For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
117
views
29
references
 Top references
cited by
95
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      107
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based first-line combination chemotherapy for treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: results of the randomised phase 3 MRC COIN trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          In the Medical Research Council (MRC) COIN trial, the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted antibody cetuximab was added to standard chemotherapy in first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer with the aim of assessing effect on overall survival.

          Methods

          In this randomised controlled trial, patients who were fit for but had not received previous chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy (arm A), the same combination plus cetuximab (arm B), or intermittent chemotherapy (arm C). The choice of fluoropyrimidine therapy (capecitabine or infused fluouroracil plus leucovorin) was decided before randomisation. Randomisation was done centrally (via telephone) by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit using minimisation. Treatment allocation was not masked. The comparison of arms A and C is described in a companion paper. Here, we present the comparison of arm A and B, for which the primary outcome was overall survival in patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. Analysis was by intention to treat. Further analyses with respect to NRAS, BRAF, and EGFR status were done. The trial is registered, ISRCTN27286448.

          Findings

          1630 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (815 to standard therapy and 815 to addition of cetuximab). Tumour samples from 1316 (81%) patients were used for somatic molecular analyses; 565 (43%) had KRAS mutations. In patients with KRAS wild-type tumours (arm A, n=367; arm B, n=362), overall survival did not differ between treatment groups (median survival 17·9 months [IQR 10·3–29·2] in the control group vs 17·0 months [9·4–30·1] in the cetuximab group; HR 1·04, 95% CI 0·87–1·23, p=0·67). Similarly, there was no effect on progression-free survival (8·6 months [IQR 5·0–12·5] in the control group vs 8·6 months [5·1–13·8] in the cetuximab group; HR 0·96, 0·82–1·12, p=0·60). Overall response rate increased from 57% (n=209) with chemotherapy alone to 64% (n=232) with addition of cetuximab (p=0·049). Grade 3 and higher skin and gastrointestinal toxic effects were increased with cetuximab (14 vs 114 and 67 vs 97 patients in the control group vs the cetuximab group with KRAS wild-type tumours, respectively). Overall survival differs by somatic mutation status irrespective of treatment received: BRAF mutant, 8·8 months (IQR 4·5–27·4); KRAS mutant, 14·4 months (8·5–24·0); all wild-type, 20·1 months (11·5–31·7).

          Interpretation

          This trial has not confirmed a benefit of addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Cetuximab increases response rate, with no evidence of benefit in progression-free or overall survival in KRAS wild-type patients or even in patients selected by additional mutational analysis of their tumours. The use of cetuximab in combination with oxaliplatin and capecitabine in first-line chemotherapy in patients with widespread metastases cannot be recommended.

          Funding

          Cancer Research UK, Cancer Research Wales, UK Medical Research Council, Merck KGgA.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

          Rafael Amado, Michael Wolf, Marc Peeters … (2008)
          Panitumumab, a fully human antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), has activity in a subset of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Although activating mutations in KRAS, a small G-protein downstream of EGFR, correlate with poor response to anti-EGFR antibodies in mCRC, their role as a selection marker has not been established in randomized trials. KRAS mutations were detected using polymerase chain reaction on DNA from tumor sections collected in a phase III mCRC trial comparing panitumumab monotherapy to best supportive care (BSC). We tested whether the effect of panitumumab on progression-free survival (PFS) differed by KRAS status. KRAS status was ascertained in 427 (92%) of 463 patients (208 panitumumab, 219 BSC). KRAS mutations were found in 43% of patients. The treatment effect on PFS in the wild-type (WT) KRAS group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.59) was significantly greater (P < .0001) than in the mutant group (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.36). Median PFS in the WT KRAS group was 12.3 weeks for panitumumab and 7.3 weeks for BSC. Response rates to panitumumab were 17% and 0%, for the WT and mutant groups, respectively. WT KRAS patients had longer overall survival (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.82; treatment arms combined). Consistent with longer exposure, more grade III treatment-related toxicities occurred in the WT KRAS group. No significant differences in toxicity were observed between the WT KRAS group and the overall population. Panitumumab monotherapy efficacy in mCRC is confined to patients with WT KRAS tumors. KRAS status should be considered in selecting patients with mCRC as candidates for panitumumab monotherapy.
          Article 0 comments Cited 784 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib.

