-
International Journal of Cancer Nov 2016Cancer-associated thromboembolism is a substantial problem in clinical practice. An increase in the level of fibrinopeptide A (a substance associated with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of severe and life-threatening thromboembolism in cancer patients receiving anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (cetuximab or panitumumab).
Cancer-associated thromboembolism is a substantial problem in clinical practice. An increase in the level of fibrinopeptide A (a substance associated with hypercoagulable states) has been observed in humans exposed to fluorouracil. Anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies cetuximab and panitumumab, which are now widely used in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, could prolong the uncovering of endothelial structures resulting from flouorouracil or other co-administered agents, thus favouring several factors leading to thromboembolism. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, controlled trials assessing whether cancer patients receiving anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies cetuximab and panitumumab are at increased risk of thromboembolic events. We searched electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Central) and reference lists. Phase II/III randomised, controlled trials comparing standard anti-cancer regimens with or without anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies and reporting serious venous thromboembolic events were included in the analysis. Seventeen studies (12,870 patients) were considered for quantitative analysis. The relative risk (RR) for venous thromboembolism (18 comparisons) was 1.46 (95% CI 1.26 to 1.69); the RR of pulmonary embolism, on the basis of eight studies providing nine comparisons, was 1.55 (1.20 to 2.00). Cancer patients receiving anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies-containing regimens are approximately 1.5 times more likely to experience venous or pulmonary embolism, compared to those treated with the same regimens without anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies. Clinicians should consider patient's baseline thromboembolic risk when selecting regimens that include cetuximab or panitumumab. Potential non-reporting of these important adverse events remains a concern. PROSPERO registration number is CRD42014009165.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Cetuximab; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; ErbB Receptors; Humans; Neoplasms; Panitumumab; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thromboembolism
PubMed: 27450994
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30280 -
Ecancermedicalscience 2015The effectiveness of chemotherapy (CT) for select cases of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) has been well established in the literature, however, it provides limited... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The effectiveness of chemotherapy (CT) for select cases of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) has been well established in the literature, however, it provides limited benefits and in many cases constitutes a treatment with high toxicity. The use of specific molecular biological treatments with monoclonal antibodies (MA) has been shown to be relevant, particularly for its potential for increasing the response rate of the host to the tumour, as these have molecular targets present in the cancerous cells and their microenvironment thereby blocking their development. The combination of MA and CT can bring a significant increase in the rate of resectability of metastases, the progression-free survival (PFS), and the global survival (GS) in MCRC patients.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effectiveness and safety of MA in the treatment of MCRC.
METHODS
A systematic review was carried out with a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials comparing the use of cetuximab, bevacizumab, and panitumumab in the treatment of MCRC.
RESULTS
Sixteen randomised clinical trials were selected. The quality of the evidence on the question was considered moderate and data from eight randomised clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis. The GS and PFS were greater in the groups which received the MA associated with CT, however, the differences were not statistically significant between the groups (mean of 17.7 months versus 17.1 months; mean difference of 1.09 (CI: 0.10-2.07); p = 0.84; and 7.4 versus 6.9 months. mean difference of 0.76 (CI: 0.08-1.44); p = 0.14 respectively). The meta-analysis was not done for any of the secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSION
The addition of MA to CT for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer does not prolong GS and PFS.
PubMed: 26557880
DOI: 10.3332/ecancer.2015.582 -
Clinical Colorectal Cancer Mar 2016To evaluate, from a US payer perspective, the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), we performed a systematic review of... (Review)
Review
To evaluate, from a US payer perspective, the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), we performed a systematic review of published cost-effectiveness analyses. We identified 14 papers that fulfilled our search criteria and revealed varying levels of value among current treatment strategies. Older agents such as 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin provide high-value treatments. More modern agents targeting the EGFR or VEGF pathways, such as bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab, do not appear to be cost-effective treatments at their current costs. The analytical methods used within the papers varied widely, and this variation likely plays a significant role in the heterogeneity in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. The cost-effectiveness of current treatment strategies for mCRC is highly variable. Drugs recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for mCRC are not cost-effective, and this is primarily driven by high drug costs.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bevacizumab; Camptothecin; Cetuximab; Colorectal Neoplasms; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Drug Costs; Fluorouracil; Humans; Irinotecan; Leucovorin; Neoplasm Metastasis; Organoplatinum Compounds; Oxaliplatin; Panitumumab; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Treatment Outcome; United States
PubMed: 26541320
DOI: 10.1016/j.clcc.2015.10.002 -
PloS One 2015The EGFR inhibitors (EGFR-I) cetuximab and panitumumab and the angiogenesis inhibitors (AIs) bevacizumab and aflibercept have demonstrated varying efficacy in mCRC. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The EGFR inhibitors (EGFR-I) cetuximab and panitumumab and the angiogenesis inhibitors (AIs) bevacizumab and aflibercept have demonstrated varying efficacy in mCRC.
