Second-line cetuximab/irinotecan versus oxaliplatin/fluoropyrimidines for metastatic colorectal cancer with wild-type KRAS

Distinguishing Features of Cetuximab and Panitumumab in Colorectal Cancer and Other Solid Tumors

Cetuximab and panitumumab are two distinct monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and both are widely used in combination with chemotherapy or as monotherapy to treat patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Although often considered interchangeable, the two antibodies have different molecular structures and can behave differently in clinically relevant ways. More specifically, as an immunoglobulin (Ig) G1 isotype mAb, cetuximab can elicit immune functions such as antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity involving natural killer cells, T-cell recruitment to the tumor, and T-cell priming via dendritic cell maturation. Panitumumab, an IgG2 isotype mAb, does not possess these immune functions. Furthermore, the two antibodies have different binding sites on the EGFR, as evidenced by mutations on the extracellular domain that can confer resistance to one of the two therapeutics or to both. We consider a comparison of the properties of these two antibodies to represent a gap in the literature. We therefore compiled a detailed, evidence-based educational review of the known molecular, clinical, and functional differences between the two antibodies and concluded that they are distinct therapeutic agents that should be considered individually during treatment planning. Available data for one agent can only partly be extrapolated to the other. Looking to the future, the known immune activity of cetuximab may provide a rationale for this antibody as a combination partner with investigational chemotherapy plus immunotherapy regimens for colorectal cancer.

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.

Pyrosequencing analysis of KRAS codon 61 mutations in Thai patients with advanced colorectal cancer

Background

KRAS, coding for a small G-protein downstream of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) plays an important role in the EGFR signaling network. Mutation in KRAS is associated with resistance to anti-EGFR in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines, screening for mutations in KRAS codons 12 and 13 in tumor samples is mandatory for all CRC patients who are candidates for anti-EGFR targeted therapy. However, some patients with undetectable mutations in codons 12/13 do not benefit from anti-EGFR treatment, and this might be because of mutations in codon 61, which is not currently recommended for screening.

Objectives

To develop an in-house pyrosequencing method to screen for KRAS codon 61 mutations, and examine the prevalence of mutations in Thai patients with advanced CRC with no detectable mutation in codons 12/13.

Materials and Methods

DNA extracted from FFPE specimens was screened for KRAS codon 61 mutations using pyrosequencing. Our method was suitable for routine clinical samples (formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue), and was able to detect 5 common mutations in codon 61 of the KRAS gene, including c.182AT (p.Q61L), c.182AG (p.Q61R), c.182AC (p.Q61P), c.183AC (p.Q61H), and c.183AT (p.Q61H).

Results

Of the 74 samples with undetectable codon 12/13 mutation examined, two (2.7%) were found to harbor mutation in codon 61.

Conclusion

Despite the low prevalence of KRAS codon 61 mutation in our population with advanced CRC, adding the mutation test into the routine molecular service deserves consideration because the cost of treatment is very expensive.

Evaluation of EGFR protein expression by immunohistochemistry using H-score and the magnification rule: re-analysis of the SATURN study

INTRODUCTION

The phase III SATURN study demonstrated that first-line maintenance erlotinib extended progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus placebo in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Analysis of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) found no significant interaction between EGFR IHC status and PFS (p = 0.63) or OS (p = 0.52). The FLEX study of first-line cetuximab plus chemotherapy demonstrated that EGFR IHC expression was predictive of improved OS with cetuximab when assessed by H-score with a magnification rule. This novel method was used to reassess samples from SATURN.

METHODS

The H-score method assigned a score of 0-300 to each patient, based on the percentage of cells stained at different intensities viewed at various magnifications. The discriminatory threshold was set at 200, per the FLEX study, and existing samples were re-read and classed as low (H-score < 200) or high (≥200) EGFR expression. PFS and OS were re-analyzed based on these new classifications.

RESULTS

In the overall and EGFR wild-type populations, erlotinib provided a consistent survival benefit versus placebo. Hazard ratios (HRs) in the overall population were similar between EGFR IHC-positive and -negative patients for median PFS (HR 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.86] and 0.76 [95% CI 0.62-0.93], respectively) and OS (HR 0.80 [95% CI 0.62-1.05] and 0.80 [95% CI 0.64-1.01] for IHC-positive and IHC-negative, respectively). In the EGFR wild-type population, HRs were again similar between EGFR IHC-positive and -negative subpopulations for PFS (HR 0.69 [95% CI 0.51-0.95] and 0.84 [95% CI 0.63-1.12], respectively) and OS (HR 0.78 [95% CI 0.55-1.10] and 0.76 [95% CI 0.55-1.05], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that EGFR IHC does not have value as a marker to predict erlotinib benefit in the first-line maintenance setting for advanced NSCLC.