Rechallenge with anti-EGFR therapy to extend the continuum of care in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

In patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody plus chemotherapy is a standard option for treatment in the first-line setting. Patients who progress while on treatment with anti-EGFR-based therapy can be resistant to further anti-EGFR treatment, but evidence suggests that the anti-EGFR-resistant clones decay, thereby opening the potential for rechallenge or reintroduction in later lines of treatment. Results from recent clinical studies have shown that some patients with mCRC who are rechallenged with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies exhibit durable responses. While other therapies have demonstrated improved overall survival in chemorefractory mCRC over the past decade, rechallenge with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies in later lines of treatment represents a new option that deserves further investigation in clinical trials. In this review, we summarize the molecular rationale for rechallenge or reintroduction in patients with mCRC who have progressed on earlier-line anti-EGFR treatment and examine the current evidence for using liquid biopsy as a method for selecting rechallenge as a therapeutic option. We also provide an overview of published trials and trials in progress in this field, and outline the potential role of rechallenge in the current clinical setting.

An appraisal of emerging second line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

Despite a significant improvement in overall survival over the last 15 years, colorectal cancer remains a major public health problem worldwide. Much effort has been made to develop an optimal choice of first-line treatments, but after progression the therapeutic possibilities and the criteria for choice are different.

AREAS COVERED

The purpose of this literature review is to discuss the different possibilities of second-line treatment and to specify the criteria for choice. Biological subgroups requiring specific therapeutic decisions will be described. We conducted a systematic review for randomized controlled trials published since 1995. A non-exhaustive review of published phase II studies, cohort studies, and international guidelines was also given and future leads were discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Some choices of second-line treatments are a direct result of the option chosen in the first line. Others are necessary because of the biological specificity of the tumor: immunotherapy for tumors with microsatellite instability, or the combination encorafenib cetuximab for mutated BRAF-V600E tumors. In many other circumstances, there are several options that require extensive involvement of multidisciplinary boards and the patient in the final therapeutic decision.

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.