Phase II Study of Panitumumab Monotherapy in Chemotherapy-Naïve Frail or Elderly Patients with Unresectable RAS Wild-Type Colorectal Cancer: OGSG 1602.
Colorectal cancer
Elderly patients
OGSG1602
Panitumumab
RAS wild-type
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
received:
19
06
2020
accepted:
30
08
2020
pubmed:
13
9
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
entrez:
12
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Panitumumab monotherapy showed favorable efficacy and feasibility in the treatment of frail or elderly patients with RAS wild-type unresectable colorectal cancer. It is especially effective for left-sided tumors; therefore, panitumumab as first-line treatment could be an additional therapeutic option for frail elderly patients, particularly in those who are unsuitable for upfront oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based combination regimens. First-line panitumumab monotherapy is expected to be well tolerated and improve survival in patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. However, its safety and efficacy in chemotherapy-naïve frail or elderly patients with unresectable RAS wild-type (WT) colorectal cancer (CRC) have not been studied. The aim of this phase II trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of panitumumab as first-line treatment. We conducted a multicenter phase II study on patients aged ≥76 years or ≥65 years considered unsuitable for intensive chemotherapy. Panitumumab 6 mg/kg of intravenous infusion was administered every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), time to treatment failure (TTF), and incidence of grade 3 or 4 toxicities. Thirty-six patients (median age: 81 [range, 67-88] years) were enrolled between February 2017 and August 2018. Two patients were excluded from the analysis of efficacy: one from lack of image examination at baseline and the other from lack of a measurable lesion. Thirty-three (91.6%) patients had a performance status (PS) of 0 or 1, whereas two (5.6%) patients and one (2.8%) patient had a PS of 2 and 3, respectively. Twenty-eight patients (77.8%) had left-sided CRC, whereas eight (22.2%) had right-sided CRC. The RR was 50.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.4-67.6), including three patients (8.8%) who had complete responses. A total of 26.5% had stable diseases, resulting in a DCR of 76.5% (90% CI, 61.5-87.7). The RR of patients with left- and right-sided tumors was 65.4% (95% CI, 44.3-82.8) and 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0-36.9), respectively. Major grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic toxicities were rash (n = 6, 16.7%), hypomagnesemia (n = 4, 11.1%), fatigue (n = 3, 8.3%), paronychia (n = 2, 5.6%), and hyponatremia (n = 2, 5.6%). The only grade 3 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia (n = 1, 2.8%). Panitumumab monotherapy showed favorable efficacy and feasibility in frail or elderly patients with RAS WT unresectable CRC. Survival analysis including OS, PFS, and TTF is currently in progress.
Sections du résumé
LESSONS LEARNED
Panitumumab monotherapy showed favorable efficacy and feasibility in the treatment of frail or elderly patients with RAS wild-type unresectable colorectal cancer. It is especially effective for left-sided tumors; therefore, panitumumab as first-line treatment could be an additional therapeutic option for frail elderly patients, particularly in those who are unsuitable for upfront oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based combination regimens.
BACKGROUND
First-line panitumumab monotherapy is expected to be well tolerated and improve survival in patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. However, its safety and efficacy in chemotherapy-naïve frail or elderly patients with unresectable RAS wild-type (WT) colorectal cancer (CRC) have not been studied. The aim of this phase II trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of panitumumab as first-line treatment.
METHODS
We conducted a multicenter phase II study on patients aged ≥76 years or ≥65 years considered unsuitable for intensive chemotherapy. Panitumumab 6 mg/kg of intravenous infusion was administered every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), response rate (RR), time to treatment failure (TTF), and incidence of grade 3 or 4 toxicities.
RESULTS
Thirty-six patients (median age: 81 [range, 67-88] years) were enrolled between February 2017 and August 2018. Two patients were excluded from the analysis of efficacy: one from lack of image examination at baseline and the other from lack of a measurable lesion. Thirty-three (91.6%) patients had a performance status (PS) of 0 or 1, whereas two (5.6%) patients and one (2.8%) patient had a PS of 2 and 3, respectively. Twenty-eight patients (77.8%) had left-sided CRC, whereas eight (22.2%) had right-sided CRC. The RR was 50.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.4-67.6), including three patients (8.8%) who had complete responses. A total of 26.5% had stable diseases, resulting in a DCR of 76.5% (90% CI, 61.5-87.7). The RR of patients with left- and right-sided tumors was 65.4% (95% CI, 44.3-82.8) and 0.0% (95% CI, 0.0-36.9), respectively. Major grade 3 or 4 nonhematologic toxicities were rash (n = 6, 16.7%), hypomagnesemia (n = 4, 11.1%), fatigue (n = 3, 8.3%), paronychia (n = 2, 5.6%), and hyponatremia (n = 2, 5.6%). The only grade 3 hematologic toxicity was neutropenia (n = 1, 2.8%).
CONCLUSION
Panitumumab monotherapy showed favorable efficacy and feasibility in frail or elderly patients with RAS WT unresectable CRC. Survival analysis including OS, PFS, and TTF is currently in progress.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32918848
doi: 10.1002/ONCO.13523
pmc: PMC7794186
doi:
Substances chimiques
Oxaliplatin
04ZR38536J
Panitumumab
6A901E312A
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
17-e47Informations de copyright
© AlphaMed Press; the data published online to support this summary are the property of the authors.
Références
Eur J Cancer. 2017 Jan;70:87-98
pubmed: 27907852
Lancet Oncol. 2013 Oct;14(11):1077-1085
pubmed: 24028813
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Sep;15(10):1065-75
pubmed: 25088940
Int J Cancer. 2013 May 1;132(9):2157-63
pubmed: 23015513
Ann Oncol. 2017 Aug 1;28(8):1862-1868
pubmed: 28449055
Int J Cancer. 2019 Apr 15;144(8):1941-1953
pubmed: 30350310
Ann Oncol. 2017 Aug 1;28(8):2030-2031
pubmed: 28475674
Eur J Cancer. 2010 Oct;46(15):2681-95
pubmed: 20570136
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Jul 20;32(21):2240-7
pubmed: 24687833
Lancet. 2011 May 21;377(9779):1749-59
pubmed: 21570111
Cancer Cell. 2018 Jan 8;33(1):125-136.e3
pubmed: 29316426
Cancer. 2009 Oct 15;115(20):4679-87
pubmed: 19562777
Ann Oncol. 2015 Mar;26(3):463-76
pubmed: 25015334
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jun 1;33(16):1809-24
pubmed: 25918280
Eur J Cancer. 2015 Jul;51(11):1371-80
pubmed: 25963019
Prev Chronic Dis. 2018 Aug 23;15:E106
pubmed: 30148425
Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2006;117:147-55; discussion 155-6
pubmed: 18528470
Gerontology. 2010;56(3):303-9
pubmed: 19940466
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Aug 1;27(22):3677-83
pubmed: 19470929
Oncologist. 2015 Nov;20(11):1261-5
pubmed: 26446234
Ann Oncol. 2017 Aug 1;28(8):1713-1729
pubmed: 28407110