Cetuximab for the treatment of colorectal cancer.

Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 54.42). 11/2007; 357(20):2040-8. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa071834
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Cetuximab, an IgG1 chimeric monoclonal antibody against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), has activity against colorectal cancers that express EGFR.
From December 2003 to August 2005, 572 patients who had colorectal cancer expressing immunohistochemically detectable EGFR and who had been previously treated with a fluoropyrimidine, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin or had contraindications to treatment with these drugs underwent randomization to an initial dose of 400 mg of cetuximab per square meter of body-surface area followed by a weekly infusion of 250 mg per square meter plus best supportive care (287 patients) or best supportive care alone (285 patients). The primary end point was overall survival.
In comparison with best supportive care alone, cetuximab treatment was associated with a significant improvement in overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.92; P=0.005) and in progression-free survival (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.80; P<0.001). These benefits were robust after adjustment in a multivariable Cox proportional-hazards model. The median overall survival was 6.1 months in the cetuximab group and 4.6 months in the group assigned to supportive care alone. Partial responses occurred in 23 patients (8.0%) in the cetuximab group but in none in the group assigned to supportive care alone (P<0.001); the disease was stable in an additional 31.4% of patients assigned to cetuximab and in 10.9% of patients assigned to supportive care alone (P<0.001). Quality of life was better preserved in the cetuximab group, with less deterioration in physical function and global health status scores (both P<0.05). Cetuximab treatment was associated with a characteristic rash; a rash of grade 2 or higher was strongly associated with improved survival (hazard ratio for death, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.50; P<0.001). The incidence of any adverse event of grade 3 or higher was 78.5% in the cetuximab group and 59.1% in the group assigned to supportive care alone (P<0.001).
Cetuximab improves overall survival and progression-free survival and preserves quality-of-life measures in patients with colorectal cancer in whom other treatments have failed. ( number, NCT00079066 [].).

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We compared the performance of the 3D-Gene® mutation assay (3D-Gene® KRAS mutation assay kit) with the Scorpion-ARMS (therascreen® KRAS RGQ PCR Kit) and Luminex (MEBGEN™ KRAS kit) assays for the detection of KRAS mutations in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue samples from 150 patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer. DNA was extracted from the paraffin-embedded tissue samples with or without macrodissection under hematoxylin and eosin staining and the KRAS mutation status was independently determined using these assays. Discordant results were re-analyzed by Sanger sequencing. Mutation detection analysis was successfully performed in all 150 specimens using the 3D-Gene® mutation assay without an invalid case. The concordance rate between the 3D-Gene® mutation assay and Scorpion-ARMS or Luminex was 98.7% (148/150). KRAS mutations were detected at a frequency of 35.3% (53/150) in colorectal cancer specimens. Three discrepant cases were found between the three assays. Overall, our results demonstrate a high concordance rate of between the 3D-Gene® mutation assay and the two existing in-vitro diagnostics kits. All three assays proved to be validated methods for detecting clinically significant KRAS mutations in paraffin-embedded tissue samples.
    SpringerPlus 01/2015; 4:7.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Until recently, systemic therapy for gastrointestinal malignancies was restricted to relatively noncancer-specific cytotoxic chemotherapy. Over the last 15 years targeted therapies have become available, most notably bevacizumab in the case of advanced colorectal cancer. Unfortunately, there are no predictive biomarkers to guide the use of this agent. In this review article, we describe the advent of "Precision Medicine" (in part, the use of patient-specific molecular markers to inform treatment) in gastrointestinal cancers: The use of monoclonal antibodies targeting epidermal growth factor receptor in advanced colorectal cancer, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-neu in advanced esophagogastric cancer. In both instances, biomarkers help in selecting appropriate patients for such treatment.
    Journal of Carcinogenesis 01/2014; 13:13.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ten years after completion of the Human Genome Project, progress towards making "personalized medicine" a reality has been slower than expected. The reason is twofold. Firstly, the science is more difficult than expected. Secondly, limited progress has been made in aligning economic incentives to invest in diagnostics. This paper develops nine case studies of "success" where diagnostic tests are bringing personalized medicine into clinical practice with health and economic impact for patients, healthcare systems, and manufacturers. We focus on the availability of evidence for clinical utility, which is important not only for clinicians but also for payers and budget holders. We find that demonstrating diagnostic clinical utility and the development of economic evidence is currently feasible (i) through drug-diagnostic co-development, and (ii) when the research is sponsored by payers and public bodies. It is less clear whether the diagnostic industry can routinely undertake the work necessary to provide evidence as to the clinical utility and economic value of its products. It would be good public policy to increase the economic incentives to produce evidence of clinical utility: otherwise, opportunities to generate value from personalized medicine-in terms of both cost savings and health gains-may be lost.
    Journal of personalized medicine. 01/2013; 3(4):288-305.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 27, 2014