Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36880426›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2023

Cetuximab as third-line rechallenge plus either irinotecan or avelumab is an effective treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with baseline plasma RAS/BRAF wild-type circulating tumor DNA: Individual patient data pooled analysis of CRICKET and CAVE trials.

G Martini, D Ciardiello, V Famiglietti, D Rossini, C Antoniotti, T Troiani, S Napolitano, L Esposito, T P Latiano, E Maiello and 12 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

22 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

G MartiniMedical Oncology, Department of Precision Medicine, Università degli Studi della Campania "L. Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4093-2681
D CiardielloMedical Oncology, Department of Precision Medicine, Università degli Studi della Campania "L. Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1826-0305
V FamigliettiMedical Oncology, Department of Precision Medicine, Università degli Studi della Campania "L. Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
D RossiniMedical Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Department of Translational Research and New Technology in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
C AntoniottiMedical Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Department of Translational Research and New Technology in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
T TroianiMedical Oncology, Department of Precision Medicine, Università degli Studi della Campania "L. Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
S NapolitanoMedical Oncology, Department of Precision Medicine, Università degli Studi della Campania "L. Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
L EspositoMedical Oncology, Department of Precision Medicine, Università degli Studi della Campania "L. Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
T P LatianoOncologia Medica, Ospedale Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza-IRCCS foundation, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy.
E MaielloOncologia Medica, Ospedale Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza-IRCCS foundation, San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy.
M Del ReMedical Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Department of Translational Research and New Technology in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
S LonardiMedical Oncology, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS, Padova, Italy.
G AprileDepartment of Oncology, San Bortolo General Hospital, Vicenza, Italy.
D SantiniOncologia Medica, Univeristà La Sapienza-Polo Pontino, Rome, Italy.
G MasiMedical Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Department of Translational Research and New Technology in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
A AvalloneOncologia Medica, Istituto Nazionale per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori "Fondazione Giovanni Pascale" - IRCCS, Naples, Italy.
N NormannoBiologia Cellulare e Bioterapie, Istituto Nazionale per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori "Fondazione Giovanni Pascale" - IRCCS, Naples, Italy.
F PietrantonioMedical Oncology Department, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8530-8420
C PintoMedical Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Centre, AUSL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
F CiardielloMedical Oncology, Department of Precision Medicine, Università degli Studi della Campania "L. Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
C CremoliniMedical Oncology, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Department of Translational Research and New Technology in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
E MartinelliMedical Oncology, Department of Precision Medicine, Università degli Studi della Campania "L. Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7108-0971
University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" · ITUniversity of Pisa · ITCasa Sollievo della Sofferenza · ITIstituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS "Fondazione G. Pascale" · ITAzienda Sanitaria Unità Locale di Reggio Emilia · ITFondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori · ITIstituto Oncologico Veneto · ITOspedale San Bortolo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rechallenge strategy is based on the concept that a subset of patients with RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) could still benefit of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibition, after progression to an anti-EGFR based-therapy. We performed a pooled analysis of two-phase II prospective trials to determine the role of rechallenge in third-line mCRC patients with RAS/BRAF WT baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). Individual data of 33 and 13 patients from CAVE and CRICKET trials that received as third-line therapy cetuximab rechallenge were collected. Overall survival (OS), Progression-free survival (PFS), Overall response rate (ORR), Stable disease (SD) >6 months were calculated. Adverse events were reported. For the whole 46 patient population, median PFS (mPFS) was 3.9 months (95% Confidence Interval, CI 3.0-4.9) with median OS (mOS) of 16.9 months (95% CI 11.7-22.1). For CRICKET patients, mPFS was 3.9 months (95% CI 1.7-6.2); mOS was 13.1 months (95% CI 7.3-18.9) with OS rates at 12, 18, and 24 months of 62%, 23%, and 0%, respectively. For CAVE patients, mPFS was 4.1 months (95% CI 3.0-5.2); mOS was 18.6 months (95% CI 11.7-25.4) with OS rates at 12, 18, 24 months of 61%, 52%, 21%, respectively. Skin rash was more frequently reported in CAVE trial (87.9% vs. 30.8%; p = 0.001), whereas a increased incidence of hematological toxicities was observed in CRICKET trial (53.8%% vs. 12.1%; p = 0.003). Third-line cetuximab rechallenge in combination with either irinotecan or avelumab in RAS/BRAF WT ctDNA mCRC patients represents a promising therapy.

Indexed as

Circulating Tumor DNAColonic NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsRectal NeoplasmsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCetuximabHumansIrinotecanProspective StudiesProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)Antibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedavelumabBRAF protein, humanCetuximabCirculating Tumor DNAIrinotecanProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)cetuximabimmunotherapymetastatic colorectal cancerrechallenge

Identifiers

PMID36880426
PMCPMC10166888
OpenAlexW4323348059

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.