PURPOSE: Although KRAS mutation has been identified as a negative predictive biomarker of anti-EGFR antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the efficacy in mCRC patients with KRAS wild-type status remains limited. Anti-EGFR antibodies work by blocking ligand binding, but the significance of EGFR ligands in mCRC has not been completely described. This study was conducted to identify the correlation between all seven EGFR ligands and clinical outcomes in mCRC treated with anti-EGFR antibodies. Furthermore, we determined an appropriate predictive strategy for anti-EGFR antibodies using these EGFR ligands. METHODS: Among 36 mCRC patients who had been treated with cetuximab or panitumumab, we identified 26 mCRC patients with wild-type KRAS status treated properly as the second and further lines and analyzed the relationship between immunoreactivity to seven EGFR ligands and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Good clinical outcomes were associated with immunoreactivity against amphiregulin (AR), heparin-binding epidermal growth factor (HB-EGF), transforming growth factor-α (TGF-α), and epiregulin (EREG). Further, patients with immunoreactivity to greater than two of these four ligands (AR, HB-EGF, TGF-α, and EREG) had significantly higher response rate (53.3 vs. 0.0 %, p = 0.004) and disease control rate (93.3 vs. 9.0 %, p = 0.00002) and longer progression-free survival (median PFS: 231 vs. 79 days, p = 0.000008), when compared with patients with immunoreactivity against zero or one ligand. CONCLUSIONS: Immunohistochemical analysis of four EGFR ligands (AR, HB-EGF, TGF-α, and EREG) might be a novel predictive biomarker and may help optimize patient selection for cetuximab and panitumumab therapy in patients with mCRC.
PURPOSE: Although KRAS mutation has been identified as a negative predictive biomarker of anti-EGFR antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the efficacy in mCRC patients with KRAS wild-type status remains limited. Anti-EGFR antibodies work by blocking ligand binding, but the significance of EGFR ligands in mCRC has not been completely described. This study was conducted to identify the correlation between all seven EGFR ligands and clinical outcomes in mCRC treated with anti-EGFR antibodies. Furthermore, we determined an appropriate predictive strategy for anti-EGFR antibodies using these EGFR ligands. METHODS: Among 36 mCRC patients who had been treated with cetuximab or panitumumab, we identified 26 mCRC patients with wild-type KRAS status treated properly as the second and further lines and analyzed the relationship between immunoreactivity to seven EGFR ligands and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Good clinical outcomes were associated with immunoreactivity against amphiregulin (AR), heparin-binding epidermal growth factor (HB-EGF), transforming growth factor-α (TGF-α), and epiregulin (EREG). Further, patients with immunoreactivity to greater than two of these four ligands (AR, HB-EGF, TGF-α, and EREG) had significantly higher response rate (53.3 vs. 0.0 %, p = 0.004) and disease control rate (93.3 vs. 9.0 %, p = 0.00002) and longer progression-free survival (median PFS: 231 vs. 79 days, p = 0.000008), when compared with patients with immunoreactivity against zero or one ligand. CONCLUSIONS: Immunohistochemical analysis of four EGFR ligands (AR, HB-EGF, TGF-α, and EREG) might be a novel predictive biomarker and may help optimize patient selection for cetuximab and panitumumab therapy in patients with mCRC.
Authors: Marc Peeters; Timothy Jay Price; Andrés Cervantes; Alberto F Sobrero; Michel Ducreux; Yevhen Hotko; Thierry André; Emily Chan; Florian Lordick; Cornelis J A Punt; Andrew H Strickland; Gregory Wilson; Tudor-Eliade Ciuleanu; Laslo Roman; Eric Van Cutsem; Valentina Tzekova; Simon Collins; Kelly S Oliner; Alan Rong; Jennifer Gansert Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-10-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eric Van Cutsem; Claus-Henning Köhne; István Láng; Gunnar Folprecht; Marek P Nowacki; Stefano Cascinu; Igor Shchepotin; Joan Maurel; David Cunningham; Sabine Tejpar; Michael Schlichting; Angela Zubel; Ilhan Celik; Philippe Rougier; Fortunato Ciardiello Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-04-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: F Perrone; A Lampis; M Orsenigo; M Di Bartolomeo; A Gevorgyan; M Losa; M Frattini; C Riva; S Andreola; E Bajetta; L Bertario; E Leo; M A Pierotti; S Pilotti Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2008-07-31 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Leonard B Saltz; Stephen Clarke; Eduardo Díaz-Rubio; Werner Scheithauer; Arie Figer; Ralph Wong; Sheryl Koski; Mikhail Lichinitser; Tsai-Shen Yang; Fernando Rivera; Felix Couture; Florin Sirzén; Jim Cassidy Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-04-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hans Prenen; Jef De Schutter; Bart Jacobs; Wendy De Roock; Bart Biesmans; Bart Claes; Diether Lambrechts; Eric Van Cutsem; Sabine Tejpar Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-04-14 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: J B Baker; D Dutta; D Watson; T Maddala; B M Munneke; S Shak; E K Rowinsky; L-A Xu; C T Harbison; E A Clark; D J Mauro; S Khambata-Ford Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: F Loupakis; A Ruzzo; C Cremolini; B Vincenzi; L Salvatore; D Santini; G Masi; I Stasi; E Canestrari; E Rulli; I Floriani; K Bencardino; N Galluccio; V Catalano; G Tonini; M Magnani; G Fontanini; F Basolo; A Falcone; F Graziano Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-07-14 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Z-Y Chen; K Raghav; C H Lieu; Z-Q Jiang; C Eng; J-N Vauthey; G J Chang; W Qiao; J Morris; D Hong; P Hoff; H Tran; D G Menter; J Heymach; M Overman; S Kopetz Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: D J Jonker; C S Karapetis; C Harbison; C J O'Callaghan; D Tu; R J Simes; D P Malone; C Langer; N Tebbutt; T J Price; J Shapiro; L L Siu; R P W Wong; G Bjarnason; M J Moore; J R Zalcberg; S Khambata-Ford Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 7.640