment groups (median survival 17·9 months [IQR 10·3-29·2] in the control group vs 17·0 months [9·4-30·1] in the cetuximab group; HR 1·04, 95% CI 0·87-1·23, p=0·67). Similarly, there was no effect on progression-free survival (8·6 months [IQR 5·0-12·5] in the control group vs 8·6 months [5·1-13·8] in the cetuximab group; HR 0·96, 0·82-1·12, p=0·60). Overall response rate increased from 57% (n=209) with chemotherapy alone to 64% (n=232) with addition of cetuximab (p=0·049). Grade 3 and higher skin and gastrointestinal toxic effects were increased with cetuximab (14 vs 114 and 67 vs 97 patients in the control group vs the cetuximab group with KRAS wild-type tumours, respectively). Overall survival differs by somatic mutation status irrespective of treatment received: BRAF mutant, 8·8 months (IQR 4·5-27·4); KRAS mutant, 14·4 months (8·5-24·0); all wild-type, 20·1 months (11·5-31·7).

INTERPRETATION

This trial has not confirmed a benefit of addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Cetuximab increases response rate, with no evidence of benefit in progression-free or overall survival in KRAS wild-type patients or even in patients selected by additional mutational analysis of their tumours. The use of cetuximab in combination with oxaliplatin and capecitabine in first-line chemotherapy in patients with widespread metastases cannot be recommended.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, Cancer Research Wales, UK Medical Research Council, Merck KGgA.

Cetuximab plus capecitabine and irinotecan compared with cetuximab plus capecitabine and oxaliplatin as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: AIO KRK-0104--a randomized trial of the German AIO CRC study group

PURPOSE

The AIO KRK-0104 randomized phase II trial investigated the efficacy and safety of cetuximab combined with capecitabine and irinotecan (CAPIRI) or capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 185 patients with mCRC were randomly assigned to cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) day 1, followed by 250 mg/m(2) weekly) plus CAPIRI (irinotecan 200 mg/m(2), day 1; capecitabine 800 mg/m(2) twice daily days 1 through 14, every 3 weeks; or cetuximab plus CAPOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) day 1; capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily day 1 through 14, every 3 weeks). The primary study end point was objective response rate (ORR).

RESULTS

In the intention-to-treat patient population (n = 177), ORR was 46% (95% CI, 35 to 57) for CAPIRI plus cetuximab versus 48% (95% CI, 37 to 59) for CAPOX plus cetuximab. Analysis of the KRAS gene mutation status was performed in 81.4% of the intention to treat population. Patients with KRAS wild-type in the CAPIRI plus cetuximab arm showed an ORR of 50.0%, a PFS of 6.2 months and an OS of 21.1 months. In the CAPOX plus cetuximab arm, an ORR of 44.9%, a PFS of 7.1 months and an OS of 23.5 months were observed. While ORR and PFS were comparable in KRAS wild-type and mutant subgroups, a trend toward longer survival was associated with KRAS wild-type. Both regimens had manageable toxicity profiles and were safe.

CONCLUSION

This randomized trial demonstrates that the addition of cetuximab to CAPIRI or CAPOX is effective and safe in first-line treatment of mCRC. In the analyzed regimens, ORR and PFS did not differ according to KRAS gene mutation status.

XELOX in colorectal cancer: a convenient option for the future?

XELOX is a 3-weekly chemotherapy combination of oral capecitabine and intravenous oxaliplatin. The central hypothesis that led to its development was that it would provide a convenient and cost-effective alternative to intravenous fluorouracil-based chemotherapy doublets, without compromising on anti-tumor efficacy. Recently its role in colorectal cancer has become more established in both the metastatic and adjuvant setting. Ongoing investigation of XELOX continues in a number of directions: its combination with novel biological agents, its efficacy and safety in the elderly, and the development of biomarkers that can predict its anti-tumor effect. This article provides a comprehensive and up-to-date synopsis of all pertinent clinical studies detailing this regimen and its promise for the future.

Balancing the efficacy and toxicity of chemotherapy in colorectal cancer

As the therapeutic options for the treatment of colorectal cancer have expanded over the past 20 years, so has the complexity of decision making. The goals of treatment in the palliative, adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings vary and it is not only the efficacy of drugs that influence treatment decisions. Age, performance status, the presence of significant comorbidities and the different treatment regimens and strategies provide medical oncologists with an array of options to attempt to maximize patients' quality of life and longevity.

