Efficacy and Safety of Cetuximab/Irinotecan in Chemotherapy-Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Adenocarcinomas: A Clinical Practice Setting, Multicenter Experience

Chemotherapy re-use versus anti-angiogenic monotherapy as the third-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a real-world cohort study

BACKGROUND

There are various recommendations for third-line treatment in mCRC, however, there is no consensus on who is more suitable for particular strategy. Chemotherapy re-use in third-line setting is a common option in clinical practice. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of third-line chemotherapy re-use by the comparison with that of anti-angiogenic monotherapy, and further find the population more suitable for third-line chemotherapy.

METHODS

Using electronic medical records of patients with mCRC, a retrospective cohort study was conducted. A total of 143 patients receiving chemotherapy and 40 patients receiving anti-angiogenic monotherapy in third-line setting as control group were retrospectively collected. Baseline characteristics were analyzed using the χ² test or the Fisher's exact test. ROC curve and surv_cutpoint function of 'survminer' package in R software were used to calculate the cut-off value. Survival curves were plotted with the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared using the log-rank test. The Cox proportional hazard regression model was used to analyze the potential risk factors.

RESULTS

A total of 143 patients receiving chemotherapy and 40 patients receiving anti-angiogenic monotherapy in third-line setting were retrospectively collected. Chemotherapy rechallenge was recorded in 93 patients (93/143, 65.0%), and the remaining patients chose new chemotherapeutic drugs that had not been previously used, including irinotecan-based (22/50), oxaliplatin-based (9/50), raltitrexed (9/50), gemcitabine (5/50) and other agents (5/50). The ORR and DCR of third-line chemotherapy reached 8.8%, 61.3%, respectively (anti-angiogenic monotherapy group: ORR 2.6%, DCR 47.4%). The mPFS and mOS of patients receiving chemotherapy were 4.9 and 12.0 m, respectively (anti-angiogenic monotherapy group: mPFS 2.7 m, mOS 5.2 m). Subgroup analyses found that patients with RAS/RAF mutation, longer PFS (greater than 10.6 m) in front-line treatment or larger tumor burden had better prognosis with third-line chemotherapy rather than anti-angiogenic monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Third-line chemotherapy re-use was effective in mCRC. Those with more aggressive characteristics (RAS/RAF mutant, larger tumor burden) or better efficacy of previous chemotherapy (longer PFS) were more appropriate for third-line chemotherapy, rather than anti-angiogenic monotherapy.

Comparing the efficacy of regorafenib and 5-fluorouracil-based rechallenge chemotherapy in the third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after the second line is still controversial. Regorafenib has been the standard of care in this setting as it improved overall survival (OS) compared to placebo. In real-world practice chemotherapy rechallenge is also a preferred option even though supporting evidence is not enough. We aim to compare the efficacy of regorafenib and 5-fluorouracil-based (5-FU) rechallenge treatment in the third line setting of mCRC.

METHODS

In this retrospective multi-institutional trial, mCRC patients from 21 oncology centers who progressed after 2 lines of chemotherapy were analyzed. Patients who were treated with regorafenib or rechallenge therapy in the third-line setting were eligible. Rechallenge chemotherapy was identified as the re-use of the 5-FU based regimen which was administered in one of the previous treatment lines. OS, disease control rate (DCR), progression free survival (PFS) and toxicity were analyzed.

RESULTS

Three hundred ninety-four mCRC patients were included in the study. 128 (32.5%) were in the rechallenge, and 266 (67.5%) were in the regorafenib group. Median PFS was 5.82 months in rechallenge and 4 months in regorafenib arms (hazard ratio:1.45,95% CI, p = 0.167). DCR was higher in the rechallenge group than regorafenib (77% vs 49.5%, respectively, p =  < 0.001). Median OS after the third-line treatment was 11.99 (95% CI, 9.49-14.49) and 8.08 months (95% CI, 6.88-9.29) for rechallenge and regorafenib groups, respectively (hazard ratio:1.51, 95% CI, p < 0.001). More adverse effects and discontinuation were seen with regorafenib treatment.

