Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31363167›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2019

A phase 2 study of panitumumab with irinotecan as salvage therapy in chemorefractory KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

Elena Elez, Carles Pericay, Manuel Valladares-Ayerbes, Inmaculada Bando, Maria Jose Safont, Javier Gallego, Cristina Grávalos, Antonio Arrivi, Alfredo Carrato, Verónica Conde and 7 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase II
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 41% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

17 authors at 15 institutions in 1 country.

Elena ElezDepartment of Medical Oncology, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Carles PericayDepartment of Medical Oncology, C.S. Parc Tauli, Barcelona, Spain.
Manuel Valladares-AyerbesDepartment of Medical Oncology, Complejo Hospitalario Universitario A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain.
Inmaculada BandoLaboratory Hospital Clínico San Carlos. Instituto de Investigación Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC), University Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
Maria Jose SafontDepartment of Medical Oncology, General Universitario de Valencia Hospital, Valencia, Spain.
Javier GallegoDepartment of Medical Oncology, General Universitario de Elche Hospital, Alicante, Spain.
Cristina GrávalosDepartment of Medical Oncology, Universitario Doce de Octubre Hospital, Madrid, Spain.
Antonio ArriviDepartment of Medical Oncology, Son Llàtzer Hospital, Palma de Mallorca, Spain.
Alfredo CarratoDepartment of Medical Oncology, IRYCIS, CIBERONC, Alcalá University, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain.
Verónica CondeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Virgen de las Nieves Hospital, Granada, Spain.
Maria José OrtizIMIBIC, Reina Sofía Hospital, University of Córdoba, CIBERONC, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Córdoba, Spain.
Carlos LópezDepartment of Medical Oncology, Marqués de Valdecilla Hospital, Santander, Spain.
Beatriz AlonsoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Universitario de Canarias Hospital, Tenerife, Spain.
Inmaculada Ruiz de MenaSpanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours (TTD), Madrid, Spain.
Eduardo Díaz-RubioLaboratory Hospital Clínico San Carlos. Instituto de Investigación Hospital Clínico San Carlos (IdISSC), University Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
Josep TaberneroDepartment of Medical Oncology, Vall d'Hebron Institute of Oncology, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. jtabernero@vhio.net.
Enrique ArandaIMIBIC, Reina Sofía Hospital, University of Córdoba, CIBERONC, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Córdoba, Spain.
Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Cáncer · ESVall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari · ESCorporació Sanitària Parc Taulí · ESHospital General Universitario de Elche · ESHospital General Universitario De Valencia · ESHospital Son Llatzer · ESHospital Universitario 12 De Octubre · ESHospital Universitario de Canarias · ESHospital Universitario Reina Sofía · ESHospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves · ESInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Hospital Clínico San Carlos · ESInstituto Maimónides de Investigación Biomédica de Córdoba · ESMarqués de Valdecilla University Hospital · ESSpanish Head & Neck Cancer Cooperative Group · ESUniversity of Córdoba · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTargeted agents are standard treatment for RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer in the first- and second-line settings. This phase 2 study determined the benefit of targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) with panitumumab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory patients.

methodsKRAS exon-2 wild-type patients failing prior irinotecan received panitumumab (6 mg/kg) and irinotecan (180 mg/m²) every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included safety, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). KRAS exon-2 status was evaluated centrally, along with NRAS, BRAF mutations, epiregulin, amphiregulin, PTEN and EGFR copy number status, and correlated with efficacy.

resultsSixty-one patients were treated. Among the 46 wild-type RAS patients, the ORR was 15.2% (seven partial responses), with median PFS of 3.8 months (95% CI 2.7-4.3) and median OS of 12.5 months (95% CI 6.7-15.9). Wild-type BRAF patients showed a 13.0% response rate. No significant correlations between response and baseline biomarker expression were identified. Common grade 3-4 adverse events were diarrhoea and rash (18.0% each), hypomagnesaemia and asthenia (8.2% each).

conclusionsThe addition of panitumumab to irinotecan as salvage therapy is feasible but has limited activity in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. No biomarkers predictive of response were identified.

Indexed as

Salvage TherapyAdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAmphiregulinAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsAstheniaColorectal NeoplasmsDiarrheaDrug EruptionsEpiregulinErbB ReceptorsFemaleGTP PhosphohydrolasesHumansAmphiregulinAREG protein, humanBRAF protein, humanEGFR protein, humanEpiregulinErbB ReceptorsEREG protein, humanGTP PhosphohydrolasesIrinotecanKRAS protein, humanMagnesiumMembrane ProteinsNRAS protein, humanPanitumumabProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)PTEN PhosphohydrolasePTEN protein, human

Identifiers

PMID31363167
PMCPMC6738054
OpenAlexW2964362063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.