Maintenance treatment with cetuximab versus observation in RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: Results of the randomized phase II PRODIGE 28-time UNICANCER study.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 15-15
Author(s):  
Valerie Boige ◽  
Eric FRANCOIS ◽  
Meher BEN Abdelghani ◽  
Jean Marc Phelip ◽  
Valerie Le Brun-Ly ◽  
...  

15 Background: Compared to observation, maintenance therapy with a fluoropyrimidine +/- bevacizumab showed significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) but not in overall survival (OS) in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and disease control after first-line doublet chemotherapy (CT) +/- bevacizumab. Few studies are available on the role of maintenance therapy after induction anti-EGFR-based CT, and the benefit from anti-EGFR maintenance monotherapy during CT-free intervals (CFI) in patients with RAS wild-type (wt) mCRC. Methods: RAS wt unresectable mCRC patients with controlled disease after FOLFIRI + cetuximab (8 cycles) were randomized (1:1) to receive maintenance with bi-weekly cetuximab alone (arm A) or observation (arm B) until disease progression (PD)/unacceptable toxicity/death. Randomization was stratified according to tumor response, center, baseline Köhne Score, CEA and platelet count. In case of tumor progression during the CFI, FOLFIRI + cetuximab was to be reintroduced for 8 cycles, followed by a new CFI. Tumor response was assessed per RECIST1.1 every 8 weeks. The primary objective of this multicenter non-comparative randomized phase II trial was 6-month PFS rate after initiation of maintenance therapy. A total of 134 randomized and evaluable patients (67 per arm) were required (Fleming’s one-step design, one-sided α=5%, β=20%, H0: 40%; H1: 55%). Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), time to strategy failure, PFS, OS, safety, quality of life, circulating tumor cells and circulating tumor DNA detection and dynamic changes during treatment. Results: From January 2014 to April 2019, 214 patients were included and 139 randomized (67 arm A/72 arm B) in 35 centers. Baseline characteristics were: males, 67%/69%; median age, 64/68 years; ECOG PS 0, 54%/46%; previous adjuvant therapy, 25%/14%; single metastatic site, 58%/47%; right-sided primary, 24%/18%. The ORR in the overall and the randomized population was 55% and 72%, respectively. The median follow-up was 30 months. The 6-month PFS rate after initiation of maintenance therapy was 30% 95%CI[19; 42] in the maintenance arm, and 6% 95%CI[2;14] in the observation arm, with a median PFS of 5.3 95%CI[3.7;6.5] and 2.0 95%CI[1.8;2.8] months, respectively. Any grade treatment-related toxicity, including skin rash (40%/4%), diarrhea (33%/8%), and hypomagnesemia (46%/10%) was more frequent in arm A. Conclusions: Based on the study hypothesis, the cetuximab maintenance arm did not meet the primary objective. However, the clinically meaningful difference in PFS without any overlap in the confidence intervals between the two arms warrants further investigation. Clinical trial information: NCT02404935.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 57-57
Author(s):  
Hideaki Bando ◽  
Daisuke Kotani ◽  
Masahito Kotaka ◽  
Akihito Kawazoe ◽  
Toshiki Masuishi ◽  
...  

57 Background: FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab (BEV) is regarded as the standard of care for selected patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), despite the high incidence of neutropenia and diarrhea. The AXEPT phase III study showed that the modified capecitabine (CAP) + irinotecan (IRI) + BEV (CAPIRI+BEV) [CAP 1600 mg/m2, IRI 200 mg/m2, and BEV 7.5 mg/kg q3wk] treatment was non-inferior to FOLFIRI+BEV, with a lower incidence of hematologic toxicity. We hypothesized that the modified CAPIRI combined with oxaliplatin (OX) and BEV (CAPOXIRI+BEV) would be more feasible than FOLFOXIRI+BEV, without compromising efficacy. Methods: The QUATTRO-II study is an open-label, multicenter, randomized phase II study. In Step 1, the recommended doses (RD) of OX and IRI were investigated as a safety lead-in. In Step 2, pts are randomized to either the RD of CAPOXIRI+BEV or FOLFOXIRI+BEV. In Step 1, four dose levels of CAPOXIRI (fixed dose of CAP 1600 mg/m2 and BEV 7.5 mg/kg plus escalated or de-escalated doses of OX and IRI, q3wk) were investigated in a 3+3 manner. A dose level of ≤ 2/6 of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) cases was expected as the RD. Results: A total of 9 pts (3 at Level 0, 6 at Level 1) were included in Step 1. The baseline characteristics were as follows: the median age was 62 years; 6 were male; 6 presented with a left-sided tumor; 8 had a performance status of 0; all wild type/ RAS mutant/ BRAF V600E mutant were 8/1/0; and UGT1A1 wild type/*6 single hetero/*28 single hetero were 7/0/2. In Level 0 (IRI 200 mg/m2, OX 100 mg/m2), one grade 4 neutropenia and one grade 3 anorexia were observed, but without DLT. In Level 1 (IRI 200 mg/m2, OX 130 mg/m2), two grade 4 neutropenia and one grade 3 colitis were observed, with 1 DLT (febrile neutropenia) case, fully recovered without G-CSF administration. No treatment-related deaths were observed. Although dose modifications were needed in 4 of the 6 pts, no further safety concerns related to treatment continuity were observed in the 2nd or subsequent cycles. Thus, we determined that the dose administered in Level 1 is the RD for Step 2. According to the preliminary efficacy results at 8 weeks after initiating study treatment, 6 pts achieved a partial response (2 in Level 0 and 4 in Level 1). Conclusions: The RD of CAPOXIRI+BEV was 200 mg/m2 IRI, 130 mg/m2 OX, 1600 mg/m2 CAP, and 7.5mg/kg BEV. The randomized phase II Step (Step 2) of QUATTRO-II is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT04097444.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 86-86
Author(s):  
Takanori Watanabe ◽  
Akihito Tsuji ◽  
Manabu Shiozawa ◽  
Hirofumi Ota ◽  
Hironaga Satake ◽  
...  

