Cetuximab after bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer: is it the best sequence?

Phase 1b study of AVB-500 in combination with paclitaxel or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

GAS6 and AXL are expressed in high-grade serous ovarian cancer but not in normal ovarian tissue. AVB-500, a novel high affinity Fc-sAXL fusion protein, binds GAS6 preventing AXL signaling. This Phase 1b study (NCT03639246) evaluated safety, efficacy, and exploratory predictive markers of AVB-500 combined with paclitaxel (PAC) or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC), and used a model informed drug development (MIDD) approach for identification of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D).

METHODS

Eligible patients received AVB-500 at 10, 15, or 20 mg/kg IV q2wk combined with PAC (n = 23) or PLD (n = 30). Patients were treated until progression or unacceptable toxicity. All were followed for survival.

RESULTS

No dose limiting toxicities were observed and serum GAS6 was completely suppressed across the three dose levels evaluated. AVB-500 + PAC yielded better clinical activity than AVB-500 + PLD with an ORR of 34.8% (8/23, 2 complete responses) and median DoR, PFS, and OS of 7.0, 3.1, and 10.3 months, respectively. Subgroup analyses showed AVB-500 + PAC patients who had no prior bevacizumab or whose AVB-500 trough levels were >13.8 mg/L exhibited the best clinical response. The ORR and median PFS and OS in patients with these characteristics were ≥50%, ≥7.5 months, and ≥19 months, respectively. Given AVB-500 nor the combination with chemotherapy was expected to cause DLTs, the RP2D of AVB-500 was 15 mg/kg identified using an MIDD approach.

CONCLUSION

AVB-500 was well-tolerated in combination with PAC or PLD and contributed to the clinical activity of PAC in PROC patients. Subgroup analyses identified a population of PROC patients who may benefit the most from AVB-500 treatment, which will be further assessed in an ongoing Phase 3 PROC trial.

MicroRNA-Based Therapeutics for Drug-Resistant Colorectal Cancer

Although therapeutic approaches for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) have improved in the past decades, the problem of drug resistance still persists and acts as a major obstacle for effective therapy. Many studies have shown that drug resistance is related to reduced drug uptake, modification of drug targets, and/or transformation of cell cycle checkpoints. A growing body of evidence indicates that several microRNAs (miRNAs) may contribute to the drug resistance to chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy by regulating the drug resistance-related target genes in CRC. These drug resistance-related miRNAs may be used as promising biomarkers for predicting drug response or as potential therapeutic targets for treating patients with CRC. In this review, we summarized the recent discoveries regarding anti-cancer drug-related miRNAs and their molecular mechanisms in CRC. Furthermore, we discussed the challenges associated with the clinical application of miRNAs as biomarkers for the diagnosis of drug-resistant patients and as therapeutic targets for CRC treatment.

Randomised phase II study of panitumumab plus irinotecan versus cetuximab plus irinotecan in patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to fluoropyrimidine, irinotecan and oxaliplatin (WJOG 6510G)

BACKGROUND

Cetuximab has been shown to be clinically active when given in combination with irinotecan in patients with irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, it has remained unclear whether panitumumab is effective when combined with irinotecan. We compared efficacies of both regimens in this randomised phase II study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with wild-type KRAS exon 2 mCRC previously treated with fluorouracil-, oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based chemotherapies were randomised (1:1) to either panitumumab plus irinotecan (panitumumab arm) or cetuximab plus irinotecan (cetuximab arm). The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). The planned sample size was 120, expecting a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.0 with non-inferiority margin of 1.3 (one-sided alpha error 0.2 and power 0.7). Major secondary end-points were overall survival (OS), response rate and safety.

RESULTS

From December 2011 to September 2014, 121 patients were enrolled, and 61 and 59 patients were randomised to the panitumumab and cetuximab arms, respectively (1 patient excluded). Most patients (97%) had received prior chemotherapies containing bevacizumab. The median PFS was 5.42 months in the panitumumab arm and 4.27 months in the cetuximab arm (HR = 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.44-0.94, P < 0.001 for non-inferiority, P = 0.058 for superiority), and median OS was 14.85 and 11.53 months (HR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.44-1.00, P = 0.050 for superiority), respectively. The incidence of grade 3 or 4 hypomagnesaemia was higher in the panitumumab arm than that in the cetuximab arm (17% vs. 7%).

CONCLUSION

Panitumumab may be non-inferior to cetuximab in combination with irinotecan in survival of patients with irinotecan-refractory mCRC.

