Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30476968›Full record

Trial reportJAMA oncology2019

Rechallenge for Patients With RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer With Acquired Resistance to First-line Cetuximab and Irinotecan: A Phase 2 Single-Arm Clinical Trial.

Chiara Cremolini, Daniele Rossini, Emanuela Dell'Aquila, Sara Lonardi, Elena Conca, Marzia Del Re, Adele Busico, Filippo Pietrantonio, Romano Danesi, Giuseppe Aprile and 12 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02296203 (A PHASE II SINGLE-ARM STUDY OF CETUXIMAB PLUS IRINOTECAN AS RECHALLENGE 3RD-LINE TREATMENT OF KRAS, NRAS AND BRAF WILD-TYPE IRINOTECAN-PRETREATED METASTATIC COLORECTAL CANCER PATIENTS PROGRESSING AFTER AN INITIAL RESPONSE TO A 1ST-LINE CETUXIMAB-CONTAINING THERAPY AND A STANDARD 2ND-LINE), which is not on this map. Cited by 246 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
246citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
12.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT02296203 phase2unknown statusnot on this map

A phase ii single-arm study of cetuximab plus irinotecan as rechallenge 3rd-line treatment of kras, nras and braf wild-type irinotecan-pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer patients progressing after an initial response to a 1st-line cetuximab-containing therapy and a standard 2nd-line

TypeinterventionalSponsorGruppo Oncologico del Nord-OvestRan2014 to 2018Enrolled27ConditionsMetastatic Colorectal CancerArmscetuximab, irinotecan
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

246 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 399 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

186 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

22 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.

Chiara CremoliniUnit of Medical Oncology 2, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.
Daniele RossiniUnit of Medical Oncology 2, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.
Emanuela Dell'AquilaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Sara LonardiMedical Oncology Unit 1, Clinical and Experimental Oncology Department, Veneto Institute of Oncology Istituto Oncologico Veneto-Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Padua, Italy.
Elena ConcaDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Marzia Del ReClinical Pharmacology and Pharmacogenetics Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Pisa, Italy.
Adele BusicoDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Filippo PietrantonioDepartment of Medical Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Romano DanesiClinical Pharmacology and Pharmacogenetics Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Pisa, Italy.
Giuseppe AprileDepartment of Oncology, University and General Hospital, Udine, Italy.
Emiliano TamburiniDepartment of Medical Oncology, Infermi Hospital, Rimini, Italy.
Carlo BaroneMedical Oncology Unit, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Gianluca MasiUnit of Medical Oncology 2, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.
Francesco PantanoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Francesca PucciMedical Oncology Unit, University Hospital, Parma, Italy.
Domenico C CorsiMedical Oncology Unit, Fatebenefratelli-Isola Tiberina Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Nicoletta PellaDepartment of Oncology, University and General Hospital, Udine, Italy.
Francesca BergamoMedical Oncology Unit 1, Clinical and Experimental Oncology Department, Veneto Institute of Oncology Istituto Oncologico Veneto-Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Padua, Italy.
Eleonora RofiClinical Pharmacology and Pharmacogenetics Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Pisa, Italy.
Cecilia BarbaraMedical Oncology Unit, Presidio Ospedaliero Felice Lotti, Pontedera, Italy.
Alfredo FalconeUnit of Medical Oncology 2, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy.
Daniele SantiniDepartment of Medical Oncology, Campus Bio-Medico University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana · ITFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori · ITUniversità Campus Bio-Medico · ITUniversity of Pisa · ITIstituto Oncologico Veneto · ITFatebenefratelli Hospital · ITOspedale Infermi di Rimini · ITOspedale San Bortolo · ITPresidio Ospedaliero · ITUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · ITUniversity of Parma · ITUniversity of Udine · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Based on a small retrospective study, rechallenge with cetuximab-based therapy for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who were previously treated with the same anti-epidermal growth factor receptor-based regimen might be efficacious. Recent data suggest the role of liquid biopsy as a tool to track molecular events in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Objective: To prospectively assess the activity of cetuximab plus irinotecan as third-line treatment for patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC who were initially sensitive to and then resistant to first-line irinotecan- and cetuximab-based therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter phase 2 single-arm trial conducted from January 7, 2015, to June 19, 2017. Liquid biopsies for analysis of ctDNA were collected at baseline. Main eligibility criteria included RAS and BRAF wild-type status on tissue samples; prior first-line irinotecan- and cetuximab-based regimen with at least partial response, progression-free survival of at least 6 months with first-line therapy, and progression within 4 weeks after last dose of cetuximab; and prior second-line oxaliplatin- and bevacizumab-based treatment. Interventions: Biweekly cetuximab, 500 mg/m2, plus irinotecan, 180 mg/m2. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall response rate according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Secondary end points included progression-free survival and overall survival and, as an exploratory analysis, RAS mutations in ctDNA. Results: Twenty-eight patients (9 women and 19 men; median age, 69 years [range, 45-79 years]) were enrolled. Six partial responses (4 confirmed) and 9 disease stabilizations were reported (response rate, 21%; 95% CI, 10%-40%; disease control rate, 54%; 95% CI, 36%-70%). Primary end point was met because lower limit of 95% CI of response rate was higher than 5%. RAS mutations were found in ctDNA collected at rechallenge baseline in 12 of 25 evaluable patients (48%). No RAS mutations were detected in samples from patients who achieved confirmed partial response. Patients with RAS wild-type ctDNA had significantly longer progression-free survival than those with RAS mutated ctDNA (median progression-free survival, 4.0 vs 1.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.18-0.98; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: This is the first prospective demonstration that a rechallenge strategy with cetuximab and irinotecan may be active in patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC with acquired resistance to first-line irinotecan- and cetuximab-based therapy. The evaluation of RAS mutational status on ctDNA might be helpful in selecting candidate patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02296203.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, NeoplasmGenes, rasAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBiomarkers, TumorCetuximabColorectal NeoplasmsDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansIrinotecanItalyMaleMiddle AgedProgression-Free SurvivalProspective StudiesBiomarkers, TumorBRAF protein, humanCetuximabIrinotecanProto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf

Identifiers

PMID30476968
PMCPMC6439839
OpenAlexW2901178367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.