EPIC: Phase III Trial of Cetuximab Plus Irinotecan After Fluoropyrimidine and Oxaliplatin Failure in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
Top Cited Papers
- 10 May 2008
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Vol. 26 (14), 2311-2319
- https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.13.1193
Abstract
Purpose: To determine whether adding cetuximab to irinotecan prolongs survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin. Patients and Methods: This multicenter, open-label, phase III study randomly assigned 1,298 patients with epidermal growth factor receptor–expressing mCRC who had experienced first-line fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin treatment failure to cetuximab (400 mg/m2 day 1 followed by 250 mg/m2 weekly) plus irinotecan (350 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) or irinotecan alone. Primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and quality of life (QOL). Results: Median OS was comparable between treatments: 10.7 months (95% CI, 9.6 to 11.3) with cetuximab/irinotecan and 10.0 months (95% CI, 9.1 to 11.3) with irinotecan alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.975; 95% CI, 0.854 to 1.114; P = .71). This lack of difference may have been due to post-trial therapy: 46.9% of patients assigned to irinotecan eventually received cetuximab (87.2% of those who did, received it with irinotecan). Cetuximab added to irinotecan significantly improved PFS (median, 4.0 v 2.6 months; HR, 0.692; 95% CI, 0.617 to 0.776; P ≤ .0001) and RR (16.4% v 4.2%; P < .0001), and resulted in significantly better scores in the QOL analysis of global health status (P = .047). Cetuximab did not exacerbate toxicity, except for acneform rash, diarrhea, hypomagnesemia, and associated electrolyte imbalances. Neutropenia was the most common severe toxicity across treatment arms. Conclusion: Cetuximab and irinotecan improved PFS and RR, and resulted in better QOL versus irinotecan alone. OS was similar between study groups, possibly influenced by the large number of patients in the irinotecan arm who received cetuximab and irinotecan poststudy.Keywords
This publication has 29 references indexed in Scilit:
- Cetuximab for the Treatment of Colorectal CancerNew England Journal of Medicine, 2007
- Open-Label Phase III Trial of Panitumumab Plus Best Supportive Care Compared With Best Supportive Care Alone in Patients With Chemotherapy-Refractory Metastatic Colorectal CancerJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2007
- Multicenter Phase II and Translational Study of Cetuximab in Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma Refractory to Irinotecan, Oxaliplatin, and FluoropyrimidinesJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2006
- Phase III Randomized Trial of FOLFIRI Versus FOLFOX4 in the Treatment of Advanced Colorectal Cancer: A Multicenter Study of the Gruppo Oncologico Dell’Italia MeridionaleJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2005
- Bortezomib or High-Dose Dexamethasone for Relapsed Multiple MyelomaNew England Journal of Medicine, 2005
- Phase II Trial of Cetuximab in Patients With Refractory Colorectal Cancer That Expresses the Epidermal Growth Factor ReceptorJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2004
- A Randomized Controlled Trial of Fluorouracil Plus Leucovorin, Irinotecan, and Oxaliplatin Combinations in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal CancerJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2004
- Randomised trial of irinotecan plus supportive care versus supportive care alone after fluorouracil failure for patients with metastatic colorectal cancerThe Lancet, 1998
- Randomised trial of irinotecan versus fluorouracil by continuous infusion after fluorouracil failure in patients with metastatic colorectal cancerThe Lancet, 1998
- The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A Quality-of-Life Instrument for Use in International Clinical Trials in OncologyJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1993