Retrospective analysis of overall survival (OS) by subsequent therapy in patients (pts) with RAS wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving irinotecan ± cetuximab in the EPIC study.

Authors

null

Alberto F. Sobrero

IRCCS Ospedale San Martino IST, Genova, Italy

Alberto F. Sobrero , Heinz-Josef Lenz , Cathy Eng , Werner Scheithauer , Gary William Middleton , Wen-Feng Chen , Regina Esser , Johannes Nippgen , Howard A. Burris III

Organizations

IRCCS Ospedale San Martino IST, Genova, Italy, University of Southern California; Keck School of Medicine; Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom, EMD Serono, Beijing, China, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, Sarah Cannon Research Institute/Tennessee Oncology, PLLC, Nashville, TN

Research Funding

Pharmaceutical/Biotech Company

Background: The multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase 3 EPIC study (EMR 062202-025) investigated cetuximab + irinotecan vs irinotecan as a second-line (2L) therapy in pts with EGFR-detectable mCRC. A retrospective analysis in the EPIC RAS wt population showed improved overall response rate (29.4% vs 5.0%) and progression-free survival (5.4 vs 2.6 mo) upon the addition of cetuximab to irinotecan. Median OS (mOS) was similar in both treatment arms, possibly due to differences in subsequent therapies. We present OS by post-study therapy in the RAS wt population. Methods: 1298 RAS-unselected pts were enrolled from May 2003 to February 2006. The primary endpoint was OS. RAS status was determined retrospectively in 2018 from existing DNA samples using BEAMing technology; wt status was defined as having a sum of mutated RAS allele frequencies of ≤5%, with all relevant alleles being analyzable. Results: Among the 452 pts with RAS wt mCRC, 231 received cetuximab + irinotecan and 221 received irinotecan. Baseline characteristics were similar in both arms. OS data by post-study therapy are summarized in the Table. No new or unexpected safety signals were observed. Conclusions: Post-study cetuximab was associated with improved OS in both treatment arms compared with post-study therapy without cetuximab and no subsequent therapy, suggesting that cetuximab-based therapy may be suitable as a standard treatment for pts with RAS wt mCRC in the rechallenge setting. Study limitations include a potential bias due to the differences in proportion of subsequent therapies with and without cetuximab between arms (almost 50% of pts in the irinotecan arm received post-study cetuximab) as well as the likelihood for pts who live longer to receive cetuximab in any subsequent therapy line.

Subsequent
therapy with
cetuximab
Subsequent
therapy without
cetuximab
No subsequent
therapy
Total
Cetuximab + irinotecan
n2698107231
mOS (95% CI), mo28.0 (26.55-NE)13.8 (12.16-17.12)8.2 (6.51-11.76)12.3 (11.37-14.09)
Irinotecan
n1043780221
mOS (95% CI), mo19.1 (13.21-21.45)9.5 (8.18-17.91)3.9 (3.12-5.88)12.0 (9.36-14.92)

NE, not estimable.

Disclaimer

This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org

Abstract Details

Meeting

2019 ASCO Annual Meeting

Session Type

Poster Session

Session Title

Gastrointestinal (Colorectal) Cancer

Track

Gastrointestinal Cancer—Colorectal and Anal

Sub Track

Epidemiology/Outcomes

Citation

J Clin Oncol 37, 2019 (suppl; abstr 3580)

DOI

10.1200/JCO.2019.37.15_suppl.3580

Abstract #

3580

Poster Bd #

72

Abstract Disclosures