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed that higher disease control and OS rates were achieved with rechallenge treatment compared to regorafenib, especially in patients who achieved disease control in one of the first two lines of therapy.

Efficacy and safety of third-line or later-line targeted treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis

Targeted therapy has been standardized in front-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), while explicit recommendations for third- or later-line are still lacking. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of combining targeted therapy with chemotherapy in the third- or later-line treatment for mCRC via meta-analysis, providing evidence-based guidance for clinical or research practice. Comprehensive retrieval of related studies was conducted according to the PRISMA guideline. Studies were stratified with patient characteristics and pharmacological classification of the drugs. For the data available for quantitative analysis, pooled overall response rate, disease control rate, hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events rate with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A total of 22 studies (1,866 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Data from 17 studies (1,769 patients) involving targets of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) were extracted for meta-analyses. The overall response rates for monotherapy and combined therapy were 4% (95% CI: 3%, 5%) and 20% (95% CI: 11%, 29%). The pooled HRs (combined therapy vs. mono) for OS and PFS were 0.72 (95% CI: 0.53, 0.99) and 0.34 (95% CI: 0.26, 0.45). Another five studies were included in narrative depiction, involving targets of BRAF, HER-2, ROS1, and NTRK. The findings of this meta-analysis indicate that VEGF and EGFR inhibitors manifest promising clinical response rates and prolonged survival in the treatment of mCRC with acceptable adverse events.

Patient demographics and management landscape of metastatic colorectal cancer in the third-line setting: Real-world data in an australian population

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer mortality in Australia, thus carrying a significant disease burden.

AIMS

This analysis aims to explore real-world treatment landscape of metastatic colorectal cancer in the third-line setting.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed treatment of recurrent and advanced colorectal cancer (TRACC) registry database from 2009 onwards. Patients treated with palliative intent who progressed after two lines of therapies were included. One treatment line was defined as any combination of systemic therapy given until progression.

RESULTS

Out of 1820 patients treated palliatively, 32% (590 patients) met study criteria. Of these, 43% (254 patients) proceeded to third-line therapy, equating to 14% of all metastatic patients. In KRAS mutant or unknown tumours (97 patients), fluoropyrimidine (FP)-oxaliplatin combination was the most common choice (51%), followed by FP-irinotecan (15%), trifluridine/tipiracil (11%), mono-chemotherapy (10%), regorafenib (5%) and others (7%). Majority of FP-doublet (83%) was given as rechallenge. In 157 patients with KRAS wildtype disease, monotherapy with EGFR inhibitor was most commonly used (41%), followed by EGFR inhibitor with chemotherapy (20%), FP-doublet (18%), mono-chemotherapy (6%), trifluridine/tipiracil (6%), regorafenib (1%) and others (8%). Median overall survival was 7.1 months (range 0.4-41.2), and median time on third-line treatment was 3 months (range 0.1-40).

CONCLUSIONS

In real-world Australian population, treatment choices differed based on KRAS status and will likely change with the availability of newer drugs on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Survival outcomes are comparable to newer agents in clinical trials for select patients.

Angiogenesis in Breast Cancer Progression, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Angiogenesis is a significant event in a wide range of healthy and diseased conditions. This process frequently involves vasodilation and an increase in vascular permeability. Numerous players referred to as angiogenic factors, work in tandem to facilitate the outgrowth of endothelial cells (EC) and the consequent vascularity. Conversely, angiogenic factors could also feature in pathological conditions. Angiogenesis is a critical factor in the development of tumors and metastases in numerous cancers. An increased level of angiogenesis is associated with decreased survival in breast cancer patients. Therefore, a good understanding of the angiogenic mechanism holds a promise of providing effective treatments for breast cancer progression, thereby enhancing patients' survival. Disrupting the initiation and progression of this process by targeting angiogenic factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor (Vegf)-one of the most potent member of the VEGF family- or by targeting transcription factors, such as Hypoxia-Inducible Factors (HIFs) that act as angiogenic regulators, have been considered potential treatment options for several types of cancers. The objective of this review is to highlight the mechanism of angiogenesis in diseases, specifically its role in the progression of malignancy in breast cancer, as well as to highlight the undergoing research in the development of angiogenesis-targeting therapies.

