Withholding the Introduction of Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor: Impact on Outcomes in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Tumors: A Multicenter AGEO Study (the WAIT or ACT Study).
Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor
Bevacizumab
Metastatic colorectal cancer
RAS status
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2020
02 2020
Historique:
received:
29
04
2019
accepted:
21
08
2019
entrez:
12
2
2020
pubmed:
12
2
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patients with RAS wild-type (WT) nonresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) may receive either bevacizumab or an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) combined with first-line, 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. Without the RAS status information, the oncologist can either start chemotherapy with bevacizumab or wait for the introduction of the anti-EGFR. Our objective was to compare both strategies in a routine practice setting. This multicenter, retrospective, propensity score-weighted study included patients with a RAS WT nonresectable mCRC, treated between 2013 and 2016 by a 5-FU-based chemotherapy, with either delayed anti-EGFR or immediate anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Primary criterion was overall survival (OS). Secondary criteria were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). A total of 262 patients (129 in the anti-VEGF group and 133 in the anti-EGFR group) were included. Patients receiving an anti-VEGF were more often men (68% vs. 56%), with more metastatic sites (>2 sites: 15% vs. 9%). The median delay to obtain the RAS status was 19 days (interquartile range: 13-26). Median OS was not significantly different in the two groups (29 vs. 30.5 months, p = .299), even after weighting on the propensity score (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-1.08, p = .2024). The delayed introduction of anti-EGFR was associated with better median PFS (13.8 vs. 11.0 months, p = .0244), even after weighting on the propensity score (HR = 0.74, 95% CI, 0.61-0.90, p = .0024). ORR was significantly higher in the anti-EGFR group (66.7% vs. 45.6%, p = .0007). Delayed introduction of anti-EGFR had no deleterious effect on OS, PFS, and ORR, compared with doublet chemotherapy with anti-VEGF. For RAS/RAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, patients may receive 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy plus either bevacizumab or an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). In daily practice, the time to obtain the RAS status might be long enough to consider two options: to start the chemotherapy with bevacizumab, or to start without a targeted therapy and to add the anti-EGFR at reception of the RAS status. This study found no deleterious effect of the delayed introduction of an anti-EGFR on survival, compared with the introduction of an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor from cycle 1. It is possible to wait one or two cycles to introduce the anti-EGFR while waiting for RAS status.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Patients with RAS wild-type (WT) nonresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) may receive either bevacizumab or an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) combined with first-line, 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. Without the RAS status information, the oncologist can either start chemotherapy with bevacizumab or wait for the introduction of the anti-EGFR. Our objective was to compare both strategies in a routine practice setting.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This multicenter, retrospective, propensity score-weighted study included patients with a RAS WT nonresectable mCRC, treated between 2013 and 2016 by a 5-FU-based chemotherapy, with either delayed anti-EGFR or immediate anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Primary criterion was overall survival (OS). Secondary criteria were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR).
RESULTS
A total of 262 patients (129 in the anti-VEGF group and 133 in the anti-EGFR group) were included. Patients receiving an anti-VEGF were more often men (68% vs. 56%), with more metastatic sites (>2 sites: 15% vs. 9%). The median delay to obtain the RAS status was 19 days (interquartile range: 13-26). Median OS was not significantly different in the two groups (29 vs. 30.5 months, p = .299), even after weighting on the propensity score (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-1.08, p = .2024). The delayed introduction of anti-EGFR was associated with better median PFS (13.8 vs. 11.0 months, p = .0244), even after weighting on the propensity score (HR = 0.74, 95% CI, 0.61-0.90, p = .0024). ORR was significantly higher in the anti-EGFR group (66.7% vs. 45.6%, p = .0007).
CONCLUSION
Delayed introduction of anti-EGFR had no deleterious effect on OS, PFS, and ORR, compared with doublet chemotherapy with anti-VEGF.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
For RAS/RAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, patients may receive 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy plus either bevacizumab or an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). In daily practice, the time to obtain the RAS status might be long enough to consider two options: to start the chemotherapy with bevacizumab, or to start without a targeted therapy and to add the anti-EGFR at reception of the RAS status. This study found no deleterious effect of the delayed introduction of an anti-EGFR on survival, compared with the introduction of an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor from cycle 1. It is possible to wait one or two cycles to introduce the anti-EGFR while waiting for RAS status.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32043796
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0328
pmc: PMC7011620
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Monoclonal
0
Bevacizumab
2S9ZZM9Q9V
Fluorouracil
U3P01618RT
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e266-e275Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of AlphaMed Press.
Références
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Jul 12;4(7):e173695
pubmed: 29167892
Cancer Res. 2006 Apr 15;66(8):3992-5
pubmed: 16618717
CA Cancer J Clin. 2019 Jan;69(1):7-34
pubmed: 30620402
Ann Oncol. 2017 Jun 1;28(6):1325-1332
pubmed: 28419195
CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424
pubmed: 30207593
Eur J Cancer. 2013 Jun;49(9):2126-33
pubmed: 23473612
Eur J Cancer. 2017 Jan;70:87-98
pubmed: 27907852
Dig Liver Dis. 2018 May;50(5):507-512
pubmed: 29396127
JAMA. 2017 Jun 20;317(23):2392-2401
pubmed: 28632865
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Oct;17(10):1426-1434
pubmed: 27575024
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Sep;15(10):1065-75
pubmed: 25088940
Ann Oncol. 2018 May 1;29(5):1211-1219
pubmed: 29438522
Target Oncol. 2018 Dec;13(6):735-743
pubmed: 30353488
Ann Oncol. 2018 Jan 1;29(1):112-118
pubmed: 28950295
Ann Oncol. 2016 Aug;27(8):1386-422
pubmed: 27380959
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Jul 20;32(21):2240-7
pubmed: 24687833
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jan 20;26(3):374-9
pubmed: 18202412
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Jan 10;34(2):179-85
pubmed: 26438111
Ann Oncol. 2017 Aug 1;28(8):1713-1729
pubmed: 28407110
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016 Dec 31;109(5):
pubmed: 28040692
N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 12;369(11):1023-34
pubmed: 24024839