Ursula Vehling-Kaiser

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.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

PURPOSE To compare the effectiveness and tolerability of gemcitabine plus cisplatin with single-agent gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were randomly assigned to receive either gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 and cisplatin 50 mg/m2 given on days 1 and 15 of a 4-week cycle (GemCis arm) or gemcitabine alone at a dose of 1,000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 4-week regimen (Gem arm). The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were progression-free survival, response rate, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS One hundred ninety-five patients were enrolled and showed baseline characteristics well balanced between treatment arms. Combination treatment in the GemCis arm was associated with a prolonged median progression-free survival (5.3 months v 3.1 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75; P = .053). Also, median overall survival was superior for patients treated in the GemCis arm as compared with the Gem arm (7.5 v 6.0 months), an advantage which did not, however, reach statistical significance (HR = 0.80; P = .15). Tumor response rates were comparable between treatment arms (10.2% v 8.2%). The rate of stable disease was, however, greater in the combination arm (60.2% v 40.2%; P < .001). Grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicity did not exceed 15% in both treatment arms. CONCLUSION These results support the efficacy and safety of an every-2-weeks treatment with gemcitabine plus cisplatin. Median overall survival and progression-free survival were more favorable in the combination arm as compared with gemcitabine alone, although the difference did not attain statistical significance.

Treatment of Older Patients with Mantle-Cell Lymphoma

BACKGROUND The long-term prognosis for older patients with mantle-cell lymphoma is poor. Chemoimmunotherapy results in low rates of complete remission, and most patients have a relapse. We investigated whether a fludarabine-containing induction regimen improved the complete-remission rate and whether maintenance therapy with rituximab prolonged remission. METHODS We randomly assigned patients 60 years of age or older with mantle-cell lymphoma, stage II to IV, who were not eligible for high-dose therapy to six cycles of rituximab, fludarabine, and cyclophosphamide (R-FC) every 28 days or to eight cycles of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) every 21 days. Patients who had a response underwent a second randomization to maintenance therapy with rituximab or interferon alfa, each given until progression. RESULTS Of the 560 patients enrolled, 532 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis for response, and 485 in the primary analysis for response. The median age was 70 years. Although complete-remission rates were similar with R-FC and R-CHOP (40% and 34%, respectively; P=0.10), progressive disease was more frequent with R-FC (14%, vs. 5% with R-CHOP). Overall survival was significantly shorter with R-FC than with R-CHOP (4-year survival rate, 47% vs. 62%; P=0.005), and more patients in the R-FC group died during the first remission (10% vs. 4%). Hematologic toxic effects occurred more frequently in the R-FC group than in the R-CHOP group, but the frequency of grade 3 or 4 infections was balanced (17% and 14%, respectively). In 274 of the 316 patients who were randomly assigned to maintenance therapy, rituximab reduced the risk of progression or death by 45% (in remission after 4 years, 58%, vs. 29% with interferon alfa; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.36 to 0.87; P=0.01). Among patients who had a response to R-CHOP, maintenance therapy with rituximab significantly improved overall survival (4-year survival rate, 87%, vs. 63% with interferon alfa; P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS R-CHOP induction followed by maintenance therapy with rituximab is effective for older patients with mantle-cell lymphoma. (Funded by the European Commission and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00209209.).

First-line chemoimmunotherapy with bendamustine and rituximab versus fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab in patients with advanced chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL10): an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND Chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab is the standard therapy for physically fit patients with advanced chronic lymphocytic leukaemia. This international phase 3 study compared the efficacy and tolerance of the standard therapy with a potentially less toxic combination consisting of bendamustine and rituximab. METHODS Treatment-naive fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (aged 33-81 years) without del(17p) were enrolled after undergoing a central screening process. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a computer-generated randomisation list using randomly permuted blocks with a block size of eight and were stratified according to participating country and Binet stage. Patients were allocated to receive six cycles of intravenous fludarabine (25 mg/m(2) per day) and cyclophosphamide (250 mg/m(2) per day) for the first 3 days or to intravenous bendamustine (90 mg/m(2) per day) for the first 2 days of each cycle. Rituximab 375 mg/m(2) was given intravenously in both groups on day 0 of cycle 1 and subsequently was given at 500 mg/m(2) during the next five cycles on day 1. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival with the objective to assess non-inferiority of bendamustine and rituximab to the standard therapy. We aimed to show that the 2-year progression-free survival with bendamustine and rituximab was not 67·5% or less with a corresponding non-inferiority margin of 1·388 for the hazard ratio (HR) based on the 90·4% CI. The final analysis was done by intention to treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT%2000769522. FINDINGS 688 patients were recruited between Oct 2, 2008, and July 11, 2011, of which 564 patients who met inclusion criteria were randomly assigned. 561 patients were included in the intention-to-treat population: 282 patients in the fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab group and 279 in the bendamustine and rituximab group. After a median observation time of 37·1 months (IQR 31·0-45·5) median progression-free survival was 41·7 months (95% CI 34·9-45·3) with bendamustine and rituximab and 55·2 months (95% CI not evaluable) with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (HR 1·643, 90·4% CI 1·308-2·064). As the upper limit of the 90·4% CI was greater than 1·388 the null hypothesis for the corresponding non-inferiority hypothesis was not rejected. Severe neutropenia and infections were more frequently observed with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (235 [84%] of 279 vs 164 [59%] of 278, and 109 [39%] vs 69 [25%], respectively) during the study. The increased frequency of infectious complications with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab was more pronounced in patients older than 65 years. INTERPRETATION The combination of fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab remains the standard front-line therapy in fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, but bendamustine and rituximab is associated with less toxic effects. FUNDING Roche Pharma AG, Mundipharma, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

