Markus Moehler

FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Cetuximab and bevacizumab have both been shown to improve outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when added to chemotherapy regimens; however, their comparative effectiveness when partnered with first-line fluorouracil, folinic acid, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) is unknown. We aimed to compare these agents in patients with KRAS (exon 2) codon 12/13 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18-75 years with stage IV, histologically confirmed colorectal cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, an estimated life expectancy of greater than 3 months, and adequate organ function, from centres in Germany and Austria. Patients were centrally randomised by fax (1:1) to FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (using permuted blocks of randomly varying size), stratified according to ECOG performance status, number of metastatic sites, white blood cell count, and alkaline phosphatase concentration. The primary endpoint was objective response analysed by intention to treat. The study has completed recruitment, but follow-up of participants is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00433927. FINDINGS Between Jan 23, 2007, and Sept 19, 2012, 592 patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumours were randomly assigned and received treatment (297 in the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab group and 295 in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group). 184 (62·0%, 95% CI 56·2-67·5) patients in the cetuximab group achieved an objective response compared with 171 (58·0%, 52·1-63·7) in the bevacizumab group (odds ratio 1·18, 95% CI 0·85-1·64; p=0·18). Median progression-free survival was 10·0 months (95% CI 8·8-10·8) in the cetuximab group and 10·3 months (9·8-11·3) in the bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·88-1·26; p=0·55); however, median overall survival was 28·7 months (95% CI 24·0-36·6) in the cetuximab group compared with 25·0 months (22·7-27·6) in the bevacizumab group (HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·62-0·96; p=0·017). Safety profiles were consistent with the known side-effects of the study drugs. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both treatment groups were haematotoxicity (73 [25%] of 297 patients in the cetuximab group vs 62 [21%] of 295 patients in the bevacizumab group), skin reactions (77 [26%] vs six [2%]), and diarrhoea (34 [11%] vs 40 [14%]). INTERPRETATION Although the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response did not significantly differ between the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab and FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab groups, the association with longer overall survival suggests that FOLFIRI plus cetuximab could be the preferred first-line regimen for patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING Merck KGaA.

Capecitabine and cisplatin with or without cetuximab for patients with previously untreated advanced gastric cancer (EXPAND): a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND Patients with advanced gastric cancer have a poor prognosis and few efficacious treatment options. We aimed to assess the addition of cetuximab to capecitabine-cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer. METHODS In our open-label, randomised phase 3 trial (EXPAND), we enrolled adults aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed locally advanced unresectable (M0) or metastatic (M1) adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastro-oesophageal junction. We enrolled patients at 164 sites (teaching hospitals and clinics) in 25 countries, and randomly assigned eligible participants (1:1) to receive first-line chemotherapy with or without cetuximab. Randomisation was done with a permuted block randomisation procedure (variable block size), stratified by disease stage (M0 vs M1), previous oesophagectomy or gastrectomy (yes vs no), and previous (neo)adjuvant (radio)chemotherapy (yes vs no). Treatment consisted of 3-week cycles of twice-daily capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) (on days 1-14) and intravenous cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) (on day 1), with or without weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) initial infusion on day 1 followed by 250 mg/m(2) per week thereafter). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), assessed by a masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered at EudraCT, number 2007-004219-75. FINDINGS Between June 30, 2008, and Dec 15, 2010, we enrolled 904 patients. Median PFS for 455 patients allocated capecitabine-cisplatin plus cetuximab was 4.4 months (95% CI 4.2-5.5) compared with 5.6 months (5.1-5.7) for 449 patients who were allocated to receive capecitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.92-1.29; p=0.32). 369 (83%) of 446 patients in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group and 337 (77%) of 436 patients in the chemotherapy group had grade 3-4 adverse events, including grade 3-4 diarrhoea, hypokalaemia, hypomagnesaemia, rash, and hand-foot syndrome. Grade 3-4 neutropenia was more common in controls than in patients who received cetuximab. Incidence of grade 3-4 skin reactions and acne-like rash was substantially higher in the cetuximab-containing regimen than in the control regimen. 239 (54%) of 446 in the cetuximab group and 194 (44%) of 436 in the control group had any grade of serious adverse event. INTERPRETATION Addition of cetuximab to capecitabine-cisplatin provided no additional benefit to chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer in our trial. FUNDING Merck KGaA.

Chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine versus fluorouracil for locally advanced rectal cancer: a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Fluorouracil-based chemoradiotherapy is regarded as a standard perioperative treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer. We investigated the efficacy and safety of substituting fluorouracil with the oral prodrug capecitabine. METHODS This randomised, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial began in March, 2002, as an adjuvant trial comparing capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy with fluorouracil-based chemoradiotherapy, in patients aged 18 years or older with pathological stage II-III locally advanced rectal cancer from 35 German institutions. Patients in the capecitabine group were scheduled to receive two cycles of capecitabine (2500 mg/m(2) days 1-14, repeated day 22), followed by chemoradiotherapy (50·4 Gy plus capecitabine 1650 mg/m(2) days 1-38), then three cycles of capecitabine. Patients in the fluorouracil group received two cycles of bolus fluorouracil (500 mg/m(2) days 1-5, repeated day 29), followed by chemoradiotherapy (50·4 Gy plus infusional fluorouracil 225 mg/m(2) daily), then two cycles of bolus fluorouracil. The protocol was amended in March, 2005, to allow a neoadjuvant cohort in which patients in the capecitabine group received chemoradiotherapy (50·4 Gy plus capecitabine 1650 mg/m(2) daily) followed by radical surgery and five cycles of capecitabine (2500 mg/m(2) per day for 14 days) and patients in the fluorouracil group received chemoradiotherapy (50·4 Gy plus infusional fluorouracil 1000 mg/m(2) days 1-5 and 29-33) followed by radical surgery and four cycles of bolus fluorouracil (500 mg/m(2) for 5 days). Patients were randomly assigned to treatment group in a 1:1 ratio using permuted blocks, with stratification by centre and tumour stage. The primary endpoint was overall survival; analyses were done based on all patients with post-randomisation data. Non-inferiority of capecitabine in terms of 5-year overall survival was tested with a 12·5% margin. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01500993. FINDINGS Between March, 2002, and December, 2007, 401 patients were randomly allocated; 392 patients were evaluable (197 in the capecitabine group, 195 in the fluorouracil group), with a median follow-up of 52 months (IQR 41-72). 5-year overall survival in the capecitabine group was non-inferior to that in the fluorouracil group (76% [95% CI 67-82] vs 67% [58-74]; p=0·0004; post-hoc test for superiority p=0·05). 3-year disease-free survival was 75% (95% CI 68-81) in the capecitabine group and 67% (59-73) in the fluorouracil group (p=0·07). Similar numbers of patients had local recurrences in each group (12 [6%] in the capecitabine group vs 14 [7%] in the fluorouracil group, p=0·67), but fewer patients developed distant metastases in the capecitabine group (37 [19%] vs 54 [28%]; p=0·04). Diarrhoea was the most common adverse event in both groups (any grade: 104 [53%] patients in the capecitabine group vs 85 [44%] in the fluorouracil group; grade 3-4: 17 [9%] vs four [2%]). Patients in the capecitabine group had more hand-foot skin reactions (62 [31%] any grade, four [2%] grade 3-4 vs three [2%] any grade, no grade 3-4), fatigue (55 [28%] any grade, no grade 3-4 vs 29 [15%], two [1%] grade 3-4), and proctitis (31 [16%] any grade, one [<1%] grade 3-4 vs ten [5%], one [<1%] grade 3-4) than did those in the fluorouracil group, whereas leucopenia was more frequent with fluorouracil than with capecitabine (68 [35%] any grade, 16 [8%] grade 3-4 vs 50 [25%] any grade, three [2%] grade 3-4). INTERPRETATION Capecitabine could replace fluorouracil in adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimens for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. FUNDING Roche Pharma AG (Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany).

Effect of Chemokine Receptors CXCR4 and CCR7 on the Metastatic Behavior of Human Colorectal Cancer

Purpose: The expression of chemokine receptors CXCR4 and CCR7 has been associated with tumor dissemination and poor prognosis in a limited number of tumor entities. However, no data are currently available on the impact of chemokine receptor expression on disease progression and prognosis in human colorectal cancer. Experimental Design: The expression of CXCR4 and CCR7 was evaluated in 96 patients with histologically confirmed colorectal cancers and in four colorectal cancer cell lines by immunohistochemical staining. Furthermore, cell migration assays were done with SW480, SW620, and LS174T cancer cells to confirm the effect of the CXCR4 ligand stromal cell–derived factor 1α on migration. Results: Human colorectal cancer specimens and cell lines displayed a CXCR4 and CCR7 expression with variable intensities. Interestingly, strong expression of CXCR4, but not of CCR7, was significantly associated with higher Union International Contre Cancer stages 3/4 (P = 0.0017), lymph node metastasis (P = 0.00375), and distant metastasis (P = 0.00003) and further correlated with a reduced 3-year survival rate (P = 0.1). Strong CXCR4 and CCR7 expression positively correlated with the location of the primary tumor in the rectum (P < 0.01). Furthermore, activation of CXCR4-expressing cancer cells by stromal cell–derived factor 1α resulted in a significant increase of cell migration (P < 0.014). Conclusion: Strong expression of CXCR4 by colorectal cancer cells is significantly associated with lymphatic and distant dissemination in patients with colorectal cancer as well as with cancer cell migration in vitro.

