Subgroup analysis by prior anti-VEGF or anti-EGFR target therapy in FRESCO, a randomized, double-blind, Phase III trial

Background: FRESCO study demonstrated efficacy and safety of fruquintinib in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Impact of prior targeted therapy (PTT) on efficacy and safety of fruquintinib was evaluated. Materials & methods: In this subgroup analysis of FRESCO trial, patients were divided into PTT and non-PTT subgroups, and efficacy and safety of fruquintinib were assessed, respectively. Results: In non-PTT subgroup, fruquintinib significantly prolonged overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of patients compared with placebo. In PTT subgroup, the median OS and PFS of patients in fruquintinib arm was significantly higher than those in placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) rates were similar in both subgroups. Conclusion: Fruquintinib demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement in OS, PFS, objective response rate, and disease control rate with manageable TEAEs in both subgroups. Clinical trial registration: NCT02314819 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody plus palliative chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Background

Platinum‐based chemotherapy is the standard of care as first‐line treatment for recurrent or metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (RM‐NPC); however, the prognosis of patients with RM‐NPC remains poor. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of anti‐epidermal growth factor receptor (anti‐EGFR) antibody plus chemotherapy for RM‐NPC.

Methods

RM‐NPC patients who received first‐line chemotherapy plus an anti‐EGFR antibody were recruited from Sun Yat‐Sen University Cancer Center between July 2007 and November 2017. Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan‐Meier method with a log‐rank test. A Cox proportional hazards model was used for the multivariate analyses.

Results

A total of 203 patients were enrolled in the present study. The median follow‐up time was 34.3 months (interquartile range: 19.7‐66.5 months). The median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 8.9 months (95% CI: 7.7‐10.0 months) and the median overall survival (OS) was 29.1 months (95% CI: 23.5‐34.6 months). The 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐year PFS and OS rates were 35.5% and 79.6%, 15.2% and 42.5%, and 11.6% and 23.6%, respectively. The objective response rate (ORR) was 67.5% and the disease control rate (DCR) was 91.1%. The multivariate analysis identified the following prognostic factors for PFS: anti‐EGFR agent (P = .010), recurrence/metastasis sequence (P = .016), KPS (P = .017), and combined chemotherapy regimen (P = .015). Independent risk factors for OS included age >43 years (P = .002), Karnofsky performance score ≤80 (P < .001), and higher level of baseline Epstein‐Barr virus (EBV) DNA (P = .008). Leukopenia was the most common adverse event (AE) in this cohort (any grade, 84.2%; grades 3‐4, 43.4%).

Conclusions

Anti‐EGFR antibody plus chemotherapy achieved promising antitumor activity with a tolerable toxicity profile in RM‐NPC. Thus, randomized clinical trials are warranted to compare the efficacy of chemotherapy with or without anti‐EGFR antibody in these patients.

The Efficacy and Safety of Anti-epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Monoclonal Antibodies in Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Literature-based Meta-analyses

Background: Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibodies (anti-EGFR mAbs), such as cetuximab and nimotuzumab have been used in the treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), yet their efficacy and safety are undetermined. Materials and Methods: We performed two meta-analyses based on systematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and SinoMed: comparison 1 (standard therapy plus mAbs vs. standard therapy) and comparison 2 (radiotherapy plus concurrent mAbs vs. concurrent chemoradiotherapy) to explore the treatment value of anti-EGFR mAbs in NPC. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS); secondary outcomes, locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) and grade 3 and above acute adverse events. Results: Four randomized controlled trials and thirteen observational studies were eligible. Comparison 1 (twelve studies): adding mAbs to standard therapy (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) significantly improved OS (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39-0.66) and DFS (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.86), but increased the frequency of skin rashes and mucositis. Comparison 2 (six studies): OS (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.81-1.70) and DFS (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.86-1.57) were not significantly different when mAbs replaced conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy concurrently with radiotherapy, with fewer hematological, gastrointestinal and renal toxicities and more skin rashes in the mAb group. Conclusion: We recommend anti-EGFR mAbs enhance-but should not replace-current treatment paradigms for locoregionally advanced NPC. Further evidence from phase III clinical trials is required.

Rechallenge of oxaliplatin-containing regimens in the third- or later-line therapy for patients with heavily treated metastatic colorectal cancer

Purpose

The third- or later-line therapy available often yield poor survival benefit in patients metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The retrospective study aimed to evaluate efficacy of rechallenge of oxaliplatin-containing regimens.

Patients and methods

Patients with mCRC who progressed from fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan in the first- and second-line chemotherapy, were treated by reexposure to oxaliplatin-containing regimen. Patients treated by anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies with irinotecan were included in the control arm.

Results

Ninety-five and 29 patients were treated with either oxaliplatin reexposure or anti-EGFR antibodies with irinotecan, respectively, as the third- or later-line therapy. The median time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) was 3.77 and 12.17 months in the oxaliplatin arm, with 4.77 months of TTF and 11.37 months of OS in the control arm; there was no significance between the 2 arms (p>0.05). Oxaliplatin reexposure resulted in 6.3% objective response rate with no complete response, 6 partial response, 39 stable disease, and 37 progressive disease. The disease control rate was 47.4% (45/95). The multivariate analysis found that patients who achieved disease control by oxaliplatin reexposure had a superior TTF (6.13 vs 1.7 months, p<0.001) and OS (15.73 vs 6.27 months, p<0.001) compared with those presenting with progressive disease.

Conclusion

This study showed that rechallenge of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy in the third- or later-line therapy may lead to tumor control and improved survival in mCRC patients, which was equivalent to that of anti-EGFR antibodies with irinotecan.

Clinical significance

Rechallenge of oxaliplatin-containing regimens in the third- or later-line of therapy is a common practice, despite few evidence available. The present study found that rechallenge of oxaliplatin-containing regimens produced equivalent tumor control and survival benefit to that of anti-EGFR antibodies with irinotecan in mCRC.