Frequency of S492R mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor: analysis of plasma DNA from patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with panitumumab or cetuximab monotherapy.
Colorectal cancer
anti–epidermal growth factor receptor
cetuximab
gene mutations
panitumumab
resistance
Journal
Cancer biology & therapy
ISSN: 1555-8576
Titre abrégé: Cancer Biol Ther
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101137842
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 10 2020
02 10 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
8
10
2020
medline:
21
10
2021
entrez:
7
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Antibodies against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), panitumumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, and cetuximab, a human/mouse chimeric monoclonal antibody, have shown clinical efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In the phase 3 noninferiority ASPECCT (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01001377) study, panitumumab was demonstrated to be noninferior to cetuximab and provided a similar overall survival benefit for patients with chemotherapy-refractory wild-type This biomarker study analyzed plasma samples from ASPECCT collected at both baseline and posttreatment. No EGFR p.S492R mutations were identified at baseline; however, after treatment the EGFR p.S492R mutation was detected in 1% of patients treated with panitumumab versus 16% of those treated with cetuximab, supporting that, in a large population, this mutation is more likely to be induced by cetuximab than by panitumumab. There were, however, no significant differences in progression-free survival or overall survival between patients who were wild-type compared with those with the S492R mutation within the cetuximab arm or the overall population. These results may support targeting treatment to small patient subgroups based on the presence of emerging EGFR mutations and provide a molecular rationale for rechallenging with a different anti-EGFR agent in patients who develop resistance. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of panitumumab in the EGFR p.S492R mutant population.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Antibodies against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), panitumumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody, and cetuximab, a human/mouse chimeric monoclonal antibody, have shown clinical efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In the phase 3 noninferiority ASPECCT (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01001377) study, panitumumab was demonstrated to be noninferior to cetuximab and provided a similar overall survival benefit for patients with chemotherapy-refractory wild-type
METHODS
This biomarker study analyzed plasma samples from ASPECCT collected at both baseline and posttreatment.
RESULTS
No EGFR p.S492R mutations were identified at baseline; however, after treatment the EGFR p.S492R mutation was detected in 1% of patients treated with panitumumab versus 16% of those treated with cetuximab, supporting that, in a large population, this mutation is more likely to be induced by cetuximab than by panitumumab. There were, however, no significant differences in progression-free survival or overall survival between patients who were wild-type compared with those with the S492R mutation within the cetuximab arm or the overall population.
CONCLUSIONS
These results may support targeting treatment to small patient subgroups based on the presence of emerging EGFR mutations and provide a molecular rationale for rechallenging with a different anti-EGFR agent in patients who develop resistance. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of panitumumab in the EGFR p.S492R mutant population.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33026965
doi: 10.1080/15384047.2020.1798695
pmc: PMC7583702
doi:
Substances chimiques
Panitumumab
6A901E312A
EGFR protein, human
EC 2.7.10.1
ErbB Receptors
EC 2.7.10.1
Cetuximab
PQX0D8J21J
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01001377']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
891-898Références
Cancer Biol Ther. 2013 Dec;14(12):1143-6
pubmed: 24025416
Clin Cancer Res. 2018 Nov 15;24(22):5602-5609
pubmed: 29898991
Oncotarget. 2017 Sep 1;8(43):75742-75755
pubmed: 29088906
BMC Cancer. 2015 Oct 16;15:713
pubmed: 26474549
Cancer Res. 2009 Mar 1;69(5):1851-7
pubmed: 19223544
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Mar 1;33(7):692-700
pubmed: 25605843
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013 Aug;10(8):472-84
pubmed: 23836314
Cancer Discov. 2018 Oct;8(10):1270-1285
pubmed: 30166348
Nat Med. 2015 Jul;21(7):795-801
pubmed: 26030179
Nat Med. 2012 Jan 22;18(2):221-3
pubmed: 22270724
Clin Cancer Res. 2011 Dec 15;17(24):7808-15
pubmed: 21976538
Clin Cancer Res. 2019 Feb 15;25(4):1216-1225
pubmed: 30487126
Ann Oncol. 2016 Aug;27(8):1386-422
pubmed: 27380959
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Apr 12;4(4):e175245
pubmed: 29423521
Ann Oncol. 2012 Sep;23(9):2313-2318
pubmed: 22396447
Oncologist. 2017 Jul;22(7):864-872
pubmed: 28576857
Nat Med. 2012 Feb 06;18(2):199-200
pubmed: 22310681
Cancer Discov. 2015 Apr;5(4):358-67
pubmed: 25673644
Clin Cancer Res. 1995 Jan;1(1):19-31
pubmed: 9815883
Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Jun 15;18(12):3462-9
pubmed: 22421194
Clin Cancer Res. 2015 May 1;21(9):2157-66
pubmed: 25623215
N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 12;369(11):1023-34
pubmed: 24024839
Lancet Oncol. 2014 May;15(6):569-79
pubmed: 24739896
Cancer Biol Ther. 2013 Dec;14(12):1098-103
pubmed: 24025413