Current Options for Third-line and Beyond Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Spanish TTD Group Expert Opinion

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a public health problem: it is the third most common cancer in men (746,000 new cases/year) and the second in women (614,000 new cases/year), representing the second leading cause of death by cancer worldwide. The survival of patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has increased prominently in recent years, reaching a median of 25 to 30 months. A growing number of patients with mCRC are candidates to receive a treatment in third line or beyond, although the optimal drug regimen and sequence are still unknown. In this situation of refractoriness, there are several alternatives: (1) To administer sequentially the 2 oral drugs approved in this indication: trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib, which have shown a statistically significant benefit in progression-free survival and overall survival with a different toxicity profile. (2) To administer cetuximab or panitumumab in treatment-naive patients with RAS wild type, which is increasingly rare because these drugs are usually indicated in first- or second-line. (3) To reuse drugs already administered that were discontinued owing to toxicity or progression (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluoropyrimidine, antiangiogenics, anti-epidermal growth factor receptor [if RAS wild-type]). High-quality evidence is limited, but this strategy is often used in routine clinical practice in the absence of alternative therapies especially in patients with good performance status. (4) To use specific treatments for very selected populations, such as trastuzumab/lapatinib in mCRC human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, immunotherapy in microsatellite instability, intrahepatic therapies in limited disease or primarily located in the liver, although the main recommendation is to include patients in clinical trials.

Regorafenib or rechallenge chemotherapy: which is more effective in the third-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer?

PURPOSE

To assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib versus rechallenge chemotherapy in previously treated mCRC patients in third-line setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data of 104 patients diagnosed with mCRC enrolled from 2010 to 2017 in six oncology centers were analyzed. Tumor treatment options were obtained from follow-up and treatment files. Rechallenge chemotherapy was identified as the re-use of the regimen which was previously administered to patients in one of the therapy lines and obtained disease control, these were the patients whose disease did not progress within 3 months.

RESULTS

A total of 104 patients had received previously two lines of chemotherapy regimens for mCRC. Of these, 73 patients with mCRC who received regorafenib and 31 those who received rechallenge chemotherapy in third-line therapy were analyzed. Overall survival was better with rechallenge than it was with regorafenib (HR 0.29 95% CI 0.16-0.54, p < 0.001). Median OS was 12.0 months (95% CI 8.1-15.9) in rechallenge versus 6.6 months (95% CI 6.0-7.3) in regorafenib group (p < 0.001). Progression-free survival in the rechallenge group showed a higher median value of 9.16 months (95% CI 7.15-11.18) versus with that recorded in the regorafenib group of 3.41 months (95% CI 3.01-3.82), in favor of rechallenge chemotherapy. The most common adverse events of regorafenib was liver function test abnormality and hand-foot syndrome. Although grade 3 or 4 adverse events were similar, non-hematologic toxicities were more common than those of rechallenge.

CONCLUSIONS

Rechallenge is still a valuable option against regorafenib in patients who achieved disease control in one of the first two lines of therapy. Even though mCRC patients treated with regorafenib benefited clinically from this treatment, we revealed that chemotherapy rechallenge compared to regorafenib was more effective in the third-line treatment for mCRC patients.

Beyond second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review

Background

The optimal chemotherapeutic regimen for use beyond the second line for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains unclear.

Materials and methods

We systematically searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE and Medline for records published between January 2002 and May 2017, and cancer congress databases for records published between January 2014 and June 2017. Eligible studies evaluated the efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes of monotherapies or combination therapies at any dose and number of treatment cycles for use beyond the second line in patients with mCRC. Studies were assessed for design and quality, and a qualitative data synthesis was conducted to understand the impact of treatment on overall survival and other relevant cancer-related outcomes.

