| Literature DB >> 32337094 |
Vivek Subbiah1,2, Ecaterina Ileana Dumbrava1, Razelle Kurzrock3, Gerald Falchook4, Yunfang Jiang1, Kyaw Z Thein1, Aung Naing1, David S Hong1, Siqing Fu1, Sarina A Piha-Paul1, Apostolia M Tsimberidou1, Filip Janku1, Funda Meric-Bernstam1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Angiogenesis and activation of the epidermal growth factor (EGFR) pathway play an essential role in tumor proliferation and metastasis. Targeting angiogenesis or EGFR alone does not yield adequate tumor control in most solid tumors. Overcoming intrinsic and/or acquired resistance may need a doublet or triplet therapy strategy. Herein, we report the safety and feasibility of dual EGFR blockade with EGFR monoclonal antibody and EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor combined with anti-VEGF antibody in advanced solid tumors.Entities:
Keywords: Advanced solid tumors; Cetuximab, erlotinib and bevacizumab; Dual EGFR blockade; Phase 1 dose escalation
Year: 2020 PMID: 32337094 PMCID: PMC7171918 DOI: 10.1186/s40164-020-00159-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Exp Hematol Oncol ISSN: 2162-3619
Patient characteristics
| Characteristics | Number of patients n = 36, n (%) |
|---|---|
| Age (years) | |
| Median | 54 |
| Range | (15–79) |
| Gender | |
| Male | 14 (39%) |
| Female | 22 (61%) |
| Race | |
| White/Caucasian | 28 (78%) |
| Black/African-America | 4 (11%) |
| Other | 4 (11%) |
| Smoking | |
| Active or history of smoking | 18 (50%) |
| Never smoker | 18 (50%) |
| ECOG performance status | |
| 0 | 1 (3%) |
| 1 | 30 (83%) |
| 2 | 5 (14%) |
| Tumor type | |
| Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma | 10 (28%) |
| Cervical cancer | 10 (28%) |
| Thyroid follicular carcinoma | 4 (11%) |
| Breast cancer | 3 (8%) |
| Pancreatic cancer | 3 (8%) |
| Salivary glands cancer | 2 (6%) |
| Bladder urothelial carcinoma | 2 (6%) |
| Sarcoma | 1 (3%) |
| Vulvar cancer | 1 (3%) |
| Squamous cell carcinoma of the skin | 1 (3%) |
| Number of prior systemic therapies | |
| Median | 3 |
| Range | 1–10 |
| Prior systemic treatment with anti-EGFR | 8 (22%) |
| Prior systemic treatment with anti-VEGF | 9 (25%) |
| Prior systemic treatment with anti-EGFR and anti-VEGF (sequential) | 2 (6%) |
Treatment-related grade ≥ 2 adverse events
| Dose level | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bevacizumab IV q2w (mg/kg) | 2.5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 10 | ||
Cetuximab IV weekly (mg/m2)* | 100, 75 | 100, 75 | 200, 125 | 200, 125 | 200, 125 | 400, 250 | 400, 250 | 400, 250 | ||
Erlotinib PO daily (mg) | 50 | 50 | 50 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 150 | 150 | ||
| Rash | ||||||||||
| Grade 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 10 | 16 (44%) | |
| Grade 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 (11%) | |
| Pruritus | ||||||||||
| Grade 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 (6%) | |
| Grade 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 (6%) | |
| Diarrhea | ||||||||||
| Grade 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 (8%) | |
| Fatigue | ||||||||||
| Grade 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 (6%) | |
| Hand-foot syndrome | ||||||||||
| Grade 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 (6%) | |
| Hypomagnesemia | ||||||||||
| Grade 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 (6%) | |
| Grade 3–4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 (11%) | |
| Nausea/vomiting | ||||||||||
| Grade 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 (3%) | |
| Mucositis | ||||||||||
| Grade 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 (3%) | |
| Anorexia | ||||||||||
| Grade 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 (6%) | |
| Hypertension | ||||||||||
| Grade 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 (3%) | |
| Bleeding | ||||||||||
| Grade 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 (8%) | |
| Elevated AST/ALT | ||||||||||
| Grade 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 (3%) | |
| Anemia | ||||||||||
| Grade 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (3%) | |
| Transvaginal fistula | ||||||||||
| Grade 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 (6%) | |
* Cetuximab dose shown as loading dose and maintenance dose
Fig. 1Best response and time under treatment (3D waterfall plot)