Rechallenge for Patients With RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer With Acquired Resistance to First-line Cetuximab and Irinotecan: A Phase 2 Single-Arm Clinical Trial.
Aged
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ adverse effects
Biomarkers, Tumor
/ genetics
Cetuximab
/ administration & dosage
Colorectal Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Disease Progression
Drug Resistance, Neoplasm
Female
Genes, ras
Humans
Irinotecan
/ administration & dosage
Italy
Male
Middle Aged
Progression-Free Survival
Prospective Studies
Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf
/ genetics
Risk Factors
Time Factors
Journal
JAMA oncology
ISSN: 2374-2445
Titre abrégé: JAMA Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101652861
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 03 2019
01 03 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
27
11
2018
medline:
20
12
2019
entrez:
27
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Based on a small retrospective study, rechallenge with cetuximab-based therapy for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who were previously treated with the same anti-epidermal growth factor receptor-based regimen might be efficacious. Recent data suggest the role of liquid biopsy as a tool to track molecular events in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). To prospectively assess the activity of cetuximab plus irinotecan as third-line treatment for patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC who were initially sensitive to and then resistant to first-line irinotecan- and cetuximab-based therapy. Multicenter phase 2 single-arm trial conducted from January 7, 2015, to June 19, 2017. Liquid biopsies for analysis of ctDNA were collected at baseline. Main eligibility criteria included RAS and BRAF wild-type status on tissue samples; prior first-line irinotecan- and cetuximab-based regimen with at least partial response, progression-free survival of at least 6 months with first-line therapy, and progression within 4 weeks after last dose of cetuximab; and prior second-line oxaliplatin- and bevacizumab-based treatment. Biweekly cetuximab, 500 mg/m2, plus irinotecan, 180 mg/m2. Overall response rate according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Secondary end points included progression-free survival and overall survival and, as an exploratory analysis, RAS mutations in ctDNA. Twenty-eight patients (9 women and 19 men; median age, 69 years [range, 45-79 years]) were enrolled. Six partial responses (4 confirmed) and 9 disease stabilizations were reported (response rate, 21%; 95% CI, 10%-40%; disease control rate, 54%; 95% CI, 36%-70%). Primary end point was met because lower limit of 95% CI of response rate was higher than 5%. RAS mutations were found in ctDNA collected at rechallenge baseline in 12 of 25 evaluable patients (48%). No RAS mutations were detected in samples from patients who achieved confirmed partial response. Patients with RAS wild-type ctDNA had significantly longer progression-free survival than those with RAS mutated ctDNA (median progression-free survival, 4.0 vs 1.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.18-0.98; P = .03). This is the first prospective demonstration that a rechallenge strategy with cetuximab and irinotecan may be active in patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC with acquired resistance to first-line irinotecan- and cetuximab-based therapy. The evaluation of RAS mutational status on ctDNA might be helpful in selecting candidate patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02296203.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30476968
pii: 2716075
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.5080
pmc: PMC6439839
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Irinotecan
7673326042
BRAF protein, human
EC 2.7.11.1
Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf
EC 2.7.11.1
Cetuximab
PQX0D8J21J
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02296203']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase II
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
343-350Références
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Feb 1;36(4):350-358
pubmed: 29215955
Cancer Med. 2016 Jun;5(6):1204-13
pubmed: 27062580
Mol Oncol. 2014 Sep 12;8(6):1095-111
pubmed: 25087573
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Jun;16(6):619-29
pubmed: 25981818
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Mar 10;36(8):773-779
pubmed: 29355075
JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191-4
pubmed: 24141714
Clin Cancer Res. 2015 May 1;21(9):2157-66
pubmed: 25623215
Biometrics. 1982 Mar;38(1):143-51
pubmed: 7082756
Lancet Oncol. 2017 Sep;18(9):1182-1191
pubmed: 28734759
Ann Oncol. 2016 Aug;27(8):1386-422
pubmed: 27380959
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Nov 12;108(1):
pubmed: 26563355
Brief Bioinform. 2013 Mar;14(2):178-92
pubmed: 22517427
N Engl J Med. 2015 May 14;372(20):1909-19
pubmed: 25970050
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
Cancer Discov. 2017 Apr;7(4):400-409
pubmed: 28183697
Cancer Discov. 2016 Feb;6(2):147-153
pubmed: 26644315
Nature. 2012 Jun 28;486(7404):537-40
pubmed: 22722843
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 May 15;23(10):2414-2422
pubmed: 27780856
J Clin Oncol. 2008 May 10;26(14):2311-9
pubmed: 18390971
Stat Med. 2001 Mar 30;20(6):859-66
pubmed: 11252008
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jan 15;22(2):229-37
pubmed: 14657227
Lancet. 2013 Jan 26;381(9863):303-12
pubmed: 23177514
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jun;17(6):738-746
pubmed: 27108243
Nat Med. 2015 Jul;21(7):795-801
pubmed: 26030179
ESMO Open. 2017 Apr 12;2(1):e000147
pubmed: 28761730
Clin Cancer Res. 2017 Aug 15;23(16):4602-4616
pubmed: 28424201
Nucleic Acids Res. 2017 Jan 4;45(D1):D777-D783
pubmed: 27899578
Nature. 2012 Jun 28;486(7404):532-6
pubmed: 22722830
Br J Cancer. 2017 Jul 25;117(3):347-352
pubmed: 28654634
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Apr 12;4(4):e175245
pubmed: 29423521
Nat Commun. 2016 Dec 08;7:13665
pubmed: 27929064
Ann Oncol. 2017 Dec 1;28(12):3009-3014
pubmed: 29045518
Ann Oncol. 2012 Sep;23(9):2313-8
pubmed: 22396447