Chiara Cremolini1, Daniele Rossini1, Emanuela Dell'Aquila2, Sara Lonardi3, Elena Conca4, Marzia Del Re5, Adele Busico4, Filippo Pietrantonio6, Romano Danesi5, Giuseppe Aprile7,8, Emiliano Tamburini9, Carlo Barone10, Gianluca Masi1, Francesco Pantano2, Francesca Pucci11, Domenico C Corsi12, Nicoletta Pella7, Francesca Bergamo3, Eleonora Rofi5, Cecilia Barbara13, Alfredo Falcone1, Daniele Santini2. 1. Unit of Medical Oncology 2, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 3. Medical Oncology Unit 1, Clinical and Experimental Oncology Department, Veneto Institute of Oncology Istituto Oncologico Veneto-Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Padua, Italy. 4. Department of Diagnostic Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. 5. Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacogenetics Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Pisa, Italy. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. 7. Department of Oncology, University and General Hospital, Udine, Italy. 8. Department of Oncology, General Hospital San Bortolo, Unità Locale Socio-Sanitaria 8 Berica, Vicenza, Italy. 9. Department of Medical Oncology, Infermi Hospital, Rimini, Italy. 10. Medical Oncology Unit, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy. 11. Medical Oncology Unit, University Hospital, Parma, Italy. 12. Medical Oncology Unit, Fatebenefratelli-Isola Tiberina Hospital, Rome, Italy. 13. Medical Oncology Unit, Presidio Ospedaliero Felice Lotti, Pontedera, Italy.
Abstract
Importance: Based on a small retrospective study, rechallenge with cetuximab-based therapy for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who were previously treated with the same anti-epidermal growth factor receptor-based regimen might be efficacious. Recent data suggest the role of liquid biopsy as a tool to track molecular events in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Objective: To prospectively assess the activity of cetuximab plus irinotecan as third-line treatment for patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC who were initially sensitive to and then resistant to first-line irinotecan- and cetuximab-based therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter phase 2 single-arm trial conducted from January 7, 2015, to June 19, 2017. Liquid biopsies for analysis of ctDNA were collected at baseline. Main eligibility criteria included RAS and BRAF wild-type status on tissue samples; prior first-line irinotecan- and cetuximab-based regimen with at least partial response, progression-free survival of at least 6 months with first-line therapy, and progression within 4 weeks after last dose of cetuximab; and prior second-line oxaliplatin- and bevacizumab-based treatment. Interventions: Biweekly cetuximab, 500 mg/m2, plus irinotecan, 180 mg/m2. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall response rate according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Secondary end points included progression-free survival and overall survival and, as an exploratory analysis, RAS mutations in ctDNA. Results: Twenty-eight patients (9 women and 19 men; median age, 69 years [range, 45-79 years]) were enrolled. Six partial responses (4 confirmed) and 9 disease stabilizations were reported (response rate, 21%; 95% CI, 10%-40%; disease control rate, 54%; 95% CI, 36%-70%). Primary end point was met because lower limit of 95% CI of response rate was higher than 5%. RAS mutations were found in ctDNA collected at rechallenge baseline in 12 of 25 evaluable patients (48%). No RAS mutations were detected in samples from patients who achieved confirmed partial response. Patients with RAS wild-type ctDNA had significantly longer progression-free survival than those with RAS mutated ctDNA (median progression-free survival, 4.0 vs 1.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.18-0.98; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: This is the first prospective demonstration that a rechallenge strategy with cetuximab and irinotecan may be active in patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC with acquired resistance to first-line irinotecan- and cetuximab-based therapy. The evaluation of RAS mutational status on ctDNA might be helpful in selecting candidate patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02296203.