Sequential cetuximab/bevacizumab therapy is associated with improved outcomes in patients with wild-type KRAS exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer

Purpose

Combination of biological therapy and chemotherapy improves the survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, the optimal biological therapy sequence remains unclear. In this retrospective study, we evaluated the clinical outcomes of patients with mCRC treated with different sequences of biological therapies as first‐ and third‐line therapy.

Methods

We only included patients with wild‐type KRAS exon 2 mCRC who had received cetuximab, bevacizumab, and standard chemotherapy. The patients were treated with cetuximab or bevacizumab as first‐ or third‐line therapy combined with a similar chemotherapy backbone.

Results

In total, 102 patients were included. Forty‐six patients received first‐line cetuximab therapy followed by third‐line bevacizumab therapy (cetuximab → bevacizumab group) and 56 patients received first‐line bevacizumab therapy followed by third‐line cetuximab therapy (bevacizumab → cetuximab group). The cetuximab → bevacizumab group was associated with increased survival (OS) compared with the bevacizumab → cetuximab group (median OS: 30.4 months vs 25.7 months, hazard ratio (HR): 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36‐0.86). When calculated from the start of second‐ and third‐line therapies, OS was also higher in the cetuximab → bevacizumab group (second‐line: 20.6 months vs 14.8 months, HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.34‐0.81; third‐line: 12.5 months vs 9.9 months, HR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.35‐0.83). The cetuximab → bevacizumab group was also associated with better progression‐free survival than the bevacizumab → cetuximab group (8.8 vs 4.5 months, HR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.25‐0.58) in the third‐line setting, but not in the first‐ or second‐line settings.

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated that first‐line cetuximab therapy followed by third‐line bevacizumab therapy was associated with favorable clinical outcomes as compared to the reverse sequence.

Optimizing sequential treatment with anti-EGFR and VEGF mAb in metastatic colorectal cancer: current results and controversies

Anti-EGFR mAb (cetuximab or panitumumab) and anti-VEGF mAb (bevacizumab) are the two main targeted agents available for RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatment. Nonetheless, three head-to-head clinical trials evaluating anti-EGFR mAb vs -VEGF mAb in first-line treatment failed to conclude a uniform result. Recently, a few small clinical studies revealed that prior use of bevacizumab may impair the effect of cetuximab or panitumumab. Preclinical studies have also suggested that pretreatment with bevacizumab may lead to simultaneous resistance to anti-EGFR mAb. Therefore, we performed this review to summarize the available data regarding the optimal sequential treatment of anti-EGFR and -VEGF mAb for RAS or KRAS WT mCRC and discuss the potential mechanisms that may explain this phenomenon. Primary tumor location and early tumor shrinkage have emerged as new potential prognostic and predictive factors in mCRC. We also collected information to explore whether these factors affect the optimal sequencing of targeted therapy in mCRC. However, definite conclusions cannot be made, and we can only speculate on optimal treatment recommendations based on the contradictory results.

Sequential therapy with bevacizumab and EGFR inhibitors for metastatic colorectal carcinoma: a national registry-based analysis

Purpose

Although inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor and inhibitors of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFRi) are commonly used for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the optimal sequencing of these agents is currently unclear.

Methods

A national registry of targeted therapies was used to analyze baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients with mCRC and wild-type KRAS exon 2 status who received bevacizumab and EGFRi (cetuximab or panitumumab) as a part of first- and second-line treatment in either sequence.

Results

The cohort included 490 patients (181 patients treated with first-line EGFRi and second-line bevacizumab and 309 patients treated with first-line bevacizumab and second-line EGFRi). Median overall survival (OS) from the initiation on first-line therapy was similar for patients treated with either sequence, reaching 31.8 (95% CI 27.5-36.1) vs 31.4 months (95% CI 27.8-35.0) for EGFRi → bevacizumab vs bevacizumab → EGFRi cohort, respectively. Time from first-line initiation to progression on the second-line therapy [progression-free survival (PFS)] was 21.1 (95% CI 19.3-23.0) vs 19.3 months (95% CI 17.3-21.3) for bevacizumab → EGFRi vs EGFRi → bevacizumab cohort, respectively (P=0.016).

Conclusion

This retrospective analysis of real-world data of patients with wild-type KRAS exon 2 mCRC showed no differences in OS between cohorts treated with bevacizumab → EGFRi vs the reverse sequence while combined PFS favored the bevacizumab → EGFRi sequence.

