Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29470838›Full record

ArticleClinical drug investigation2018

First-Line Cetuximab Monotherapy in KRAS/NRAS/BRAF Mutation-Negative Colorectal Cancer Patients.

Vladimir M Moiseyenko, Fedor V Moiseyenko, Grigoriy A Yanus, Ekatherina Sh Kuligina, Anna P Sokolenko, Ilya V Bizin, Alexey A Kudriavtsev, Svetlana N Aleksakhina, Nikita M Volkov, Vyacheslav A Chubenko and 13 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Distinct Driver Pathway Enrichments and a High Prevalence ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Molecular testing for colorectal cancer: Clinical applications.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Vladimir M MoiseyenkoCity Cancer Center, Saint Petersburg, 197758, Russia.
Fedor V MoiseyenkoCity Cancer Center, Saint Petersburg, 197758, Russia.
Grigoriy A YanusLaboratory of Molecular Oncology, N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology, Pesochny-2, Saint Petersburg, 197758, Russia.
Ekatherina Sh KuliginaLaboratory of Molecular Oncology, N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology, Pesochny-2, Saint Petersburg, 197758, Russia.
Anna P SokolenkoLaboratory of Molecular Oncology, N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology, Pesochny-2, Saint Petersburg, 197758, Russia.
Ilya V BizinSt. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, Saint Petersburg, 195251, Russia.
Alexey A KudriavtsevCity Cancer Center, Saint Petersburg, 197758, Russia.
Svetlana N AleksakhinaLaboratory of Molecular Oncology, N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology, Pesochny-2, Saint Petersburg, 197758, Russia.
Nikita M VolkovCity Cancer Center, Saint Petersburg, 197758, Russia.
Vyacheslav A ChubenkoCity Cancer Center, Saint Petersburg, 197758, Russia.
Kseniya S KozyrevaCity Cancer Center, Saint Petersburg, 197758, Russia.
Mikhail M KramchaninovCity Cancer Center, Saint Petersburg, 197758, Russia.
Alexandr S ZhuravlevCity Cancer Center, Saint Petersburg, 197758, Russia.
Kseniya V ShelekhovaCity Cancer Center, Saint Petersburg, 197758, Russia.
Denis V PashkovS.M. Kirov Military Medical Academy, Saint Petersburg, 194044, Russia.
Alexandr O IvantsovLaboratory of Molecular Oncology, N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology, Pesochny-2, Saint Petersburg, 197758, Russia.
Aigul R VeninaLaboratory of Molecular Oncology, N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology, Pesochny-2, Saint Petersburg, 197758, Russia.
Tatyana N SokolovaLaboratory of Molecular Oncology, N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology, Pesochny-2, Saint Petersburg, 197758, Russia.
Elena V PreobrazhenskayaLaboratory of Molecular Oncology, N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology, Pesochny-2, Saint Petersburg, 197758, Russia.
Natalia V MitiushkinaLaboratory of Molecular Oncology, N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology, Pesochny-2, Saint Petersburg, 197758, Russia.
Alexandr V TogoLaboratory of Molecular Oncology, N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology, Pesochny-2, Saint Petersburg, 197758, Russia.
Aglaya G IyevlevaLaboratory of Molecular Oncology, N.N. Petrov Institute of Oncology, Pesochny-2, Saint Petersburg, 197758, Russia.
Evgeny N ImyanitovCity Cancer Center, Saint Petersburg, 197758, Russia. evgeny@imyanitov.spb.ru.
Institute of Oncology NN Petrov · RUCity Clinical Oncology Center · RUNorth-Western State Medical University named after I.I. Mechnikov · RUPeter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University · RUSaint Petersburg State Pediatric Medical University · RUS. M. Kirov Military Medical Academy · RU

Funding

Russian Foundation for Basic Research 15-04-01744Russian Foundation for Basic Research 16-04-01141Russian Foundation for Basic Research 17-54-12007Russian Science Foundation 17-75-30027
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal carcinomas (CRCs) are sensitive to treatment by anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies only if they do not carry activating mutations in down-stream EGFR targets (KRAS/NRAS/BRAF). Most clinical trials for chemo-naive CRC patients involved combination of targeted agents and chemotherapy, while single-agent cetuximab or panitumumab studies included either heavily pretreated patients or subjects who were not selected on the basis of molecular tests. We hypothesized that anti-EGFR therapy would have significant efficacy in chemo-naive patients with KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutation-negative CRC.

methodsNineteen patients were prospectively included in the study.

resultsTwo (11%) patients experienced partial response (PR) and 11 (58%) subjects showed stable disease (SD). Median time to progression approached 6.1 months (range 1.6-15.0 months). Cetuximab efficacy did not correlate with RNA expression of EGFR and insulin-like growth factor 2 (IGF2). Only one tumor carried PIK3CA mutation, and this CRC responded to cetuximab. Exome analysis of patients with progressive disease (PD) revealed 1 CRC with high-level microsatellite instability and 1 instance of HER2 oncogene amplification; 3 of 4 remaining patients with PD had allergic reactions to cetuximab, while none of the subjects with PR or SD had this complication. Comparison with 19 retrospective KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutation-negative patients receiving first-line fluoropyrimidines revealed no advantages or disadvantages of cetuximab therapy.

conclusionsCetuximab demonstrates only modest efficacy when given as a first-line monotherapy to KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutation-negative CRC patients. It is of question, why meticulous patient selection, which was undertaken in the current study, did not result in the improvement of outcomes of single-agent cetuximab treatment.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic AgentsCetuximabColorectal NeoplasmsErbB ReceptorsFemaleGTP PhosphohydrolasesHumansMaleMembrane ProteinsMiddle AgedMutationPhosphatidylinositol 3-KinasesProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafAntineoplastic AgentsBRAF protein, humanCetuximabEGFR protein, humanErbB ReceptorsGTP PhosphohydrolasesKRAS protein, humanMembrane ProteinsNRAS protein, humanPhosphatidylinositol 3-KinasesProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)

Identifiers

PMID29470838
OpenAlexW2790206354

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.