Dissemination of hepatocellular carcinoma is mediated via chemokine receptor CXCR4.

In different tumour entities, expression of the chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) has been linked to tumour dissemination and poor prognosis. Therefore, we evaluated, if the expression of CXCR4 exerts similar effects in human hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Expression analysis and functional assays were performed in vitro to elucidate the impact of CXCL12 on human hepatoma cells lines. In addition, expression of CXCR4 was evaluated in 39 patients with HCC semiquantitatively and correlated with both, tumour and patients characteristics. Human HCC and hepatoma cell lines displayed variable intensities of CXCR4 expression. Loss of p53 function did not impact on CXCR4 expression. Exposure to CXCL12 mediated a perinuclear translocation of CXCR4 in Huh7/Hep3B cells and increased the invasive potential of Huh7 cells. In HCC patients, CXCR4 expression significantly correlated with progressed local tumours (T-status; P=0.006), lymphatic metastasis (N-status; P=0.005) and distant dissemination (M-status; P=0.009), as well as with a decreased 3-year-survival rate (P=0.01). In summary, strong expression of CXCR4 is significantly associated with progressed hepatocellular cancer.

Cetuximab plus cisplatin–5-fluorouracil versus cisplatin–5-fluorouracil alone in first-line metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus: a randomized phase II study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie

BACKGROUND This study assessed the activity of the mAb cetuximab in combination with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS For a maximum of six 29-day cycles, patients received cisplatin 100 mg/m(2), day 1, plus 5-FU 1000 mg/m(2), days 1-5 (CF), either alone or in combination with cetuximab (CET-CF; 400 mg/m(2) initial dose followed by 250 mg/m(2) weekly thereafter). The primary end point was tumor response. Tumor material was obtained for analysis of KRAS mutation status. RESULTS Sixty-two eligible patients were included, 32 receiving CET-CF and 30 CF. Cetuximab did not exacerbate grade 3/4 toxicity, except for rash (6% versus 0%) and diarrhea (16% versus 0%). The overall response rate according to RECIST criteria was 19% and 13% and the disease control rate 75% and 57% for the CET-CF and CF arms, respectively. With a median follow-up of 21.5 months, the median progression-free survival was 5.9 and 3.6 months and median overall survival 9.5 and 5.5 months for CET-CF and CF, respectively. No KRAS codon 12/13 tumor mutations were identified in 37 evaluated samples. CONCLUSION Cetuximab can be safely combined with CF chemotherapy and may increase the efficacy of standard CF chemotherapy.

Minimal Change Esophagitis: Prospective Comparison of Endoscopic and Histological Markers between Patients with Non-Erosive Reflux Disease and Normal Controls Using Magnifying Endoscopy

Introduction: More than half the patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) show no endoscopic abnormality or minimal change esophagitis (non-erosive reflux disease, NERD). We investigated the value of endoscopic and histological markers for the prediction of NERD before and after treatment with 20 mg esomeprazole. Methods: Between July and October 2002, consecutive patients presenting for upper endoscopy were stratified into GERD and non-reflux patients (control group) with the help of a questionnaire. The endoscopist was blind to the presence of reflux symptoms. Using magnifying endoscopes minimal change esophagitis was defined by the presence of vascular injection or vascular spots above the Z-line, villous mucosal surface and islands of squamous cell epithelium below the Z-line. Targeted and random biopsies were taken below and above the Z-line. Patients with endoscopically visible classical signs of esophagitis (Los Angeles A–D) or histologically proven Barrett’s esophagus were not further investigated in the study (drop out). The esophageal specimens were histologically evaluated for erosions, infiltration with leukocytes, hyperplasia of basal cells and length of papillae. Patients with NERD were treated with 20 mg esomeprazole/day for 4 weeks and reevaluated by endoscopy as described before. Results: 39 patients with heartburn and 39 patients without reflux symptoms (controls) were finally included in the analysis (per protocol). Patients with NERD significantly (p = 0.005) more often showed endoscopic signs of minimal change esophagitis (27/39) than the control group (8/39). An increased length of papillae (14/39 versus 2/39; p = 0.005) and basal cell hyperplasia (17/39 versus 4/39; p = 0.009) were significantly more common in the heartburn group. After treatment with esomeprazole, no significant endoscopic or histological differences between the NERD and control group could be observed. Conclusions: Minimal change esophagitis can be seen with high resolution magnifying endoscopy. By combining endoscopic and histological markers NERD can be predicted with a sensitivity of 62% and a specificity of 74%. Treatment with esomeprazole for 4 weeks reverses the slight alterations to normal.