Biologic Response of Colorectal Cancer Xenograft Tumors to Sequential Treatment with Panitumumab and Bevacizumab

Recent studies in RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) suggest that the survival benefits of therapy using anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) antibodies combined with chemotherapy are maximized when the anti-EGFR antibody is given as first-line, followed by subsequent anti-VEGF antibody therapy. We report reverse-translational research using LIM1215 xenografts of RAS WT mCRC to elucidate the biologic mechanisms underlying this clinical observation. Sequential administration of panitumumab then bevacizumab (PB) demonstrated a stronger tendency to inhibit tumor growth than bevacizumab then panitumumab (BP). Cell proliferation was reduced significantly with PB (P < .01) but not with BP based on Ki-67 index. Phosphoproteomic analysis demonstrated reduced phosphorylation of EGFR and EPHA2 with PB and BP compared with control. Western blotting showed reduced EPHA2 expression and S897-phosphorylation with PB; RSK phosphorylation was largely unaffected by PB but increased significantly with BP. In quantitative real-time PCR analyses, PB significantly reduced the expression of both lipogenic (FASN, MVD) and hypoxia-related (CA9, TGFBI) genes versus control. These results suggest that numerous mechanisms at the levels of gene expression, protein expression, and protein phosphorylation may explain the improved clinical activity of PB over BP in patients with RAS WT mCRC.

Optimising the use of cetuximab in the continuum of care for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

The anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody cetuximab in combination with chemotherapy is a standard of care in the first-line treatment of RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and has demonstrated efficacy in later lines. Progressive disease (PD) occurs when tumours develop resistance to a therapy, although controversy remains about whether PD on a combination of chemotherapy and targeted agents implies resistance to both components. Here, we propose that some patients may gain additional clinical benefit from the reuse of cetuximab after having PD on regimens including cetuximab in an earlier treatment line. We conducted a non-systematic literature search in PubMed and reviewed published and ongoing clinical trials, focusing on later-line cetuximab reuse in patients with mCRC. Evidence from multiple studies suggests that cetuximab can be an efficacious and tolerable treatment when continued or when fit patients with mCRC are retreated with it after a break from anti-EGFR therapy. Furthermore, on the basis of available preclinical and clinical evidence, we propose that longitudinal monitoring of RAS status may identify patients suitable for such a strategy. Patients who experience progression on cetuximab plus chemotherapy but have maintained RAS wt tumour status may benefit from continuation of cetuximab with a chemotherapy backbone switch because they have probably developed resistance to the chemotherapeutic agents rather than the biologic component of the regimen. Conversely, patients whose disease progresses on cetuximab-based therapy due to drug-selected clonal expansion of RAS-mutant tumour cells may regain sensitivity to cetuximab following a defined break from anti-EGFR therapy. Looking to the future, we propose that RAS status determination at disease progression by liquid, needle or excisional biopsy may identify patients eligible for cetuximab continuation and rechallenge. With this approach, treatment benefit can be extended, adding to established continuum-of-care strategies in patients with mCRC.

Significance of Liquid Biopsy for Monitoring and Therapy Decision of Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE

Despite therapeutic improvements, all patients with nonresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) acquire resistance to treatment probably due to the growth of mutated clones. In contrast to tissue-based studies, liquid biopsies have enabled the opportunity to reveal emerging resistance to treatment by detecting mutated clones and noninvasively monitoring clonal dynamics during therapy.

METHODS

The courses of three patients with mCRC who were initially RAS wild-type were monitored longitudinally using liquid biopsy with long-term follow-up of up to 20 sequential samples. Detection of fragmented RAS mutated circulating cell-free DNA (cf)DNA in plasma was performed by BEAMing. In addition, plasma digital droplet PCR was used to detect and quantify BRAF and PIK3CA mutated cfDNA. Changes of mutational load were correlated with imaging data.

RESULTS

A combination of liquid biopsy and radiological imaging enabled visualization of the occurrence of clonal redistribution after discontinuation of anti-EGFR mAb therapy, as well as emerging RAS mutations during therapy with anti-EGFR mAb indicating resistance. Furthermore, we found that growth of RAS mutated clones is independent of direct selective pressure by anti-EGFR therapy, which is a significant and new finding of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrated the whole spectrum of clonal selection and redistribution of mutated cell clones leading to acquired resistance. Given our observation that the growth of RAS mutated clones can evolve even in the absence of anti-EGFR mAb therapy, there is a clear imperative to monitor RAS mutations in serial blood draws in all RAS wild-type patients in general and independent of the therapy.

