Igor Kiss1, Jitka Mlcochova2, Zbynek Bortlicek3, Alexandr Poprach4, Jiri Drabek5, Petra Vychytilova-Faltejskova6, Marek Svoboda6, Tomas Buchler7, Stanislav Batko8, Ales Ryska9, Marian Hajduch5, Ondrej Slaby10. 1. Department of Comprehensive Cancer Care, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic kiss@mou.cz on.slaby@gmail.com. 2. Central European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. 3. Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. 4. Department of Comprehensive Cancer Care, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic. 5. Institute of Molecular and Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic. 6. Department of Comprehensive Cancer Care, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic Central European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. 7. Department of Oncology, Thomayer Hospital and Charles University First Faculty of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic. 8. Department of Oncology, Motol University Hospital and Charles University Second Faculty of Medicine, Prague, Czech Republic. 9. The Fingerland Department of Pathology, Charles University Medical Faculty Hospital, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic. 10. Department of Comprehensive Cancer Care, Masaryk Memorial Cancer Institute, Brno, Czech Republic Central European Institute of Technology, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic kiss@mou.cz on.slaby@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), panitumumab is generally considered to be ineffective after the progression on cetuximab therapy. However, few studies have demonstrated that a small subset of mCRC patients may benefit from panitumumab in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In our study, wild-type KRAS mCRC patients, enrolled into the nationwide Czech registry CORECT between January 2007 and December 2012, were screened for panitumumab therapy after progression on cetuximab. RESULTS: We identified 26 mCRC in the registry with well documented progression on cetuximab in combination with irinotecan-based chemotherapy (FOLFIRI or irinotecan alone) who received panitumumab monotherapy. Partial response (PR) was achieved in 3 (11.5%) patients and stable disease (SD) in 7 (26.9%) patients after 8 weeks of therapy. Thirteen (50.0%) patients had evidence of progressive disease (PD) and in 3 (11.5%) cases response was not available. Furthermore, we confirmed that higher expression levels of newly described biomarker, miR-31-5p, in tumor are significantly associated with shorter progression-free survival (PFS) in patients treated with cetuximab (p=0.038); however, we did not observe association between miR-31-5p and response to panitumumab in mCRC patients after progression on cetuximab. CONCLUSION: It remains possible that a subset of mCRC patients may benefit from panitumumab after progression on cetuximab. Copyright
BACKGROUND: In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), panitumumab is generally considered to be ineffective after the progression on cetuximab therapy. However, few studies have demonstrated that a small subset of mCRC patients may benefit from panitumumab in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In our study, wild-type KRAS mCRC patients, enrolled into the nationwide Czech registry CORECT between January 2007 and December 2012, were screened for panitumumab therapy after progression on cetuximab. RESULTS: We identified 26 mCRC in the registry with well documented progression on cetuximab in combination with irinotecan-based chemotherapy (FOLFIRI or irinotecan alone) who received panitumumab monotherapy. Partial response (PR) was achieved in 3 (11.5%) patients and stable disease (SD) in 7 (26.9%) patients after 8 weeks of therapy. Thirteen (50.0%) patients had evidence of progressive disease (PD) and in 3 (11.5%) cases response was not available. Furthermore, we confirmed that higher expression levels of newly described biomarker, miR-31-5p, in tumor are significantly associated with shorter progression-free survival (PFS) in patients treated with cetuximab (p=0.038); however, we did not observe association between miR-31-5p and response to panitumumab in mCRC patients after progression on cetuximab. CONCLUSION: It remains possible that a subset of mCRC patients may benefit from panitumumab after progression on cetuximab. Copyright
Authors: Amal F Gharib; Amany Salah Khalifa; Emad Mohamed Eed; Hamsa Jameel Banjer; Ashjan Ali Shami; Ahmad El Askary; Wael H Elsawy Journal: In Vivo Date: 2022 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.406
Authors: Anna-Maria Pehserl; Anna Lena Ress; Stefanie Stanzer; Margit Resel; Michael Karbiener; Elke Stadelmeyer; Verena Stiegelbauer; Armin Gerger; Christian Mayr; Marcel Scheideler; Georg C Hutterer; Thomas Bauernhofer; Tobias Kiesslich; Martin Pichler Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: A S Vickram; P S Srikumar; S Srinivasan; Palanivelu Jeyanthi; K Anbarasu; S Thanigaivel; Dey Nibedita; D Jenila Rani; Karunakaran Rohini Journal: Saudi J Biol Sci Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 4.219