Importance: Based on a small retrospective study, rechallenge with cetuximab-based therapy for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who were previously treated with the same anti-epidermal growth factor receptor-based regimen might be efficacious. Recent data suggest the role of liquid biopsy as a tool to track molecular events in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Objective: To prospectively assess the activity of cetuximab plus irinotecan as third-line treatment for patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC who were initially sensitive to and then resistant to first-line irinotecan- and cetuximab-based therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter phase 2 single-arm trial conducted from January 7, 2015, to June 19, 2017. Liquid biopsies for analysis of ctDNA were collected at baseline. Main eligibility criteria included RAS and BRAF wild-type status on tissue samples; prior first-line irinotecan- and cetuximab-based regimen with at least partial response, progression-free survival of at least 6 months with first-line therapy, and progression within 4 weeks after last dose of cetuximab; and prior second-line oxaliplatin- and bevacizumab-based treatment. Interventions: Biweekly cetuximab, 500 mg/m2, plus irinotecan, 180 mg/m2. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall response rate according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Secondary end points included progression-free survival and overall survival and, as an exploratory analysis, RAS mutations in ctDNA. Results: Twenty-eight patients (9 women and 19 men; median age, 69 years [range, 45-79 years]) were enrolled. Six partial responses (4 confirmed) and 9 disease stabilizations were reported (response rate, 21%; 95% CI, 10%-40%; disease control rate, 54%; 95% CI, 36%-70%). Primary end point was met because lower limit of 95% CI of response rate was higher than 5%. RAS mutations were found in ctDNA collected at rechallenge baseline in 12 of 25 evaluable patients (48%). No RAS mutations were detected in samples from patients who achieved confirmed partial response. Patients with RAS wild-type ctDNA had significantly longer progression-free survival than those with RAS mutated ctDNA (median progression-free survival, 4.0 vs 1.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.18-0.98; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: This is the first prospective demonstration that a rechallenge strategy with cetuximab and irinotecan may be active in patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC with acquired resistance to first-line irinotecan- and cetuximab-based therapy. The evaluation of RAS mutational status on ctDNA might be helpful in selecting candidate patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02296203.
Authors: Michael J Overman; Ray McDermott; Joseph L Leach; Sara Lonardi; Heinz-Josef Lenz; Michael A Morse; Jayesh Desai; Andrew Hill; Michael Axelson; Rebecca A Moss; Monica V Goldberg; Z Alexander Cao; Jean-Marie Ledeine; Gregory A Maglinte; Scott Kopetz; Thierry André Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Sabrina Arena; Beatriz Bellosillo; Giulia Siravegna; Alejandro Martínez; Israel Cañadas; Luca Lazzari; Noelia Ferruz; Mariangela Russo; Sandra Misale; Iria González; Mar Iglesias; Elena Gavilan; Giorgio Corti; Sebastijan Hobor; Giovanni Crisafulli; Marta Salido; Juan Sánchez; Alba Dalmases; Joaquim Bellmunt; Gianni De Fabritiis; Ana Rovira; Federica Di Nicolantonio; Joan Albanell; Alberto Bardelli; Clara Montagut Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-01-26 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Michael J Overman; Sara Lonardi; Ka Yeung Mark Wong; Heinz-Josef Lenz; Fabio Gelsomino; Massimo Aglietta; Michael A Morse; Eric Van Cutsem; Ray McDermott; Andrew Hill; Michael B Sawyer; Alain Hendlisz; Bart Neyns; Magali Svrcek; Rebecca A Moss; Jean-Marie Ledeine; Z Alexander Cao; Shital Kamble; Scott Kopetz; Thierry André Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-01-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E Van Cutsem; A Cervantes; R Adam; A Sobrero; J H Van Krieken; D Aderka; E Aranda Aguilar; A Bardelli; A Benson; G Bodoky; F Ciardiello; A D'Hoore; E Diaz-Rubio; J-Y Douillard; M Ducreux; A Falcone; A Grothey; T Gruenberger; K Haustermans; V Heinemann; P Hoff; C-H Köhne; R Labianca; P Laurent-Puig; B Ma; T Maughan; K Muro; N Normanno; P Österlund; W J G Oyen; D Papamichael; G Pentheroudakis; P Pfeiffer; T J Price; C Punt; J Ricke; A Roth; R Salazar; W Scheithauer; H J Schmoll; J Tabernero; J Taïeb; S Tejpar; H Wasan; T Yoshino; A Zaanan; D Arnold Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 32.976