OBJECTIVE
To document the overall impact of specific chemotherapy regimens on the efficacy of targeted agents in treating patients with mCRC.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched to 2014, supplemented by hand-searching ASCO/ESMO conference abstracts.
STUDY SELECTION
Published RCTs of patients with histologically confirmed mCRC were included if they investigated either 1) chemotherapy with or without a biological agent or 2) different chemotherapy regimens with the same biological agent. EGFR-I trials were restricted to KRAS exon 2 wild-type (WT) populations.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data were independently abstracted by two authors and trial quality assessed according to Cochrane criteria. The primary outcome was overall survival with secondary endpoints progression free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and toxicity.
RESULTS
EGFR-I added to irinotecan-based chemotherapy modestly improved OS with HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.81-1.00, p = 0.04), but more so PFS with HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.69-0.86, p<0.00001). No benefit was evident for EGFR-I added to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (OS HR 0.97 (95% CI 0.87-1.09) and PFS HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.83-1.02)). Significant oxaliplatin-irinotecan subgroup interactions were present for PFS with I2 = 82%, p = 0.02. Further analyses of oxaliplatin+EGFR-I trials showed greater efficacy with infusional 5FU regimens (PFS HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.94) compared to capecitabine (HR 1.09; 95% CI 0.91-1.30) and bolus 5FU (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.79-1.45); subgroup interaction was present with I2 = 72%, p = 0.03. The oxaliplatin-irinotecan interaction was not evident for infusional 5FU regimens. For AIs, OS benefit was observed with both oxaliplatin-based (HR 0.83) and irinotecan-based (HR 0.77) regimens without significant subgroup interactions. Oxaliplatin+AI trials showed no subgroup interactions by type of FP, whilst an interaction was present for irinotecan+AI trials although aflibercept was only used with infusional FP (I2 = 89.7%, p = 0.002).
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE
The addition of EGFR-I to irinotecan-based chemotherapy has consistent efficacy, regardless of FP regimen, whereas EGFR-I and oxaliplatin-based regimens were most active with infusional 5FU. No such differential activity was observed with the varying chemotherapy schedules when combined with AIs.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bevacizumab; Camptothecin; Capecitabine; Colorectal Neoplasms; ErbB Receptors; Fluorouracil; Humans; Irinotecan; Leucovorin; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Mutation; Organoplatinum Compounds; Oxaliplatin; Panitumumab; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras); Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Recombinant Fusion Proteins; Survival Rate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26275292
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135599 -
BMC Medicine Nov 2014Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) have been widely used in a variety of malignancies. Severe infections (≥grade 3) are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Incidence and risk of severe infections associated with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibodies in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) have been widely used in a variety of malignancies. Severe infections (≥grade 3) are potentially life-threatening adverse events with these drugs. However, the contribution of anti-EGFR MoAbs to infections is still unknown. We performed this meta-analysis to determine the overall incidence and risk of severe infections in cancer patients treated with these drugs.
METHODS
The databases of PubMed and abstracts presented at oncology conferences and published in the proceedings were searched for relevant studies from January 2000 to May 2014. Summary incidences, relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by using either random effects or fixed effect models according to the heterogeneity of included studies.