Randomized comparison of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment of KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: German AIO study KRK-0306 (FIRE-3).

LBA3506 Background: In patients (pts) with KRAS, wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) a head to head comparison of anti-EGFR- and anti-VEGF-directed first-line therapy has not been reported with regard to the FOLFIRI backbone. The AIO KRK-0306 study was therefore designed as a randomized multicenter trial to compare the efficacy of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab to FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in mCRC pts not pretreated for metastatic disease. METHODS Pts were randomized to FOLFIRI (Tournigand regimen) every two wks plus cetuximab (400 mg/m² day 1, followed by 250 mg/m² wkly = arm A) or bevacizumab (5 mg/kg every two wks = arm B). The intent-to-treat (ITT) population comprised all pts who had at least completed one application of therapy. While recruitment initially was independent of KRAS status, an amendment confined inclusion to KRAS wildtype (WT) tumors. Recruitment was completed in October 2012. The primary study endpoint was objective response rate (ORR, investigators read). RESULTS Among 735 pts of the ITT-population, KRAS-WT was identified in 592. Of these, 297 pts were randomized to arm A and 295 to arm B. Median age was 64 years, 66% of pts were male, and ECOG PS 0-1 was observed in 98% of pts. Median duration of treatment was 4.7 mo vs 5.3 mo, respectively. While in the ITT analysis, ORR was comparable in arms A vs B (62% vs 57%, odds ratio 1.249), a significant superiority was found for assessable pts in arm A. Median PFS of the ITT population was nearly identical (10.3 vs 10.4 mo, HR 1.04, p=0.69), however, overall survival (OS) showed a significantly better outcome in arm A vs arm B (28.8 vs 25.0 mo, HR 0.77, p=0.0164, 95% CI: 0.620-0.953). Sixty-day mortality was low in both arms (1.01% vs 2.71%). CONCLUSIONS ORR was comparable between arms in the ITT analysis, but favored arm A in assessable pts. Significantly superior OS was observed in KRAS-WT patients receiving cetuximab plus FOLFIRI as first-line treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION NCT00433927.

Cetuximab Plus Capecitabine and Irinotecan Compared With Cetuximab Plus Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin As First-Line Treatment for Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: AIO KRK-0104—A Randomized Trial of the German AIO CRC Study Group

PURPOSE The AIO KRK-0104 randomized phase II trial investigated the efficacy and safety of cetuximab combined with capecitabine and irinotecan (CAPIRI) or capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 185 patients with mCRC were randomly assigned to cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) day 1, followed by 250 mg/m(2) weekly) plus CAPIRI (irinotecan 200 mg/m(2), day 1; capecitabine 800 mg/m(2) twice daily days 1 through 14, every 3 weeks; or cetuximab plus CAPOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) day 1; capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily day 1 through 14, every 3 weeks). The primary study end point was objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS In the intention-to-treat patient population (n = 177), ORR was 46% (95% CI, 35 to 57) for CAPIRI plus cetuximab versus 48% (95% CI, 37 to 59) for CAPOX plus cetuximab. Analysis of the KRAS gene mutation status was performed in 81.4% of the intention to treat population. Patients with KRAS wild-type in the CAPIRI plus cetuximab arm showed an ORR of 50.0%, a PFS of 6.2 months and an OS of 21.1 months. In the CAPOX plus cetuximab arm, an ORR of 44.9%, a PFS of 7.1 months and an OS of 23.5 months were observed. While ORR and PFS were comparable in KRAS wild-type and mutant subgroups, a trend toward longer survival was associated with KRAS wild-type. Both regimens had manageable toxicity profiles and were safe. CONCLUSION This randomized trial demonstrates that the addition of cetuximab to CAPIRI or CAPOX is effective and safe in first-line treatment of mCRC. In the analyzed regimens, ORR and PFS did not differ according to KRAS gene mutation status.

FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a post-hoc analysis of tumour dynamics in the final RAS wild-type subgroup of this randomised open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND FIRE-3 compared first-line 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. The same study also reported an exploratory analysis of a subgroup of patients with tumours that were wild-type at other RAS genes (KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4). We report here efficacy results for the FIRE-3 final RAS (KRAS/NRAS, exons 2-4) wild-type subgroup. Moreover, new metrics of tumour dynamics were explored during a centralised radiological review to investigate how FOLFIRI plus cetuximab conferred overall survival benefit in the absence of differences in investigator-assessed objective responses and progression-free survival. METHODS FIRE-3 was a randomised phase 3 trial comparing FOLFIRI plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. The primary endpoint of the FIRE-3 study was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 in the intention-to-treat population. A centralised radiological review of CT scans was done in a post-hoc analysis to assess objective response according to RECIST 1.1, early tumour shrinkage, depth of response, duration of response, and time to response in the final RAS wild-type subgroup. Comparisons between treatment groups with respect to objective response rate and early tumour shrinkage were made using Fishers exact test (two-sided), while differences in depth of response were investigated with a two-sided Wilcoxon test. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00433927. FINDINGS In the final RAS wild-type population (n=400), median overall survival was better in the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab group than the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group (33·1 months [95% CI 24·5-39·4] vs 25·0 months [23·0-28·1]; hazard ratio 0·70 [0·54-0·90]; p=0·0059), although investigator-assessed objective response and progression-free survival were comparable between treatment groups. Centralised radiological review of CT-assessable patients (n=330) showed that the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (113 of 157, 72·0% [95% CI 64·3-78·8] vs 97 of 173, 56·1% [48·3-63·6]; p=0·0029), frequency of early tumour shrinkage (107 of 157, 68·2% [60·3-75·4] vs 85 of 173, 49·1% [41·5-56·8]; p=0·0005), and median depth of response (-48·9% [-54·3 to -42·0] vs -32·3% [-38·2 to -29·2]; p<0·0001) were significantly better in extended RAS wild-type patients receiving FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus those receiving FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. No differences in duration of response and time to response were observed between treatment groups. INTERPRETATION This analysis provides a new framework that connects alternative metrics of response to overall survival. Superior response-related outcome parameters, such as early tumour shrinkage and depth of response, obtained by centralised radiological review correlated with the overall survival benefit conferred by FOLFIRI plus cetuximab compared with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the extended RAS wild-type subgroup. FUNDING Merck KGaA and Pfizer.

Gemcitabine plus erlotinib followed by capecitabine versus capecitabine plus erlotinib followed by gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer: final results of a randomised phase 3 trial of the ‘Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie’ (AIO-PK0104)

Objective AIO-PK0104 investigated two treatment strategies in advanced pancreatic cancer (PC): a reference sequence of gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by 2nd-line capecitabine was compared with a reverse experimental sequence of capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine. Methods 281 patients with PC were randomly assigned to 1st-line treatment with either gemcitabine plus erlotinib or capecitabine plus erlotinib. In case of treatment failure (eg, disease progression or toxicity), patients were allocated to 2nd-line treatment with the comparator cytostatic drug without erlotinib. The primary study endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF) after 1st- and 2nd-line therapy (TTF2; non-inferiority design). KRAS exon 2 mutations were analysed in archival tumour tissue from 173 of the randomised patients. Results Of the 274 eligible patients, 43 had locally advanced and 231 had metastatic disease; 140 (51%) received 2nd-line chemotherapy. Median TTF2 was estimated with 4.2 months in both arms; median overall survival was 6.2 months with gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by capecitabine and 6.9 months with capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine, respectively (HR 1.02, p=0.90). TTF for 1st-line therapy (TTF1) was significantly prolonged with gemcitabine/erlotinib compared to capecitabine/erlotinib (3.2 vs 2.2 months; HR 0.69, p=0.0034). Skin rash was associated with both TTF2 (rash grade 0/1/2–4:2.9/4.3/6.7 months, p<0.0001) and survival (3.4/7.0/9.6 months, p<0.0001). Each arm showed a safe and manageable toxicity profile during 1st- and 2nd-line therapy. A KRAS wild-type status (52/173 patients, 30%) was associated with an improved overall survival (HR 1.68, p=0.005). Conclusion Both treatment strategies are feasible and demonstrated comparable efficacy; KRAS may serve as biomarker in patients with advanced PC treated with erlotinib. Trial registration number This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00440167. Significance of this study What is already known on this subject? Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy remains an international standard of care for patients with non-resectable, advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). Anti-EGFR treatment with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib, as well as chemotherapy intensification by application of the FOLFIRINOX regimen, both significantly improved overall survival in randomised phase 3 trials. The optimal (sequential) regimen for the use of gemcitabine, erlotinib and the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine remains unclear in advanced PC. Molecular predictors for the efficacy of anti-EGFR treatments in PC have not been defined up to now. What are the new findings? The sequential use of gemcitabine, erlotinib and capecitabine is safe and equally effective in PC; gemcitabine appears to be more effective in 1st- and 2nd-line therapy than capecitabine and therefore remains the preferred combination partner for erlotinib. Skin rash is strongly correlated with efficacy outcome measures in PC patients treated with erlotinib. KRAS wild-type status appears to be associated with improved overall survival in patients treated with erlotinib in this AIO study. Significance of this study How might it impact on clinical practice in the foreseeable future? The benefit of adding erlotinib to chemotherapy is restricted to patients that experience skin rash during treatment; non-rash patients are characterised by a very poor outcome and need to be offered novel treatment strategies. Second-line salvage chemotherapy is effective and safe in selected PC patients. KRAS could serve as the first biomarker for improved survival in erlotinib-treated patients; the predictive value of KRAS for erlotinib efficacy remains to be defined prospectively.

Prognostic Value of Ki-67 Index, Cytology, and Growth Pattern in Mantle-Cell Lymphoma: Results From Randomized Trials of the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Network

PURPOSE Mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rather aggressive B-cell malignancy whose considerable variability of individual outcome is associated with clinical characteristics (Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index [MIPI]). The Ki-67 index is a strong independent prognostic factor; however, the biologic MIPI (MIPI-b) distinguishes only two groups, which does not appropriately depict the clinical heterogeneity. By using the cohort from the European MCL Younger and MCL Elderly trials, we aimed to evaluate the additional prognostic impact of cytology and growth pattern and to improve risk stratification with the Ki-67 index and MIPI. PATIENTS AND METHODS Diagnostic tumor biopsies were reviewed by the European Mantle Cell Lymphoma Pathology Panel to determine Ki-67 index by using published guidelines, cytology, and growth pattern. We evaluated prognostic effects for overall survival (OS) by Cox regression. For the cohort used for MIPI-b development (German Low-Grade Lymphoma Study Group [GLSG] 1996 and GLSG2000), we checked whether the equally weighted combination of Ki-67 index (dichotomized at the validated 30% cutoff) and MIPI risk groups was adequate and compared the prognostic power of this modified combination to MIPI and MIPI-b for the MCL Younger/MCL Elderly cohort. RESULTS The Ki-67 index was assessed in 508 of 832 patients (median age, 62 years). Blastoid cytology was associated with inferior OS independently of MIPI but not independently of the Ki-67 index. Growth pattern was not independently prognostic. The modified combination of the Ki-67 index and MIPI separated four groups with 5-year OS: 85%, 72%, 43%, and 17% (P < .001) and was more discriminative than MIPI and MIPI-b. CONCLUSION Using the Ki-67 index is superior to using cytology and growth pattern as prognostic factors in MCL. The modified combination of the Ki-67 index and MIPI showed a refined risk stratification, reflecting their strong complementary prognostic effects while integrating the most relevant prognostic factors available in clinical routine.

EGFR pathway biomarkers in erlotinib-treated patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: translational results from the randomised, crossover phase 3 trial AIO-PK0104

Background:We aimed to identify molecular epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tissue biomarkers in pancreatic cancer (PC) patients treated with the anti-EGFR agent erlotinib within the phase 3 randomised AIO-PK0104 study.Methods:AIO-PK0104 was a multicenter trial comparing gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by capecitabine with capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine in advanced PC; primary study end point was the time-to-treatment failure after first- and second-line therapy (TTF2). Translational analyses were performed for KRAS exon 2 mutations, EGFR expression, PTEN expression, the EGFR intron 1 and exon 13 R497K polymorphism (PM). Biomarker data were correlated with TTF, overall survival (OS) and skin rash.Results:Archival tumour tissue was available from 208 (74%) of the randomised patients. The KRAS mutations were found in 70% (121 out of 173) of patients and exclusively occurred in codon 12. The EGFR overexpression was detected in 89 out of 181 patients (49%) by immunohistochemistry (IHC), and 77 out of 166 patients (46%) had an EGFR gene amplification by fluorescence in-situ hybridisation (FISH); 30 out of 171 patients (18%) had a loss of PTEN expression, which was associated with an inferior TTF1 (first-line therapy; HR 0.61, P=0.02) and TTF2 (HR 0.66, P=0.04). The KRAS wild-type status was associated with improved OS (HR 1.68, P=0.005); no significant OS correlation was found for EGFR–IHC (HR 0.96), EGFR–FISH (HR 1.22), PTEN–IHC (HR 0.77), intron 1 (HR 0.91) or exon 13 R497K PM (HR 0.83). None of the six biomarkers correlated with the occurrence of skin rash.Conclusion:The KRAS wild-type was associated with an improved OS in erlotinib-treated PC patients in this phase 3 study; it remains to be defined whether this association is prognostic or predictive.