Results

The search yielded 938 references of which 68 were included for qualitative synthesis. There was limited evidence to support rechallenge with chemotherapy, targeted therapy or both. Compared with placebo, an overall survival benefit for trifluridine/tipiracil (also known as TAS-102) or regorafenib has been shown for patients previously treated with conventional chemotherapy and targeted therapy. There was no evidence to suggest a difference in efficacy between these treatments. Patient choice and quality of life at this stage of treatment should also be considered when choosing an appropriate therapy.

Conclusions

These findings support the introduction of an approved agent such as trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib beyond the second line before any rechallenge in patients with mCRC who have failed second-line treatment.

Safety of Combined Treatment With Monoclonal Antibodies and Viscum album L Preparations

Combination strategies involving chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies (mAb) are commonly used in attempts to produce better clinical outcomes. This practice has led to new and ongoing toxicities that may lead to reductions in dose or noncompliance, limiting the effectiveness of treatment. Viscum album L (VA) preparations are widely used in Europe as additive therapy and have been associated with reduced chemotherapy-related adverse reactions and increased health-related quality of life. Concomitant VA therapy might also reduce toxicity related to mAb. This retrospective study investigated the safety of combined treatment with VA and mAb in cancer patients. A total of 43 patients had combined therapy (474 exposures); 12 had VA without mAb (129 exposures), and 8 had mAb without VA (68 exposures). Most patients (89.3%) received concomitant chemotherapy or supportive therapies. A total of 34 patients (60.7%) experienced 142 adverse events (AEs). Leucopenia (14.1% of all events), acneiform rash (8.5%), and stomatitis (6.3%) occurred most frequently. Longitudinal logistic regression analysis suggested a nearly 5 times higher odds of experiencing an AE following treatment with mAb compared with mAb plus VA (95% CI = 1.53-16.14). Our results, together with theoretical consideration of potential botanical-drug interactions, suggest that combined treatment with VA and mAb is safe.

A systematic review of salvage therapy to patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan +/- targeted therapy

Oxaliplatin, irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil in combination with or without targeted therapies are well-documented treatment options for first- and second-line treatments of metastatic colorectal cancer. However, there are much less data on the beneficial effect on systemic therapy in the third-line setting. We therefore performed a systematic review of the current literature on third or later lines of treatment to patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after the use of approved drugs or combinations.

METHODS

A computer-based literature search was carried out using Pubmed and data reported at international meetings. Original studies reporting ≥15 patients who had previously received 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan were included. Furthermore, patients with KRAS wild type tumours should had received EGFR-directed therapy.

RESULTS

Conventional chemotherapeutic agents as capecitabine, mitomycin C, and gemcitabine have limited or no activity. Retreatment with oxaliplatin might be an option in selected patients. In addition, rechallenge with EGFR-directed therapy might be a valuable strategy. Data also suggest that angiogenetic drugs may postpone further progression and prolong survival. Lately, regorafinib has been approved. In conclusion, our current knowledge is based on many retrospective studies, some phase II studies and very few randomized clinical trials. Further prospective phase III trials comparing an investigational drug or combination with best supportive care in third- or later lines of treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer are highly warranted. Identification of predictive biomarkers and improvement of our understanding of molecular mechanisms is crucial.

Recent advances in anti-angiogenic therapy of cancer

Since angiogenesis is critical for tumor growth and metastasis, anti-angiogenic treatment is a highly promising therapeutic approach. Thus, for over last couple of decades, there has been a robust activity aimed towards the discovery of angiogenesis inhibitors. More than forty anti-angiogenic drugs are being tested in clinical trials all over the world. This review discusses agents that have approved by the FDA and are currently in use for treating patients either as single-agents or in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents.