86 Background: Triplet regimens, FOLFOXIRI, combined with bevacizumab (bev) or panitumumab have been shown to be superior in terms of early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR) compared to doublet regimen plus bev or triplet regimen in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), in the TRIBE trial ( N Engl J Med 2014) or VOLFI trial ( J Clin Oncol 2019), respectively. There have been few studies which directly compared cetuximab (cet) with bev when combined with triplet regimen. Therefore, we investigated the efficacy and safety of bev vs. cet in combination with FOLFOXIRI in previously untreated mCRC patients with RAS wild-type tumors. Methods: This trial was a randomized phase II trial to evaluate modified (m)-FOLFOXIRI (irinotecan 150 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, 5-FU 2400 mg/m2) plus cet vs. bev as first-line treatment in terms of the DpR during the entire course as the primary endpoint in 360 patients with RAS wild-type mCRC (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02515734). The experimental arm with cet was considered to be active if the difference of median DpR was over 12.5% compared with the bev arm, under the conditions of significance level of 0.05 and power of 0.85. Secondary endpoints included the ETS at week 8, progression-free survival, overall survival, secondary resection rate, and toxicity. Results: A total of 359 patients were enrolled between July 2015 and June 2019. For the safety analysis set (median age 65y, 64% male, PS0/1:91%/9%, left/right primary:83%/17%), 173 and 175 patients were randomly assigned to the cet and bev arms, respectively, some patients were excluded for the safety analysis due to the violation of inclusion criteria (6 for cet arm and 5 for bev). On the cutoff date of September 2020, median number of cycles administered was 10 (range, 1-51) for the cet arm and 12 (range, 1-51) for the bev arm. The incidence of severe adverse events (AEs) was 25.4% (44/173) for the cet arm and 25.7% (45/175) for the bev arm, respectively. The following AEs of grade 3-4 were observed more frequently in the cet arm compared to the bev arm: oral mucositis (9.2% vs. 2.3%), diarrhea (12.1% vs. 8.0%), dermatitis acneiform (12.1% vs. 0%), and hypomagnesemia (4.0% vs. 0%). The treatment-related death occurred in 2 patients of the cet arm, while no patients in the bev arm. The rate of treatment discontinuation due to AEs of any cause was comparable between the cet and bev arms (7% vs. 9%). Conclusions: This safety analysis indicated that both regimens of m-FOLFOXIRI plus cet or bev were tolerable in RAS wt mCRC patients although some frequent severe AEs were observed. Clinical trial information: UMIN000018217.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yujiro Nishizawa ◽  
Naotsugu Haraguchi ◽  
Hirotoshi Kim ◽  
Yoshihito Ide ◽  
Ken Nakata ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Although chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has improved, the standard chemotherapy regimens for patients with RAS wild-type mCRC remain debated.Methods: This randomized phase II, open-label, multicenter study compared the efficacy and safety of S-1 and oxaliplatin (SOX)+bevacizumab (B-mab) with SOX+cetuximab (C-mab) in patients with previously untreated recurrent advanced CRC with wild-type KRAS. Between February 2012 and October 2016, 45 patients were enrolled.Results: Overall response rates were 59.1% and 43.5% (p=0.29) and disease control rates were 90.9% and 91.3% (p=0.96) in the SOX+B-mab and SOX+C-mab groups, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) was 25.3 and 15.5 months (HR=0.607, p=0.167) and median progression-free survival (PFS) were 11.7 and 5.5 months (HR=0.558, p=0.077) in the SOX+B-mab and SOX+C-mab groups, respectively. The OS and PFS of patients with early tumor shrinkage (ETS) were not significantly different in the SOX+B-mab group. However, they were significantly better when ETS was ≥20 in the SOX+C-mab group (p=0.032 and p=0.003, respectively).Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of SOX+B-mab and SOX+C-mab for wild-type KRAS recurrent advanced CRC as first-line chemotherapy were almost the same. Consideration of the treatment strategy based on ETS may improve patient prognosis, especially in patients receiving the SOX+C-mab regimen.Trial registration: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000006706)Date of registration: NOV/11/2011URL of trial registry record:https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000007920


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document