            Thomas Lynch, Daphne Bell, Raffaella Sordella … (2004)
            Most patients with non-small-cell lung cancer have no response to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib, which targets the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). However, about 10 percent of patients have a rapid and often dramatic clinical response. The molecular mechanisms underlying sensitivity to gefitinib are unknown. We searched for mutations in the EGFR gene in primary tumors from patients with non-small-cell lung cancer who had a response to gefitinib, those who did not have a response, and those who had not been exposed to gefitinib. The functional consequences of identified mutations were evaluated after the mutant proteins were expressed in cultured cells. Somatic mutations were identified in the tyrosine kinase domain of the EGFR gene in eight of nine patients with gefitinib-responsive lung cancer, as compared with none of the seven patients with no response (P<0.001). Mutations were either small, in-frame deletions or amino acid substitutions clustered around the ATP-binding pocket of the tyrosine kinase domain. Similar mutations were detected in tumors from 2 of 25 patients with primary non-small-cell lung cancer who had not been exposed to gefitinib (8 percent). All mutations were heterozygous, and identical mutations were observed in multiple patients, suggesting an additive specific gain of function. In vitro, EGFR mutants demonstrated enhanced tyrosine kinase activity in response to epidermal growth factor and increased sensitivity to inhibition by gefitinib. A subgroup of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer have specific mutations in the EGFR gene, which correlate with clinical responsiveness to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib. These mutations lead to increased growth factor signaling and confer susceptibility to the inhibitor. Screening for such mutations in lung cancers may identify patients who will have a response to gefitinib. Copyright 2004 Massachusetts Medical Society
            Article 0 comments Cited 660 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy.

              J G Páez (2004)
              Receptor tyrosine kinase genes were sequenced in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and matched normal tissue. Somatic mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene EGFR were found in 15of 58 unselected tumors from Japan and 1 of 61 from the United States. Treatment with the EGFR kinase inhibitor gefitinib (Iressa) causes tumor regression in some patients with NSCLC, more frequently in Japan. EGFR mutations were found in additional lung cancer samples from U.S. patients who responded to gefitinib therapy and in a lung adenocarcinoma cell line that was hypersensitive to growth inhibition by gefitinib, but not in gefitinib-insensitive tumors or cell lines. These results suggest that EGFR mutations may predict sensitivity to gefitinib.
              Article 0 comments Cited 561 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Richard Kaplan
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Lancet
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Lancet
                Title: Lancet
                Publisher: Lancet Publishing Group
                ISSN (Print): 0140-6736
                ISSN (Electronic): 1474-547X
                Publication date PMC-release: 18 June 2011
                Publication date (Print): 18 June 2011
                Volume: 377
                Issue: 9783
                Pages: 2103-2114
                Affiliations
                [a ]School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
                [b ]Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, London, UK
                [c ]St James's University Hospital and University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
                [d ]Queens University Belfast, Belfast, UK
                [e ]University College London Cancer Institute, London, UK
                [f ]ICORG, All Ireland Co-operative Oncology Research Group, Dublin, Ireland
                [g ]VIB Vesalius Research Center, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof Richard Kaplan, MRC Clinical Trials Unit, London NW1 2DA, UK rk@ 123456ctu.mrc.ac.uk
                Article
                Publisher ID: LANCET60613
                DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60613-2
                PMC ID: 3159415
                PubMed ID: 21641636
                SO-VID: 5afbb921-6887-4038-a718-48db6b9d0e77
                Copyright © © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                License:

                This document may be redistributed and reused, subject to certain conditions.

                History
                Categories
                Subject: Articles

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content107

                See all similar

                Cited by249

                See all cited by