Ezzeldin M Ibrahim1, Jamal M Zekri, Bakr M Bin Sadiq. 1. Department of Oncology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, PO Box 40047, Jeddah 21499, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. ezzibrahim@kfshrc.edu.sa
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cetuximab has a favorable effect on patients with metastatic colorectal cancer harboring wild K-ras gene. This meta-analysis was planned to quantify the benefit. METHODS: A meta-analysis of clinical studies that have used cetuximab-based therapy (CBT) for patients with known K-ras status. RESULTS: There were four randomized studies (RS) that compared CBT versus non-cetuximab control (NCC) in 2,292 patients, and six non-randomized studies (NRS) included patients received cetuximab after failure of prior chemotherapy (411 patients). Patients in RS with wild K-ras tumor gained more benefit from CBT vs. NCC. For response rate (RR), the odds ratio was 2.10 (p = 0.0002), while the hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) was 0.64 (p = 0.04). On the other hand, CBT was associated with an adverse effect on RR and no effect on PFS in mutated K-ras. In all patients who received CBT in RS and NRS, those with wild vs. mutated K-ras demonstrated higher RR (odds ratio 3.72; p < 0.0001). Compared with NCC in three RS, CBT showed significant overall survival (OS) advantage in patients with wild K-ras (HR = 0.68; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The significant clinical benefit of CBT concerning RR, PFS, and OS was restricted to patients with wild-type K-ras. There is a need to better define potential responders to CBT.
BACKGROUND:Cetuximab has a favorable effect on patients with metastatic colorectal cancer harboring wild K-ras gene. This meta-analysis was planned to quantify the benefit. METHODS: A meta-analysis of clinical studies that have used cetuximab-based therapy (CBT) for patients with known K-ras status. RESULTS: There were four randomized studies (RS) that compared CBT versus non-cetuximab control (NCC) in 2,292 patients, and six non-randomized studies (NRS) included patients received cetuximab after failure of prior chemotherapy (411 patients). Patients in RS with wild K-rastumor gained more benefit from CBT vs. NCC. For response rate (RR), the odds ratio was 2.10 (p = 0.0002), while the hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) was 0.64 (p = 0.04). On the other hand, CBT was associated with an adverse effect on RR and no effect on PFS in mutated K-ras. In all patients who received CBT in RS and NRS, those with wild vs. mutated K-ras demonstrated higher RR (odds ratio 3.72; p < 0.0001). Compared with NCC in three RS, CBT showed significant overall survival (OS) advantage in patients with wild K-ras (HR = 0.68; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The significant clinical benefit of CBT concerning RR, PFS, and OS was restricted to patients with wild-type K-ras. There is a need to better define potential responders to CBT.
Authors: Scott Kopetz; George J Chang; Michael J Overman; Cathy Eng; Daniel J Sargent; David W Larson; Axel Grothey; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; David M Nagorney; Robert R McWilliams Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Shirin Khambata-Ford; Christopher R Garrett; Neal J Meropol; Mark Basik; Christopher T Harbison; Shujian Wu; Tai W Wong; Xin Huang; Chris H Takimoto; Andrew K Godwin; Benjamin R Tan; Smitha S Krishnamurthi; Howard A Burris; Elizabeth A Poplin; Manuel Hidalgo; Jose Baselga; Edwin A Clark; David J Mauro Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-08-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: F Di Fiore; F Blanchard; F Charbonnier; F Le Pessot; A Lamy; M P Galais; L Bastit; A Killian; R Sesboüé; J J Tuech; A M Queuniet; B Paillot; J C Sabourin; F Michot; P Michel; T Frebourg Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2007-03-20 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Antonia R Sepulveda; Stanley R Hamilton; Carmen J Allegra; Wayne Grody; Allison M Cushman-Vokoun; William K Funkhouser; Scott E Kopetz; Christopher Lieu; Noralane M Lindor; Bruce D Minsky; Federico A Monzon; Daniel J Sargent; Veena M Singh; Joseph Willis; Jennifer Clark; Carol Colasacco; R Bryan Rumble; Robyn Temple-Smolkin; Christina B Ventura; Jan A Nowak Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2017-02-06 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: David M Haas; Sara K Quinney; Jayanti M Clay; Jamie L Renbarger; Mary F Hebert; Shannon Clark; Jason G Umans; Steve N Caritis Journal: Am J Perinatol Date: 2012-08-08 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Antonia R Sepulveda; Stanley R Hamilton; Carmen J Allegra; Wayne Grody; Allison M Cushman-Vokoun; William K Funkhouser; Scott E Kopetz; Christopher Lieu; Noralane M Lindor; Bruce D Minsky; Federico A Monzon; Daniel J Sargent; Veena M Singh; Joseph Willis; Jennifer Clark; Carol Colasacco; R Bryan Rumble; Robyn Temple-Smolkin; Christina B Ventura; Jan A Nowak Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2017-02-03 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Snehangshu Kundu; Muhammad Akhtar Ali; Niklas Handin; Narendra Padhan; Jimmy Larsson; Maria Karoutsou; Kenneth Ban; Jacek R Wiśniewski; Per Artursson; Liqun He; Mats Hellström; Tobias Sjöblom Journal: Genome Med Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 11.117