Progress in metastatic colorectal cancer: growing role of cetuximab to optimize clinical outcome

The prognosis of metastatic colorectal cancer remains poor despite advances made in recent years, particularly with new treatments directed towards molecular targets. Cetuximab, a chimeric immunoglobulin (Ig)G1 monoclonal antibody that targets the ligand-binding domain of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), is active in metastatic colorectal cancer. As an IgG1 antibody, cetuximab may exert its antitumour efficacy through both EGFR antagonism and antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity. The benefits of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer are well documented in clinical trials and are acknowledged in the approval and licensing of this agent. There is evidence of the role of cetuximab not only in irinotecan-refractory or heavily pretreated patients, but also of the efficacy and safety of the addition of this agent to FOLFIRI (irinotecan/5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer, with an enhanced effect in 5-fluorouracil patients with Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) wild-type tumours. In these patients, a recent meta-analysis of the pooled Cetuximab Combined with Irinotecan in First-Line Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (CRYSTAL) and Oxaliplatin and Cetuximab in First-Line Treatment of mCRC (OPUS) patient populations confirms that the addition of cetuximab to first-line chemotherapy achieves a statistically significant improvement in the best overall response, overall survival time, and progression-free survival (PSF) compared with chemotherapy alone. In nonresectable colorectal liver metastases, cetuximab plus FOLFOX-6 (oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) or cetuximab plus FOLFIRI increased significantly resectability of liver metastases, including R0 resections. Also, preliminary data indicate that cetuximab can be administered in a more convenient 2-week schedule in combination with standard chemotherapy. Cetuximab is generally well tolerated. Acne-form rash is the most frequent toxicity. Up to the present time, the results obtained with targeted therapy combinations are not as encouraging as initially expected. The identification of biomarkers associated with disease control, including KRAS and BRAF mutation status in patients treated with cetuximab, is changing the current management of metastatic colorectal cancer. Clinical and molecular predictive markers of response are under active evaluation in order to better select patients who could benefit from cetuximab treatment, with the aim of both optimising patient outcomes and avoiding unnecessary toxicities.

Feasibility of cetuximab given with a simplified schedule every 2 weeks in advanced colorectal cancer: a multicenter, retrospective analysis

Cetuximab was approved using a weekly schedule, alone or in combination with chemotherapy (CT). However, many CT regimens in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) are delivered every 2 weeks (q2wks). Preliminary data suggested that a simplified schedule using cetuximab q2wks, 500 mg/m² would be equivalent to the standard weekly administration. Medical data of all patients with advanced CRC who received cetuximab q2wks were retrospectively collected and checked for consistency by an independent monitor in 4 European centers. Ninety-one patients were treated between 2005 and 2007 when the K-RAS mutational status of tumors was not determined routinely. They received a median of 4 (0-5) previous drugs, including previous weekly cetuximab in 38.5% of patients. Cetuximab q2wks was associated with an irinotecan-based regimen in 85.7% of patients. The median number of cetuximab administrations was 6 (1-23). Skin toxicity was observed in 68.2% of evaluable patients (grade 3 in 15%). Only one grade 1 allergy was reported. In the 84 patients beyond first-line therapy, response rate was 29.3%. The median progression-free survival was 3.0 months (range 2.2-3.8), and median overall survival was 9.0 months (range 6.2-11.8). Cetuximab q2wks appears safe and effective in heavily pretreated patients and convenient in combination with q2wks CT schedules.

Association of cetuximab with adverse pulmonary events in cancer patients: a comprehensive review

Compounds derived from biologic sources, or biologicals, are increasingly utilized as therapeutic agents in malignancy. Development of anti-cancer targeted therapies from biologics is increasingly being utilized. Cetuximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody, is one such anti-cancer targeted therapeutic that has shown efficacy in quelling the rate of patient decline in colorectal, head/neck, and non-small cell lung cancer. However, due to the relatively recent addition of biologic compounds to the therapeutic arsenal, information related to adverse reactions is less well known than those seen in traditional chemotherapeutics. Dermatologic reactions have been demonstrated as the most frequent side effect cited during cetuximab therapy for malignancy; however, other effects may lead to greater morbidity. In general, pulmonary complications of therapeutics can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this review is to compile the various pulmonary side effects seen in patients treated with cetuximab for various malignancies, and to compare the incidence of these adverse reactions to standard therapies.