Targeted therapy in advanced colorectal cancer: more data, more questions

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the third most common malignancy and the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The introduction of new chemotherapeutics and monoclonal antibodies into the treatment protocols for advanced CRC has significantly improved the outcomes. Nowadays, oncologists have a wide range of agents to choose for the treatment of advanced CRC; however, their optimal administration remains unclear. This article presents recently published data from the trials evaluating the use of monoclonal antibodies in advanced CRC with a particular emphasis on the predictive and prognostic factors of response to targeted therapy. The results from the CRYSTAL and OPUS studies indicate that the benefit from the addition of cetuximab to first-line chemotherapy is restricted to patients with the wild-type KRAS gene, with the best outcomes observed among those with unmutated forms of both the KRAS and BRAF genes. However, that has not been confirmed in the preliminary data from the COIN trial. Panitumumab has been shown to improve the outcomes when combined with first-line and second-line chemotherapy, but again mostly in patients with wild-type KRAS. The article also describes the detrimental effect of combined anti-vascular endothelial growth factor and anti-epidermal growth factor blockade in the first-line setting observed in the PACCE and the CAIRO-2 trials. Finally, results from the BRiTE registry indicating benefit from continuation of bevacizumab after progression on the first-line regimen are discussed in the context of maintenance therapy. Modern treatment for advanced CRC is based not only on clinical and anatomo-pathological but also molecular tumour characteristics. Our knowledge of the optimal administration of monoclonal antibodies in advanced CRC has extended significantly over the last few years; however, there are still many questions that have to be answered in future trials.

Toxicity associated with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin in colorectal cancer before and after an institutional policy of capecitabine dose reduction

Background:

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) is an established treatment option in colorectal cancer, but can be associated with severe toxicities.

Methods:

Following reporting of severe diarrhoea and dehydration with capecitabine 2000 mg m^–2 per day plus oxaliplatin every 3 weeks (CAPOX 2000) in 2006, we instituted a policy change to reduce capecitabine dose to 1700 mg m^–2 per day (CAPOX 1700). We undertook a retrospective analysis comparing toxicities encountered before and after this dose change.

Results:

Of the 400 patients treated, no significant differences were seen between the CAPOX 2000 and CAPOX 1700 in grades 3 and 4 diarrhoea (21% vs 19% P=0.80), stomatitis (0% vs 1% P=0.50) or grades 2–4 hand foot syndrome (16% vs 11% P=0.18). Grades 3 and 4 neutropenia (9.5% vs 3.5% P=0.03) and all grades hyperbilirubinaemia (60% vs 40% P<0.0001) were significantly reduced with CAPOX 1700. Rates of hospitalisation due to toxicities were not different between two groups (13% vs 11% P=0.53).

Conclusions:

No clinically or statistically significant differences in gastrointestinal toxicities or hospitalisation rate were seen after reducing our routine capecitabine dose from CAPOX 2000 to CAPOX 1700.

Epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine with or without panitumumab for advanced esophagogastric cancer: dose-finding study for the prospective multicenter, randomized, phase II/III REAL-3 trial

PURPOSE

Epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (EOC) is a standard treatment in advanced esophagogastric cancer. Panitumumab (P) is a fully human, immunoglobulin G2 monoclonal antibody targeting epidermal growth factor receptor. Randomized Trial of EOC +/- Panitumumab for Advanced and Locally Advanced Esophagogastric Cancer (REAL-3) will evaluate whether the addition of P to EOC improves survival in patients with advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma and undifferentiated carcinoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The original design of REAL-3 added P 9 mg/kg to the standard dose of EOC (dose level [DL] + 1). Due to toxicity, a dose de-escalation was made to EOC + P DL-1 (epirubicin 50 mg/m(2), oxaliplatin130 mg/m(2), capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2)/d + P 9 mg/kg every 3 weeks). After additional toxicity was observed, the study was amended to include two additional EOC + P dose levels. Using a 3 + 3 design, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed weekly during cycle 1. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to EOC +/- P.

RESULTS

Between July 2008 and October 2009, 29 patients were randomly selected for standard-dose EOC (n = 13) or EOC + P (n = 16). Five patients were treated at DL + 1, with grade 3 diarrhea in four of five patients by cycle 4. At DL-1, one patient had grade 3 diarrhea and grade 5 infection. Three patients were treated at DL-3, and then six were treated at DL-2, without DLTs.

CONCLUSION

The recommended dose for EOC + P is epirubicin 50 mg/m(2), oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2), capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2)/d, and P 9 mg/kg every 3 weeks. This dose has been selected for the ongoing phase II/III REAL-3 study.