Volker Heinemann

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.

ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in Western countries. Over the last 20 years, and the last decade in particular, the clinical outcome for patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has improved greatly due not only to an increase in the number of patients being referred for and undergoing surgical resection of their localised metastatic disease but also to a more strategic approach to the delivery of systemic therapy and an expansion in the use of ablative techniques. This reflects the increase in the number of patients that are being managed within a multidisciplinary team environment and specialist cancer centres, and the emergence over the same time period not only of improved imaging techniques but also prognostic and predictive molecular markers. Treatment decisions for patients with mCRC must be evidence-based. Thus, these ESMO consensus guidelines have been developed based on the current available evidence to provide a series of evidence-based recommendations to assist in the treatment and management of patients with mCRC in this rapidly evolving treatment setting.

Meta-analysis of randomized trials: evaluation of benefit from gemcitabine-based combination chemotherapy applied in advanced pancreatic cancer.

BackgroundSingle-agent gemcitabine (GEM) is a standard treatment for advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. This study examines the question whether GEM-based combination chemotherapy can further improve treatment efficacy.MethodsA meta-analysis was performed to evaluate randomized trials comparing GEM versus GEM+X (X = cytotoxic agent). Fifteen trials including 4465 patients were eligible for an analysis of overall survival, the primary end-point of this investigation.ResultsThe meta-analysis revealed a significant survival benefit for GEM+X with a pooled hazard ratio (HR) of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85 – 0.97, p = 0.004). The overall test for heterogeneity resulted in p = 0.82 (I2 = 0%). The analysis of platinum-based combinations indicated a HR of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.76 – 0.96, p = 0.010), while for fluoropyrimidine-based combinations the HR was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.81 – 0.99, p = 0.030). No risk reduction was observed in the group of trials combining GEM with irinotecan, exatecan or pemetrexed (HR = 0.99). A meta-analysis of the trials with adequate information on baseline performance status (PS) was performed in five trials with 1682 patients. This analysis indicated that patients with a good PS had a marked survival benefit when receiving combination chemotherapy (HR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.67 – 0.87; p < 0.0001). By contrast, application of combination chemotherapy to patients with an initially poor PS appeared to be ineffective (HR = 1.08; 95% CI: 0.90 – 1.29, p = 0.40).ConclusionThe meta-analysis of randomized trials indicated a significant survival benefit when GEM was either combined with platinum analogs or fluoropyrimidines. Based on a preliminary subgroup analysis (representing 38% of all patients included in this meta-analysis), pancreatic cancer patients with a good PS appear to benefit from GEM-based cytotoxic combinations, whereas patients with a poor PS seem to have no survival benefit from combination chemotherapy.

Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Irinotecan Plus Cetuximab Treatment and RAS Mutations in Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE The phase III CRYSTAL study demonstrated that addition of cetuximab to fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS codon 12/13 (exon 2) wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Outcome was reassessed in subgroups defined by extended RAS mutation testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS Existing DNA samples from KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumors from CRYSTAL study patients were reanalyzed for other RAS mutations in four additional KRAS codons (exons 3 and 4) and six NRAS codons (exons 2, 3, and 4) using beads, emulsion, amplification, and magnetics technology. No tissue microdissection was performed. A ≥ 5% mutant allele cutoff was used to call mutations. RESULTS Mutation status was evaluable in 430 (64.6%) of 666 patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumors. Other RAS mutations were detected in 63 (14.7%) of 430 patients. In those with RAS wild-type tumors, a significant benefit across all efficacy end points was associated with the addition of cetuximab to FOLFIRI. In patients with other RAS tumor mutations, no difference in efficacy outcomes between treatment groups was seen. The safety profile in RAS subgroups was similar and in line with expectations. CONCLUSION In the first-line treatment of mCRC, patients with RAS wild-type tumors derived a significant benefit from the addition of cetuximab to FOLFIRI; patients with RAS tumor mutations did not. Molecular testing of tumors for all activating RAS mutations is essential before considering anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy, thereby allowing the further tailoring of cetuximab administration to maximize patient benefit.

Clinical relevance of EGFR- and KRAS-status in colorectal cancer patients treated with monoclonal antibodies directed against the EGFR

The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) plays an important role in tumorigenesis and tumor progression of colorectal cancer (CRC). As a result, the EGFR has evolved as a relevant target in the treatment of metastatic CRC. KRAS serves as a mediator between extracellular ligand binding and intracellular transduction of signals from the EGFR to the nucleus. The presence of activating KRAS mutations has been identified as a potent predictor of resistance to EGFR-directed antibodies such as cetuximab or panitumumab. These agents should therefore be applied only in tumors with a wild-type status of the KRAS gene. Further parameters of resistance are lack of EGFR amplification, PTEN loss or BRAF mutation. However, they are less well studied or associated with less consistent data and therefore require prospective analyses before integration into clinical decision making. Future studies need to identify patterns of single or multiple mutations to further increase the power of patient selection for anti-EGFR therapy. While molecular parameters help to predict treatment efficacy upfront, skin toxicity has been accepted as an independent predictor of response during exposure to anti-EGFR therapy.

Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin with or without cetuximab in advanced biliary-tract cancer (BINGO): a randomised, open-label, non-comparative phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND Gemcitabine plus a platinum-based agent (eg, cisplatin or oxaliplatin) is the standard of care for advanced biliary cancers. We investigated the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy in patients with advanced biliary cancers. METHODS In this non-comparative, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial, we recruited patients with locally advanced (non-resectable) or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder carcinoma, or ampullary carcinoma and a WHO performance status of 0 or 1 from 18 hospitals across France and Germany. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally with a minimisation procedure to first-line treatment with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2)) and oxaliplatin (100 mg/m(2)) with or without cetuximab (500 mg/m(2)), repeated every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by centre, primary site of disease, disease stage, and previous treatment with curative intent or adjuvant therapy. Investigators who assessed treatment response were not masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were progression-free at 4 months, analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00552149. FINDINGS Between Oct 10, 2007, and Dec 18, 2009, 76 patients were assigned to chemotherapy plus cetuximab and 74 to chemotherapy alone. 48 (63%; 95% CI 52-74) patients assigned to chemotherapy plus cetuximab and 40 (54%; 43-65) assigned to chemotherapy alone were progression-free at 4 months. Median progression-free survival was 6·1 months (95% CI 5·1-7·6) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group and 5·5 months (3·7-6·6) in the chemotherapy alone group. Median overall survival was 11·0 months (9·1-13·7) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group and 12·4 months (8·6-16·0) in the chemotherapy alone group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were peripheral neuropathy (in 18 [24%] of 76 patients who received chemotherapy plus cetuximab vs ten [15%] of 68 who received chemotherapy alone), neutropenia (17 [22%] vs 11 [16%]), and increased aminotransferase concentrations (17 [22%] vs ten [15%]). 70 serious adverse events were reported in 39 (51%) of 76 patients who received chemotherapy plus cetuximab (34 events in 19 [25%] patients were treatment-related), whereas 41 serious adverse events were reported in 25 (35%) of 71 patients who received chemotherapy alone (20 events in 12 [17%] patients were treatment-related). One patient died of atypical pneumonia related to treatment in the chemotherapy alone group. INTERPRETATION The addition of cetuximab to gemcitabine and oxaliplatin did not seem to enhance the activity of chemotherapy in patients with advanced biliary cancer, although it was well tolerated. Gemcitabine and platinum-based combination should remain the standard treatment option. FUNDING Institut National du Cancer, Merck Serono.

Phase II trial of mapatumumab, a fully human agonistic monoclonal antibody that targets and activates the tumour necrosis factor apoptosis-inducing ligand receptor-1 (TRAIL-R1), in patients with refractory colorectal cancer

Background:Recombinant tumour necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) induces tumour-selective apoptosis in various pre-clinical models by binding its specific receptors expressed on cancer cells. Mapatumumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that is agonistic to the TRAIL Receptor 1 (TRAIL-R1).Methods:This phase II multicentre study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mapatumumab in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) who had failed to respond to, were intolerant to, or not candidates for fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan-based regimens. All patients received two loading doses of mapatumumab (20 mg kg−1 every 14 days), followed by maintenance therapy with 10 mg kg−1 infused every 14 days.Results:A total of 38 patients, who had progressive disease after a median of three earlier chemotherapy lines, were enrolled. No response according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors was observed. A total of 12 patients (32%) achieved stable disease for a median of 2.6 months. The median progression-free survival was 1.2 months. The most common adverse events reported, regardless of relationship, were fatigue, nausea, anorexia, and abdominal pain. Plasma mapatumumab concentrations were within the range of exposures predicted by the results of phase I studies of mapatumumab.Conclusion:No clinical activity of single-agent mapatumumab was observed in patients with advanced refractory CRC. However, on the basis of its favourable safety profile and pre-clinical evidence of potential synergy in combination with agents commonly used in the treatment of colorectal cancer, further evaluation of mapatumumab in combination with chemotherapy is warranted.

Prognostic and Predictive Relevance of Primary Tumor Location in Patients With RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Retrospective Analyses of the CRYSTAL and FIRE-3 Trials.

Importance Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is heterogeneous, and primary tumors arising from different regions of the colon are clinically and molecularly distinct. Objective To examine the prognostic and predictive value of primary tumor location in patients with RAS wild-type (wt) mCRC treated with first-line fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab in the Cetuximab Combined With Irinotecan in First-line Therapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (CRYSTAL) trial and FOLFIRI Plus Cetuximab Versus FOLFIRI Plus Bevacizumab as First-Line Treatment For Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (FIRE-3) trial. Design, Setting, and Participants In this retrospective analysis patients with RAS wt metastatic colorectal cancer from the CRYSTAL and FIRE-3 trials were classified as having left-sided or right-sided mCRC, defined, respectively, as patients whose tumors originated in the splenic flexure, descending colon, sigmoid colon, or rectum vs appendix, cecum, ascending colon, hepatic flexure, or transverse colon. Main Outcomes and Measures Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and objective response rate (ORR) were assessed according to tumor location and treatment arm. Results In the RAS wt populations of the CRYSTAL and FIRE-3 trials, patients with left-sided tumors (n = 142 and n = 157, respectively) had markedly superior PFS, OS, and ORR compared with patients with right-sided tumors (n = 33 and n = 38, respectively). Among CRYSTAL and FIRE-3 study patients with RAS wt left-sided tumors, FOLFIRI plus cetuximab significantly improved OS relative to the respective comparators (FOLFIRI and FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab); in contrast, in RAS wt patients with poor-prognosis right-sided tumors, limited efficacy benefits were observed upon the addition of cetuximab to FOLFIRI in CRYSTAL, and comparable outcomes were observed between the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab and FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab arms of FIRE-3. A significant interaction was observed between primary tumor location and treatment for OS (CRYSTAL: hazard ratio [HR], 1.95; 95% CI, 1.09-3.48 and FIRE-3: HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.23-0.70) within the RAS wt populations of both studies in multivariable models that also included sex, prior adjuvant therapy, and BRAF mutational status. Conclusions and Relevance In the RAS wt populations of CRYSTAL and FIRE-3, patients with left-sided tumors had a markedly better prognosis than those with right-sided tumors. First-line FOLFIRI plus cetuximab clearly benefitted patients with left-sided tumors (vs FOLFIRI or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab, respectively), whereas patients with right-sided tumors derived limited benefit from standard treatments. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: CRYSTAL, NCT00154102, and FIRE-3, NCT00433927

Prognostic and therapeutic significance of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 as tumor marker in patients with pancreatic cancer

In pancreatic cancer (PC) accurate determination of treatment response by imaging often remains difficult. Various efforts have been undertaken to investigate new factors which may serve as more appropriate surrogate parameters of treatment efficacy. This review focuses on the role of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) as a prognostic tumor marker in PC and summarizes its contribution to monitoring treatment efficacy. We undertook a Medline/PubMed literature search to identify relevant trials that had analyzed the prognostic impact of CA 19-9 in patients treated with surgery, chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy for PC. Additionally, relevant abstract publications from scientific meetings were included. In advanced PC, pretreatment CA 19-9 levels have a prognostic impact regarding overall survival. Also a CA 19-9 decline under chemotherapy can provide prognostic information for median survival. A 20% reduction of CA 19-9 baseline levels within the first 8 weeks of chemotherapy appears to be sufficient to define a prognostic relevant subgroup of patients (‘CA 19-9 responder’). It still remains to be defined whether the CA 19-9 response is a more reliable method for evaluating treatment efficacy compared to conventional imaging.