Cetuximab with irinotecan, folinic acid and 5-fluorouracil as first-line treatment in advanced gastroesophageal cancer: a prospective multi-center biomarker-oriented phase II study

BACKGROUND Cetuximab plus irinotecan/folinic acid/5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (IF) was evaluated as first-line treatment of patients with advanced gastric cancer and gastroesophageal junction tumors. Preplanned analyses of the influence of tumor biomarkers on treatment outcome were carried out. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients received weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) on day 1, subsequently 250 mg/m(2)) plus irinotecan (80 mg/m(2)) and a 24-hour continuous infusion of folinic acid (200 mg/m(2)) and 5-FU (1500 mg/m(2)) on days 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 and 36 of a 50-day cycle, until progressive disease (PD). RESULTS The most common grade 3/4 toxic effects in 49 patients were diarrhea (15%) and skin toxic effects (14%). In 48 assessable patients, the overall response rate was 46% and disease control rate was 79%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was 9.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.1-15.6] and 16.5 months (95% CI 11.7-30.1), respectively. Tumor response was more common than nonresponse in epidermal growth factor receptor-expressing tumors (P = 0.041). Tumor PTEN expression was associated with longer PFS (P = 0.035) and OS (P = 0.0127) than no PTEN expression. CONCLUSION Cetuximab plus IF was well tolerated and efficacy data were encouraging. This treatment combination and the role of selected biomarkers are under investigation in the ongoing phase III EXPAND trial.

Randomised phase II evaluation of irinotecan plus high-dose 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (ILF) vs 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and etoposide (ELF) in untreated metastatic gastric cancer

An open-label randomised comparison of efficacy and tolerability of irinotecan plus high-dose 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV) (ILF) with etoposide plus 5-FU/LV (ELF) in patients with untreated metastatic or locally advanced gastric cancer. One cycle of ILF comprised six once-weekly infusions of irinotecan 80 mg m−2, LV 500 mg m−2, 24-h 5-FU 2000 mg m−2, and ELF comprised three once-daily doses of etoposide 120 mg m−2, LV 300 mg m−2, 5-FU 500 mg m−2. In all, 56 patients received ILF and 58 ELF. Median age was 62 years, Karnofsky performance 90%, and disease status was comparable for both arms. The objective clinical response rates after 14 weeks treatment (primary end point) were 30% for ILF and 17% for ELF (risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29–1.13, P=0.0766). Overall response rates over the entire treatment period for ILF and ELF were 43 and 24%, respectively (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33–0.97; P=0.0467). For ILF and ELF, respectively, median progression-free survival was 4.5 vs 2.3 months, time to treatment failure was 3.6 vs 2.2 months (P=0.4542), and overall survival was 10.8 vs 8.3 months (P=0.2818). Both regimens were well tolerated, the main grade 3/4 toxicities being diarrhoea (18%, ILF) and neutropenia (57%, ELF). The data from this randomised phase II study indicate that ILF provides a better response rate than ELF, and that ILF should be investigated further for the treatment of metastatic gastric cancer.

Intrapatient Cetuximab Dose Escalation in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer According to the Grade of Early Skin Reactions: The Randomized EVEREST Study

PURPOSE Skin toxicity in patients receiving cetuximab has been associated positively with clinical outcome in several tumor types. This study investigated the effect of cetuximab dose escalation in patients with irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer who had developed no or mild skin reactions after 21 days of treatment at the standard dose. This article reports clinical and pharmacokinetic (PK) data. PATIENTS AND METHODS After 21 days of standard-dose cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) initial dose, then 250 mg/m(2) per week) plus irinotecan, patients with ≤ grade 1 skin reactions were randomly assigned to standard-dose (group A) or dose-escalated (to 500 mg/m(2) per week; group B) cetuximab. Patients with ≥ grade 2 skin reactions continued on standard-dose cetuximab plus irinotecan (group C). RESULTS The intent-to-treat population comprised 157 patients. PK profiles reflected the dose increase and were predictable across the dose range investigated. Weekly cetuximab doses of up to 500 mg/m(2) were well tolerated, and grade 3 and 4 adverse events were generally comparable between treatment groups. Dose escalation (n = 44) was associated with an increase in skin reactions ≥ grade 2 compared with standard (n = 45) dosing (59% v 38%, respectively). Dose escalation, compared with standard dosing, showed some evidence for improved response rate (30% v 16%, respectively) and disease control rate (70% v 58%, respectively) but no indication of benefit in relation to overall survival. In an exploratory analysis, dose escalation seemed to increase response rate compared with standard dosing in patients with KRAS wild-type but not KRAS mutant tumors. CONCLUSION Cetuximab serum concentrations increased predictably with dose. Higher dose levels were well tolerated. The possible indication for improved efficacy in the dose-escalation group warrants further investigation.