Exploratory pooled analysis evaluating the effect of sequence of biological therapies on overall survival in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal carcinoma

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the optimal sequence of targeted therapies (epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRi) and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFi)), combined with chemotherapy, in patients with RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC). Exploratory analyses of overall survival (OS) for patients treated with either first-line panitumumab (EGFRi) and second-line VEGFi therapy, or first-line bevacizumab (VEGFi) and second-line EGFRi, were conducted.

Methods

Patients from PEAK (NCT00819780), PRIME (NCT00364013) and Study 181 (NCT00339183), with RAS WT or RAS WT/BRAF WT tumours, were included in the analyses. OS data were pooled for patients receiving first-line panitumumab (PEAK and PRIME) or first-line bevacizumab (PEAK and 181), followed by second-line VEGFi or EGFRi, respectively.

Results

Overall, 104 RAS WT patients were included (n=66 panitumumab→VEGFi, n=38 bevacizumab→EGFRi). At the time of final data analysis, 63.6% versus 92.1% of patients in the panitumumab→VEGFi versus bevacizumab→EGFRi arms had died; median OS was 36.8 versus 27.8 months, respectively (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.03). The OS HR for patients with RAS WT/BRAF WT mCRC overall was 0.58 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.95) and was 0.56 (95% CI 0.30 to 1.04) in those with left-sided tumours.

Conclusion

Although numbers are small, these exploratory analyses suggest a trend towards improved OS for first-line panitumumab plus chemotherapy followed by second-line VEGFi, compared with first-line bevacizumab followed by second-line EGFRi in patients with RAS WT and RAS WT/BRAF WT mCRC. Large prospective randomised trials are needed to further evaluate the optimum sequence of EGFRi/VEGFi in mCRC.

Cetuximab could be more effective without prior bevacizumab treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer patients

Background

Cetuximab and bevacizumab reportedly improve the survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but their most effective sequence of administration is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the survival of patients with mCRC treated with cetuximab after bevacizumab failure with that of patients with mCRC without previous bevacizumab therapy.

Patients and methods

In total, 190 of 323 patients with mCRC treated with cetuximab from March 2006 to July 2013 were enrolled in our hospital for this retrospective study. Forty-seven patients were treated with cetuximab-based second-line therapy, 21 of whom had received prior bevacizumab; 143 patients were treated with cetuximab-based third-line therapy, 109 of whom had received prior bevacizumab. The Kaplan–Meier method with a log-rank test and Cox regression analysis were performed to evaluate the overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) of each group of patients.

Results

The median follow-up time was 11.8 months in patients who received second-line cetuximab-based chemotherapy and 13.7 months in those who received third-line cetuximab-based chemotherapy. Univariate analysis revealed that the median PFS was significantly longer in patients without prior bevacizumab therapy than in patients with prior bevacizumab therapy (second line, P=0.048; third line, P=0.0022). Multivariate analysis adjusted for baseline characteristics showed that third-line cetuximab-based chemotherapy with or without prior bevacizumab was significantly associated with PFS (P=0.014). Neither the presence nor the absence of prior bevacizumab administration was associated with overall survival.

Conclusion

Cetuximab could be more effective without prior bevacizumab. Prior bevacizumab use may decrease the efficacy of cetuximab.

Targeted therapy in first line treatment of RAS wild type colorectal cancer

The debate on the optimal drug combination for treating chemotherapy-naïve patients with metastatic colorectal cancer has recently become particularly heated. The present editorial will review recent data on this topic. The FIRE-3 and PEAK trials have shown a 7.5 to 12 mo survival advantage with the use anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) antibodies. The CALGB 80405 has shown no difference between anti-EGFR and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents. All three trials have consistently shown a significant increase in objective response rate. These data suggest that there is a subset of metastatic colorectal cancer patients, rigorously selected by molecular profiling, who particularly benefit from an anti-EGFR-based regimen in the first-line setting.