Results of a phase II trial of cetuximab plus capecitabine/irinotecan as first-line therapy for patients with advanced and/or metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

XELIRI (capecitabine/irinotecan) is effective and well tolerated in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Cetuximab is active in mCRC alone or with chemotherapy. This study evaluated cetuximab plus XELIRI in first-line treatment of mCRC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Subjects had histologically confirmed unresectable colorectal adenocarcinoma (with T4 lesions) after preoperative chemoradiation and/or metastases. Treatment was capecitabine 1700 mg/m2 (850 mg/m2 orally twice a day on days 1-14 for 3 weeks), irinotecan 200 mg/m2 intravenously (I.V.) on day 1 every 3 weeks, and weekly cetuximab (initially 400 mg/m2 I.V. [120 minutes], subsequently 250 mg/m2 [30 minutes]).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics (N = 70): 43 men (61%); median age, 61.5 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 = 66%/34%; 94% adenocarcinoma. Previous therapy: surgery (91%), chemotherapy (14%), or radiation therapy (7%). Responses (patients completing > or = 2 cycles): complete response (5.7%), partial response (37.7%), stable disease (43.4%), and progressive disease (PD; 13.2%); 16 patients discontinued early (n = 4 allergic reaction, n = 2 withdrew consent, n = 2 death, and n = 8 other adverse events [AEs]). The overall per-protocol response rate was 43.4% (34% intent to treat [ITT]; disease control rate, 86.8%; 69% ITT). The median time to progression was 8.1 months (range, < 1-27.0 months), and the median time to response was 1.6 months (range, 1.1-8.4 months). The median survival was 20.5 months, and 45.7% of patients remain alive. Of the 38 deaths, 84% were because of PD. No death was treatment related. The most frequent grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs included diarrhea, neutropenia, and nausea/vomiting; 32% of patients required dose reductions. All patients are off the study primarily because of PD (34.3%) or AEs (40.0%).

CONCLUSION

In summary, XELIRI plus cetuximab is a promising regimen that merits further study for first-line mCRC.

Cetuximab efficacy in patients treated routinely in university hospitals

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of cetuximab (Cx) in patients with irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (IRMCRC) treated routinely at five university hospitals.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from all patients treated with Cx (N=105) during the study period (between January 2004 and September 2005) were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Median number of Cx infusions was 12 (range: 1 to 62). Objective response rate was 24.8%; stable disease in 23.8%; progression in 34.3%; 17.1% of the patients were not evaluable. Digestive and hematological adverse events were grade III in 20% and 12%, respectively, and grade IV in 12% and 11%, respectively. Response rates were higher in patients with acne-like rashes than in patients without (P=0.005). Median time to tumor progression (TTP; intention-to-treat) was 3.9 months (95% CI: 2.6-4.8). Median overall survival after Cx initiation was 8.3 months (95% CI: 6.310.7). Four prognostic factors were significantly associated with a shorter TTP: center (Center 4: HR=2.25, 95% CI: 1.16-4.35, P=0.017); absence of hepatic metastases (HR=2.5, 95% CI: 1.434.37, P=0.001); WHO performance status (HR=1.47, 95% CI: 1.10-1.96, P=0.008); and number of metastatic sites (HR=1.30, 95% CI: 1.05-1.60, P=0.014).

CONCLUSION

This analysis of a random population of IRMCRC patients supports Cx efficacy and feasibility, and is in agreement with the results of the BOND study.

Cetuximab efficacy and safety in a retrospective cohort of elderly patients with heavily pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Few data are available from clinical trials for elderly patients receiving cetuximab.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The clinical data of consecutive patients aged > or =70 years given cetuximab for metastatic CRC were retrospectively captured from hospital pharmacy registries in seven centers.

