Encorafenib plus cetuximab treatment in BRAF V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer patients pre-treated with an anti-EGFR: An AGEO-GONO case series.
Anti-EGFRs
BRAF V600E mutation
BRAF inhibitors
Metastatic colon cancer
Journal
European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990)
ISSN: 1879-0852
Titre abrégé: Eur J Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9005373
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2022
06 2022
Historique:
received:
08
11
2021
revised:
25
02
2022
accepted:
13
03
2022
pubmed:
19
4
2022
medline:
18
5
2022
entrez:
18
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Encorafenib plus cetuximab is efficient in anti-EGFR-naïve patients with BRAF We retrospectively collected a series of patients with BRAFm mCRC treated with B + E after previous anti-EGFR treatment, in 14 centers. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the start of treatment, and we reported objective response and disease control rates (ORR, DCR; RECIST V1.1). Twenty-five BRAFm mCRC patients were enrolled. Prior to B + E treatment, 4/10/11 patients were treated with 1/2/> 2 previous treatment lines. Ten patients received previous panitumumab, 14 cetuximab, 1 both. Immediate progression with previous anti-EGFR was reported for 7 patients. Anti-BRAF was encorafenib for 21 patients, dabrafenib for 4 patients, with cetuximab for 24 patients and panitumumab for 1 patient. ORR was 40% (10 patients) and DCR was 80% (20 patients). Median PFS and OS were 4.8 months (95% CI, 4.01-7.95) and 10.1 months (95% CI, 7.75-NR). DCR amongst patients with previous primary resistance to anti-EGFR (N = 7) was 100%. Two patients discontinued B + E due to drug-related adverse event. Though in a limited retrospective series of patients, these results show the efficacy of the combination of anti-BRAF and anti-EGFRs in BRAFm mCRC patients previously treated with an anti-EGFR. The use of this combination should thus not be ruled out in this population with limited therapeutic options.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Encorafenib plus cetuximab is efficient in anti-EGFR-naïve patients with BRAF
METHODS
We retrospectively collected a series of patients with BRAFm mCRC treated with B + E after previous anti-EGFR treatment, in 14 centers. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the start of treatment, and we reported objective response and disease control rates (ORR, DCR; RECIST V1.1).
RESULTS
Twenty-five BRAFm mCRC patients were enrolled. Prior to B + E treatment, 4/10/11 patients were treated with 1/2/> 2 previous treatment lines. Ten patients received previous panitumumab, 14 cetuximab, 1 both. Immediate progression with previous anti-EGFR was reported for 7 patients. Anti-BRAF was encorafenib for 21 patients, dabrafenib for 4 patients, with cetuximab for 24 patients and panitumumab for 1 patient. ORR was 40% (10 patients) and DCR was 80% (20 patients). Median PFS and OS were 4.8 months (95% CI, 4.01-7.95) and 10.1 months (95% CI, 7.75-NR). DCR amongst patients with previous primary resistance to anti-EGFR (N = 7) was 100%. Two patients discontinued B + E due to drug-related adverse event.
CONCLUSIONS
Though in a limited retrospective series of patients, these results show the efficacy of the combination of anti-BRAF and anti-EGFRs in BRAFm mCRC patients previously treated with an anti-EGFR. The use of this combination should thus not be ruled out in this population with limited therapeutic options.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35436675
pii: S0959-8049(22)00155-1
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.03.011
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Carbamates
0
Sulfonamides
0
Panitumumab
6A901E312A
encorafenib
8L7891MRB6
BRAF protein, human
EC 2.7.11.1
Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf
EC 2.7.11.1
Cetuximab
PQX0D8J21J
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
34-40Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships that may be considered as potential competing interests: Alexandra LAPEYRE-PROST: Merck, Amgen, Sanofi, Servier, Mundi, Pharma. Thierry LECOMTE: Advisory board: AMGEN, Servier, SANOFI, Merck Serono; Honoraria: AMGEN, Servier, SANOFI, Pierre FABRE, ASTRA ZENECA, IPSEN. Mario SCARTOZZI: Honoraria as a speaker and/or in an advisory role from MSD, BMS, Merck KGaA, Sanofi, Servier, EISAI, Astra Zeneca, Servier, AMGEN. Emilie SOULARUE: Honoraria in an advisory role from Servier. Claire GALLOIS: consulting and/or advisory boards for Servier and Sanofi, and has received support for travel to meetings from Amgen. David TOUGERON: Honoraria as a speaker and/or in an advisory role from Merck KGaA, Sanofi, Roche Genentech, MSD, BMS, Astra Zeneca, Servier, Pierre Fabre, Sandoz and Amgen. Ludovic EVESQUE: Honoraria from Merck, Servier. Chiara CREMOLINI: consultant/speaker bureau: Roche, Merck, Pierre Fabre, Teysuno, Amgen, Bayer, Servier and Research grant: Roche, Merck, Bayer, Servier. Julien TAIEB: Honoraria as a speaker and/or in an advisory role from Merck KGaA, Sanofi, Roche Genentech, MSD, Astra Zeneca, Servier, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, HallioDx and Amgen. Emilie HAFLIGER, Alessandra BOCCACCINO, Audrey PERRET, Maria ANTISTA, Lorenzo PILLA, Lisa SALVATORE, Vincent BOURGEOIS, Massimiliano SALATI, Jean-Nicolas VAILLANT, Reem EL-KHOURY, Sara LONARDI: None declared.