Options for metastatic colorectal cancer beyond the second line of treatment

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer, with recent advances in the management of unresectable metastatic lesions. The aim of this review is to discuss the remaining options for heavily pretreated patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer. Beyond second-line treatment, two epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors, cetuximab and panitumumab, have a demonstrated clinical interest in patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. However, few data exist in patients pretreated with an anti-EFGR and who are being rechallenged with anti-EGFR drugs. Reintroduction of chemotherapy should be considered. In September 2012, regorafenib, a multi-kinase inhibitor was approved by the US Federal Drug Administration for patients refractory to other standard treatments. In the case of metastases limited to the liver, transarterial chemoembolization, hepatic artery infusion and radioembolization could also be discussed in selected patients. With the multiplication of therapeutic options in first-line, second-line treatment, and beyond, the concept of subsequent lines of chemotherapy should be replaced by a multiline strategy, dependent on the patient and on tumour biology. A better understanding of the tumour biology and predictive factors for the response to these therapies is needed, and further strategic trials are urgently warranted.

Bevacizumab reduces tumor targeting of antiepidermal growth factor and anti-insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor antibodies

Bevacizumab (antivascular endothelial growth factor [anti-VEGF]) and cetuximab (antiepidermal growth factor receptor [anti-EGFR]) are approved antibodies for treatment of cancer. However, in advanced colorectal cancer, the combination fails to improve survival. As the reason for the lack of activity is unknown, our study aims to determine the effect of bevacizumab on targeting of anti-EGFR and insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF-1R) antibodies in tumors with single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/CT imaging. Mice with subcutaneous EGFR and IGF-1R-expressing SUM149 xenografts received a single dose of bevacizumab (10 mg/kg) or saline. After 4 days, mice were injected with radiolabeled cetuximab or R1507, an anti-IGF-1R antibody. A control group received a radiolabeled irrelevant IgG (hLL2). Three days later, SPECT/CT images were acquired and mice were dissected to determine the concentration of antibodies in the tissues. Tumors were analyzed immunohistochemically to determine vascular density (CD34), VEGF, EGFR and IGF-1R expression. SPECT/CT imaging revealed that bevacizumab treatment significantly reduced tumor targeting of radiolabeled cetuximab by 40% from 33.1 ± 1.1 %ID/g to 19.8 ± 5.7 %ID/g (p = 0.009) for untreated and bevacizumab-treated tumors, respectively. A similar effect was found for (111) In-R1507: tumor targeting of R1507 decreased by 35%. No significant differences in tumor uptake were observed in mice that received an irrelevant IgG. Uptake in normal organs was not altered by bevacizumab. Immunohistochemical analysis showed that vascular density decreased with 43%, whereas EGFR and IGF-1R expression was unaltered. In conclusion, bevacizumab treatment significantly reduces tumor targeting of anti-EGFR and anti-IGF-1R antibodies. This emphasizes the importance of timing and sequencing of bevacizumab in combination with other antibodies.

Bevacizumab-containing regimens after cetuximab failure in Kras wild-type metastatic colorectal carcinoma

Bevacizumab and cetuximab both improve treatment efficacy when administered with chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC). Cetuximab has enhanced efficacy in Kras wild-type tumors. However, inferior outcomes have been demonstrated concerning the concurrent use of bevacizumab and cetuximab with chemotherapy. There is an urgent need to define the optimal sequence of use of these two agents. With regard to the pre-clinical data that increased VEGF expression is associated with acquired resistance to anti-EGFR antibody, we performed a retrospective analysis on the outcomes of patients who received bevacizumab-containing regimens after cetuximab failure in Kras wild-type mCRC. From January 2006 to December 2011, patients who received bevacizumab-containing regimens for mCRC in our institution were reviewed. Patients were eligible for further analysis if the following criteria were met: i) Kras wild-type mCRC; ii) chemotherapy and cetuximab received as immediate prior treatment; iii) chemotherapy and bevacizumab received as the index line of treatment; and iv) imaging conducted for response evaluation. Outcome measures included median progression-free survival (mPFS) and objective response rate (ORR). Targeted adverse events were recorded in accordance with two prospective observational cohort studies; the BRiTE and BEAT studies. Fifty patients who received bevacizumab-containing regimens were reviewed and 18 of them met the criteria for further analysis. After a median follow-up of 12.1 months, the mPFS for the total group of patients was 26.3 weeks (95% CI, 19.5–33.0 weeks) with an ORR of 38.9%. Two patients (11.1%) had hypertension that required additional anti-hypertensive drugs and one patient did not survive due to a bowel perforation. No arterial thromboembolic events (ATEs), post-operative wound-healing complications (POWHCs) or grade III/IV bleeding were observed. In patients with Kras wild-type mCRC, bevacizumab-containing regimens following cetuximab failure have modest activity and manageable toxicity.