RESULTS

Fifty-six patients received cetuximab+/-with irinotecan. Median age was 76 years (70-84), 86% of patients were pretreated with fluoropyrimidines, irinotecan and oxaliplatin and 69.6% had documented resistance to irinotecan. Objective response rate was 21% (95% CI: 11-32%). The median progression-free survival was 4.4 months (95% CI: 3.0-5.7 months) and the median overall survival was 16.0 months (95% CI: 13.5-18.5 months). Skin rash occurred in 75% of the patients (11% grade 3) and diarrhea in 80% (20% grades 3-4).

CONCLUSION

Tolerability of cetuximab was acceptable in elderly patients with pretreated metastatic CRC. Efficacy appeared similar to that observed in younger patients.

Circulating VEGF reduction, response and outcome in advanced colorectal cancer patients treated with cetuximab plus irinotecan

OBJECTIVE

We designed this trial to investigate if modifications in levels of circulating vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) may be related to clinical response and outcome in advanced colorectal cancer patients during treatment with a weekly combination of cetuximab plus irinotecan.

METHODS

A total of 45 heavily pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer patients were prospectively evaluated for circulating levels of VEGF during the treatment with cetuximab plus weekly irinotecan. VEGF circulating levels were assessed at the following time points: just before and at 1, 21, 50 and 92 days after the start of cetuximab plus irinotecan treatment.

RESULTS

Basal VEGF median levels were significantly decreased just 1 day after the first anticancer infusion (p = 0.016) and reached the highest statistical significance 92 days after the first infusion (p < 0.0001). A total of 22 patients showed a reduction in median VEGF circulating levels of at least 50% 92 days after the first infusion with respect to the basal time point. For patients with at least a 50% reduction in VEGF levels, the response rate was 45.5% compared with 8.7% in the nonreduced VEGF group (p = 0.014). The median time to progression was 6 months in the reduced VEGF group versus 3.9 months in the other patients (p < 0.0001). In addition, overall survival was longer in patients with VEGF reduction (11.0 months) than in patients without (9.6 months; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

These data represent the first evidence that suggests a role of VEGF reduction in the prediction of efficacy of treatment with cetuximab plus weekly irinotecan in heavily pretreated advanced colorectal cancer patients.

Third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The past years' therapy for colorectal cancer has evolved rapidly with the introduction of novel cytotoxic agents such as irinotecan, capecitabine and oxaliplatin. Further advances have been achieved with the integration of targeted agents such as bevacizumab, cetuximab and recently, panitumumab. As a result, third-line treatment is now a necessary step in the optimal treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a literature review of English language publications on third-line therapy for MCRC from January 2000 to April 2007. Data on median overall survival (mOS), median time to progression (mTTP) and response rate were recorded.

RESULTS

We found 27 articles and 22 abstracts to fulfil the criteria. Patients who received regimens containing oxaliplatin and infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) demonstrated mTTP up to 7 months and a mOS of 16 months. With irinotecan and 5-FU, mOS around 8 months were reported and with cetuximab combined with irinotecan, the highest mOS was 9.8 months.

CONCLUSION

Third-line therapy in advanced colorectal cancer may improve mOS for patients with MCRC. Therefore, randomized studies should be conducted in the future.

The new era in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer patients: the role of monoclonal antibodies

Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents a major health problem in the Western world. Approximately 60% of patients with CRC require systemic therapy for metastatic disease, either at diagnosis or at disease recurrence. Until recently, classic chemotherapeutic agents have been combined in the treatment of advanced CRC. The recent considerable development of novel monoclonal antibodies that target key components of biological pathways has expanded the options to treat advanced CRC patients. These newer agents more specifically target unique features of the cancer cell and its surroundings and so attempt to exploit the progress that has been made in the understanding of basic cell biology. Two targets in particular--the process of new blood vessel development, or angiogenesis, and the EGF receptor and its signalling pathway--are exploited by the newest monoclonal antibodies available for use in this setting. This clinical review focuses on the defining role of the two most clinically advanced novel agents, bevacizumab and cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer.