Cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer

References

• Peeters M, Price T, Van Laethem JL. Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monotherapy in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: where are we today? Oncologist14, 29–39 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grothey A, Sargent D, Goldberg RM, Schmoll HJ. Survival of patients with advanced colorectal cancer improves with the availability of fluorouracil–leucovorin, irinotecan and oxaliplatin in the course of treatment. J. Clin. Oncol.22, 1209–1214 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabernero J, Van Cutsem E, Lakomy R et al. Results from VELOUR, a Phase 3 study of aflibercept versus placebo in combination with FOLFIRI for the treatment of patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer. Presented at: The 2011 European Multidisciplinary Cancer Congress (EMCC). Stockholm, Sweden, 23–27 September 2011 (Abstract 6LBA).
   Google Scholar
• Grothey, Sobrero AF, Siena A et al. Results of a randomized Phase 3 trial (CORRECT) of regorafenib plus best supportive care (BSC) versus placebo plus BSC in patients with mCRC who have progressed after standard therapies. Presented at: The 2012 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium. CA, USA, 19–21 January 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Douillard JY, Siena S, Cassidy J et al. Randomized, Phase III trial of panitumumab with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as first-line treatment in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: the PRIME study. J. Clin. Oncol.28, 4697–4705 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peeters M, Price TJ, Cervantes A et al. Randomized Phase III study of panitumumab with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) compared with FOLFIRI alone as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol.28, 4706–4713 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Cutsem E, Peeters M, Siena S et al. Open-label Phase III trial of panitumumab plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol.25, 1658–1664 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amado RG, Wolf M, Peeters M et al. Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol.26, 1626–1634 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jean GW, Shah SR. Epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies and colorectal cancer: pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Pharmacotherapy28(6), 742–754 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khambata-Ford S, Garrett CR, Meropol NJ et al. Expression of epiregulin and amphiregulin and K-ras mutation status predict disease control in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with cetuximab. J. Clin. Oncol.25, 3230–3237 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenz HJ. Anti-EGFR mechanism of action: antitumor effect and underlying cause and adverse events. Oncology20(Suppl. 5), 5–13 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zouhairi ME, Charabaty A, Pishvaian MJ. Molecularly targeted therapy for metastatic colon cancer: proven treatments and promising new agents. Gastrointest. Cancer Res.4, 15–21 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Vincenzi B, Santini D, Tonini G. New issues on cetuximab mechanism of action in epidermal growth factor receptor – negative colorectal cancer: the role of vascular endothelial growth factor. J. Clin. Oncol.20(12), 1957–1958 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Tarbernero J, Pfeiffer P, Cervantes C. Administration of cetuximab every 2 weeks in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: an effective, more convenient alternative to weekly administration. Oncologist13, 113–119 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Tabernero J, Cervantes A, Martinelli E et al. Optimal dose of cetuximab administered every 2 weeks (q2w): a Phase I pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) study of weekly (q1w) and q2w schedules in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). J. Clin. Oncol.24(18S), (2006) (Abstract 3085).
   Google Scholar
• Pfeiffer P, Bjerregaard JK, Qvortrup C et al. Simplification of cetuximab administration: double dose every second week as a 60 min infusion [Abstract]. J. Clin. Oncol.25(18S), (2007) (Abstract 4133).
   Google Scholar
• Delbaldo C, Pierga JY, Dieras V et al. Pharmacokinetic profile of cetuximab (Erbitux) alone and in combination with irinotecan in patients with advanced EGFR-positive adenocarcinoma. Eur. J. Cancer41, 1739–1745 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ettlinger DE, Mitterhauser M, Wadsak W et al.In vivo disposition of irinotecan (cpt-11) and its metabolites in combination with the monoclonal antibody cetuximab. Anticancer Res.26, 1337–1342 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Balin-Gauthier D, Delord JP, Pillaire MJ et al. Cetuximab potentiates oxaliplatin cytotoxic effect through a defect in NER and DNA replication initiation. Br. J. Cancer98(1), 120–128 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lievre A, Bachet JB, Boige V et al.KRAS mutations as an independent prognostic factor in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. J. Clin. Oncol.26, 374–379 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benvenuti S, Sartore-Bianchi A, Di Nicolantonio F et al. Oncogenic activation of the RAS/RAF signalling pathway impairs the response of metastatic colorectal cancers to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody therapies. Cancer Res.67, 2643–2648 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Fiore F, Blanchard F, Charbonnier F et al. Clinical relevance of KRAS mutation detection in metastatic colorectal cancer treated by cetuximab plus chemotherapy. Br. J. Cancer96, 1166–1169 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Roock W, Piessevaux H, De Schutter J et al.KRAS wild-type state predicts survival and is associated to early radiological response in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. Ann. Oncol.19(3), 508–515 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Fiore F, Van Cutsem E, Laurent-Puig P et al. Role of KRAS mutation in predicting response, progression-free survival and overall survival in irinotecan-refractory patients treated with cetuximab plus irinotecan for a metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis of 281 individual data from published series. J. Clin. Oncol.26(15S), (2008) (Abstract 4035).
   Google Scholar
• Jonker DJ, O’Callaghan CJ, Karapetis CS et al. Cetuximab for the treatment of colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med.357(20), 2040–2048 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karapetis CS, Khambat-Ford S, Jonker DJ et al.K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med.359(17), 1757–1765 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monzon FA, Ogino S, Hammond EH et al. The role of KRAS mutation testing in the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med.133, 1600–1606 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anderson SM. Laboratory methods for KRAS mutation analysis: laboratory methods for KRAS mutation detection. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn.11(6), 635–642 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabernero J, Van Cutsem E, Diaz-Rubio E et al. Phase II trial of cetuximab in combination with fluoruracil, leucovorin and oxaliplatin in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol.25(33), 5225–5232 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bokemeyer C, Bondarenko I, Makhson A et al. Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with and without cetuximab in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol.27(5), 663–671 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bokemeyer C, Bondarenko I, Hartman JT et al. Efficacy according to biomarker status of cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: the OPUS study. Ann. Oncol.22(7), 1535–1546 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Cutsem E, Köhne CH, Hitre E et al. Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med.360(14), 1408–1417 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tveit K, Guren T, Glimelius B et al. Randomized Phase III study of 5-fluorouracil/folinate/oxaliplatin given continuously or intermittently with or without cetuximab, as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the NORDIC VII study (NCT00145314), by the Nordic Colorectal Cancer Biomodulation Group. Ann. J. Clin. Oncol.29(Suppl. 4), (2011) (Abstract 365).
   Google Scholar
• Maughan T, Adams RA, Smith CG et al. Addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based first-line combination chemotherapy for treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: results for the randomized Phase 3 MRC COIN trial. Lancet377, 2103–2114 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Cutsem E, Kohne CH, Lang I et al. Cetuximab plus irinotecan, fluoruracil, and leucovorin as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: updated analysis of overall survival according to tumour KRAS and BRAF mutation status. J. Clin. Oncol.29(15), 2011–2019 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sobrero AF, Maurel J, Fehrenbacher L et al. EPIC: Phase III trial of cetuximab plus irinotecan after fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin failure in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol.26(14), 2311–2319 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eng C, Maurel J, Scheithauer W et al. Impact on quality of life of adding cetuximab to irinotecan in patients who have failed prior oxaliplatin-based therapy: the EPIC trial. Proc. Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol.25, 164s (2007) (Abstract 4003).
   Google Scholar
• Langer C, Kopit J, Awad M et al. Analysis of KRAS mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving cetuximab in combination with irinotecan: results from the EPIC trial. Ann. Oncol.19(Suppl. 8), viii133 (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Cunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S et al. Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med.351(4), 337–345 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saltz LB, Meropol NJ, Loehrer PJ Sr, Needle MN, Kopit J, Mayer RJ. Phase II trial of cetuximab in patients with refractory colorectal cancer that expresses the epidermal growth factor receptor. J. Clin. Oncol.22(7), 1201–1208 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenz HJ, Van Cutsem E, Khambat-Ford S et al. Multicenter Phase II and translational study of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal carcinoma refractory to irinotecan, oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidines. J. Clin. Oncol.24, 4914–4921 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vincenzi B, Santini D, Rabitti C et al. Cetuximab and irinotecan as third-line therapy in advanced colorectal cancer patients: a single centre Phase II trial. Br. J. Cancer94(6), 792–797 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saltz LB, Lenz HJ, Kindler HL et al. Randomized Phase II trial of cetuximab, bevacizumab and irinotecan compared with cetuximab and bevacizumab alone in irinotecan-refractory colorectal cancer: the BOND-2 study. J. Clin. Oncol.25(29), 4557–4561 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tol J, Koopman M, Cats A et al. Chenotherapy, bevacizumab and cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med.360(6), 563–572 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adam R, Aloia T, Lévi F et al. Hepatic resection after rescue cetuximab treatment for colorectal liver metastases previously refractory to conventional systemic therapy. J. Clin. Oncol.25(29), 4593 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Folprecht G, Gruenberger T, Bechstein et al. Tumour response and secondary respectability of colorectal liver metastases following neoadjuvant chemotherapy with cetuximab: the CELIM randomized Phase 2 trial. Lancet11, 38–47 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Lenz HJ. Cetuximab in the management of colorectal cancer. Biologics: Targets Ther.1(2), 77–91 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tejpar S, Peeters M, Humblet Y et al. Phase I/II study of cetuximab dose-escalation in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with no or slight skin reactions on cetuximab standard-dose treatment (EVEREST): pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD) and efficacy data. J. Clin. Oncol.25(18S), (2007) (Abstract 4037).
   Google Scholar
• Scope A, Agero AL, Dusza SW et al. Randomized double-blind trial of prophylactic oral minocycline and topical tazarotene for cetuximab-associated acne-like eruption. J. Clin. Oncol.25(34), 5390–5396 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jatoi A, Rowland K, Sloan JA et al. Tetracycline to prevent epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor-induced skin rashes: results of a placebo-controlled trial from the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (N03CB). Cancer113(4), 847–853 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lacouture ME, Mitchell EP, Piperdi B et al. Skin toxicity evaluation protocol with panitumumab (STEPP), a Phase II, open-label, randomized trial evaluating the impact of a pre-emptive skin treatment regimen on skin toxicities and quality of life in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol.28(8), 135–157 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Fakih MG, Wilding G, Lombardo J. Cetuximab-induced hypomagnesemia in patients with colorectal cancer. Clin. Colorectal Cancer6, 152–156 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schrag D, Chung KY, Flombaum C, Saltz L. Cetuximab therapy and symptomatic hypomagnesemia. J. Natl Cancer Inst.97, 1221–1224 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vincenzi B, Galluzzo S, Santini D et al. Early magnesium modifications as a surrogate marker of efficacy of cetuximab-based anticancer treatment in KRAS wild-type advanced colorectal cancer patients. Ann. Oncol.22(5), 1141–1146 (2011).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vickers MM, Karapetis CS, Tu D et al. The influence of hypomagnesemia (hMg) on overall survival (OS) in a Phase III randomized study of cetuximab (CET) plus best supportive care (BSC) versus BSC: NCIC CTG/AGITG CO.17. J. Clin. Oncol.29S, (2011) (Abstract 3601).
   Google Scholar
• Hecht JR, Mitchell E, Chidiac T et al. A randomized Phase IIIB trial of chemotherapy, bevacizumab and panitumumab compared with chemotherapy and bevacizumab alone for metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol.27(5), 672–680 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Motl S. Bevacizumab in combination chemotherapy for colorectal and other cancers. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm.62(10), 1021–1032 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mittman N, Au HJ, Tu D et al. Prospective cost-effective analysis of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer: evaluation of National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group CO.17 trial. JNCI101(17), 1182–1192 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Metges J, Raoul J, Achour N et al. PANERB study: panitumumab after cetuximab-based regimen failure. J. Clin. Oncol.28S, (2010) (Abstract 14000).
   Google Scholar
• Wadlow RC, Hezel AF, Wolpin BM et al. A single-arm trial of panitumumab in cetuximab-refractory KRAS wild-type colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol.29(4s), (2011) (Abstract 428).
   Google Scholar
• De Roock W, Jonker DJ, Di Nicolantonio F et al. Association of KRASp.G13D mutation with outcome in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. JAMA304(16), 1812 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peeters M, Douillard JY, Van Cutsem E et al. Evaluation of individual codon 12 and 13 mutant (MT) KRAS alleles as prognostic and predictive biomarkers of response to panitumumab (pmab) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Presented at: The 2011 European Multidisciplinary Cancer Congress (EMCC). Stockholm, Sweden, 23–27 September 2011 (Abstract 33LBA).
   Google Scholar
• Di Nicolantonio F, Martini M, Molinari F et al. Wild-type BRAF is required for response to panitumumab or cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol.26(35), 5705–5712 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurent-Puig P, Cayre A, Manceau G et al. Analysis of PTEN, BRAF, and EGFR status in determining benefit from cetuximab therapy in wild-type KRAS metastatic colon cancer. J. Clin. Oncol.27(35), 5924 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bokemeyer C, Kohne C, Roughier P et al. Cetuximab with chemotherapy (CT) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): analysis of the CRYSTAL and OPUS studies according to KRAS and BRAF mutation status. J. Clin. Oncol.28(15s), (2010) (Abstract 3506).
   Google Scholar
• Jonker DJ, Karapetis C, Harbison C et al. High epiregulin (EREG) gene expression plus K-ras wild-type (WT) status as predictors of cetuximab benefit in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (ACRC): results from the NCIC CTG CO.17 trial – a Phase III trial of cetuximab versus best supportive care (BSC). J. Clin. Oncol.27(15s), (2009) (Abstract 4016).
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs B, De Roock W, Pissevaux H et al. Amphiregulin and epiregulin mRNA expression in primary tumors predicts outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. J. Clin. Oncol.27(30), 5068–5074 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stintzing S, Fischer von Weikersthal L, Decker T et al. FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer – subgroup analysis of patients with KRAS: mutated tumours in the randomised German AIO study KRK-0306. Ann. Oncol. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr571 (2012) (Epub ahead of print).
   Google Scholar