Efficacy and Safety of Cetuximab Dosing (biweekly vs weekly) in Patients with KRAS Wild-type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis.
KRAS wild-type
biweekly
cetuximab
colorectal cancer
meta-analysis
Journal
The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 05 2022
06 05 2022
Historique:
received:
21
07
2021
accepted:
17
09
2021
entrez:
6
5
2022
pubmed:
7
5
2022
medline:
11
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cetuximab 500 mg/m2 biweekly (Q2W) plus chemotherapy is commonly used and recommended by NCCN guidelines. This meta-analysis compares efficacy and safety between Q2W versus weekly (Q1W) cetuximab dosing. A systematic literature review was performed on Pubmed and RightFind (2007-2017) for patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC who received Q2W or Q1W cetuximab and other treatments. Observational studies and case reports were excluded. Randomized trials comparing Q2W and Q1W dosing, and single-arm trials with only Q2W schedule were included. CRYSTAL, a phase 3 randomized study with Q1W cetuximab dosing was paired with each single-arm study with a Q2W schedule and reweighted to achieve similar demographic/baseline characteristics. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) with hazard ratios (HR), overall response rate (ORR) with odds ratios, and risk difference of adverse events of special interest (AESI) between Q2W versus Q1W cetuximab were analyzed. Five phase 2 studies with cetuximab Q2W/Q1W dosing schedules were identified: CECOG (phase 2; Q2W, n = 77; Q1W, n = 75), NORDIC 7.5 (phase 2; Q2W, n = 152) and NORDIC 7 (arm C of phase 3; Q1W, n = 109), CELINE (n = 60), OPTIMIX (n = 99), and APEC (n = 289) all phase 2, Q2W, single-arm studies paired with CRYSTAL Q1W dosing (n = 303). Efficacy was similar between Q2W versus Q1W administration; OS HR = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.89, 1.04]; PFS HR = 0.96, 95% CI [0.87, 1.05]; ORR odds ratio 1.16, 95% CI [0.96, 1.41]. Mean differences (Q2W-Q1W) across AESI rates were not clinically meaningful with no obvious directionality. This meta-analysis demonstrated no significant differences in efficacy and safety between Q2W versus Q1W cetuximab administration in mCRC patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Cetuximab 500 mg/m2 biweekly (Q2W) plus chemotherapy is commonly used and recommended by NCCN guidelines. This meta-analysis compares efficacy and safety between Q2W versus weekly (Q1W) cetuximab dosing.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed on Pubmed and RightFind (2007-2017) for patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC who received Q2W or Q1W cetuximab and other treatments. Observational studies and case reports were excluded. Randomized trials comparing Q2W and Q1W dosing, and single-arm trials with only Q2W schedule were included. CRYSTAL, a phase 3 randomized study with Q1W cetuximab dosing was paired with each single-arm study with a Q2W schedule and reweighted to achieve similar demographic/baseline characteristics. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) with hazard ratios (HR), overall response rate (ORR) with odds ratios, and risk difference of adverse events of special interest (AESI) between Q2W versus Q1W cetuximab were analyzed.
RESULTS
Five phase 2 studies with cetuximab Q2W/Q1W dosing schedules were identified: CECOG (phase 2; Q2W, n = 77; Q1W, n = 75), NORDIC 7.5 (phase 2; Q2W, n = 152) and NORDIC 7 (arm C of phase 3; Q1W, n = 109), CELINE (n = 60), OPTIMIX (n = 99), and APEC (n = 289) all phase 2, Q2W, single-arm studies paired with CRYSTAL Q1W dosing (n = 303). Efficacy was similar between Q2W versus Q1W administration; OS HR = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.89, 1.04]; PFS HR = 0.96, 95% CI [0.87, 1.05]; ORR odds ratio 1.16, 95% CI [0.96, 1.41]. Mean differences (Q2W-Q1W) across AESI rates were not clinically meaningful with no obvious directionality.
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis demonstrated no significant differences in efficacy and safety between Q2W versus Q1W cetuximab administration in mCRC patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35522557
pii: 6532249
doi: 10.1093/oncolo/oyab030
pmc: PMC9074967
doi:
Substances chimiques
KRAS protein, human
0
Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)
EC 3.6.5.2
Cetuximab
PQX0D8J21J
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
371-379Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.
Références
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Oct;17(10):1426-1434
pubmed: 27575024
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Feb 01;12:9
pubmed: 22297116
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 3;10:ED000142
pubmed: 31643080
N Engl J Med. 2009 Apr 2;360(14):1408-17
pubmed: 19339720
Eur J Cancer. 2014 Aug;50(12):2020-36
pubmed: 24928190
Evid Based Ment Health. 2019 Nov;22(4):153-160
pubmed: 31563865
Oncol Lett. 2017 Feb;13(2):747-753
pubmed: 28356954
Ann Oncol. 2006 Mar;17(3):450-6
pubmed: 16303861
J Clin Oncol. 2008 May 10;26(14):2311-9
pubmed: 18390971
Am Fam Physician. 2008 Feb 1;77(3):311-9
pubmed: 18297955
Ann Oncol. 2010 Jul;21(7):1537-1545
pubmed: 19940007
Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2016 Dec;15(4):329-336
pubmed: 27507128
Res Synth Methods. 2010 Apr;1(2):97-111
pubmed: 26061376
BMC Cancer. 2014 Nov 22;14:865
pubmed: 25417182
Ann Oncol. 2013 Jul;24(7):1769-1777
pubmed: 23559149
Med Decis Making. 2018 Feb;38(2):200-211
pubmed: 28823204
Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2017 Jun;16(2):e73-e88
pubmed: 27780749
N Engl J Med. 2004 Jul 22;351(4):337-45
pubmed: 15269313
Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2015 Sep;14(3):170-6
pubmed: 25956187
Br J Cancer. 2008 Aug 5;99(3):455-8
pubmed: 18665167
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Nov 20;25(33):5225-32
pubmed: 18024868
J Clin Oncol. 2018 Oct 20;36(30):3031-3039
pubmed: 30199311