RESULTS
A total of 14,066 patients from 26 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The use of anti-EGFR-MoAbs significantly increased the risk of developing severe infections (RR 1.34, 95%CI: 1.10 to 1.62, P=0.003) in cancer patients, but not for fatal infections (RR 1.62, 95%CI: 0.81 to 3.26, P=0.18). Meta-regression indicated the infections might possibly occur early in the treatment with anti-EGFR MoAbs. On sub-group analysis, the risk of severe infections significantly varied with tumor type (P=0.001). When stratified by specific anti-EGFR MoAbs, a significantly increased risk of infections with cetuximab was observed (P<0.001), but not for panitumumab (P=0.98). Additionally, the use of anti-EGFR MoAbs significantly increased the risk of severe infections when used in conjunction with cisplatin (RR 1.48, 95%CI 1.22 to 1.79, P<0.001) or irinotecan (RR 1.53, 95%CI 1.12 to 2.10, P=0.008). When stratified by specific infectious events, anti-EGFR-MoAbs significantly increased the risk of developing severe sepsis (RR 4.30, 95%CI: 1.80 to 10.27; P=0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Anti-EGFR MoAbs treatment significantly increases the risk of developing severe infectious events in cancer patients. The risk may vary with tumor types. Clinicians should be aware of the risks of severe infections with the administration of these drugs in cancer patients.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antineoplastic Agents; ErbB Receptors; Humans; Incidence; Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Factors; Sepsis
PubMed: 25369798
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-014-0203-5 -
The Oncologist Nov 2014Survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been significantly improved with the introduction of the monoclonal antibodies targeting the vascular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been significantly improved with the introduction of the monoclonal antibodies targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Novel molecular-targeted agents such as aflibercept and regorafenib have recently been approved. The aim of this review is to summarize and assess the effects of molecular agents in mCRC based on the available phase II and III trials, pooled analyses, and meta-analyses/systematic reviews.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted using the meta-database of the German Institute of Medical Documentation and Information. Criteria of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network were used to assess the quality of the controlled trials and systematic reviews/meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Of the 806 retrieved records, 40 publications were included. For bevacizumab, efficacy in combination with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy in first- and subsequent-line settings has been shown. The benefit of continued VEGF targeting has also been demonstrated with aflibercept and regorafenib. Cetuximab is effective with fluoropyrimidine, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) in first-line settings and as a single agent in last-line settings. Efficacy for panitumumab has been shown with oxaliplatin with fluoropyrimidine in first-line settings, with FOLFIRI in second-line settings, and as monotherapy in last-line settings. Treatment of anti-EGFR antibodies is restricted to patients with tumors that do not harbor mutations in Kirsten rat sarcoma and in neuroblastoma RAS.
CONCLUSION
Among various therapeutic options, the future challenge will be a better selection of the population that will benefit the most from specific anti-VEGF or anti- EGFR treatment and a careful consideration of therapy sequence.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bevacizumab; Camptothecin; Colorectal Neoplasms; ErbB Receptors; Fluorouracil; Humans; Irinotecan; Leucovorin; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Organoplatinum Compounds; Oxaliplatin; Panitumumab; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A
PubMed: 25326159
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0032 -
Annals of Oncology : Official Journal... Jan 2015Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) prolong survival in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) Kirsten rat sarcoma viral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) prolong survival in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene (KRAS) exon 2 wild-type tumors. Recent evidence has suggested that other RAS mutations (in exons 3 and 4 of KRAS and exons 2, 3 and 4 of a related gene, NRAS) may also be predictive of resistance.
METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating anti-EGFR mAbs that have assessed tumors for new RAS mutations. Tumors with the new RAS mutations were compared with both tumors without any RAS mutations and tumors with KRAS exon 2 mutations with respect to anti-EGFR treatment progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefit.
RESULTS
Nine RCTs comprising a total of 5948 participants evaluated for both KRAS exon 2 and new RAS mutations met the inclusion criteria. Approximately 20% of KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumors harbored one of the new RAS mutations. Tumors without any RAS mutations (either KRAS exon 2 or new RAS mutations) were found to have significantly superior anti-EGFR mAb PFS (P < 0.001) and OS (P = 0.008) treatment effect compared with tumors with any of the new RAS mutations. No difference in PFS or OS benefit was evident between tumors with KRAS exon 2 mutations and tumors with the new RAS mutations. Results were consistent between different anti-EGFR agents, lines of therapy and chemotherapy partners. Anti-EGFR mAb therapy significantly improved both PFS {hazard ratio 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.76]} and OS [hazard ratio 0.87 (95% CI 0.77-0.99)] for tumors without any RAS mutations. No PFS or OS benefit was evident with use of anti-EGFR mAbs for tumors harboring any RAS mutation (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Tumors harboring one of the new RAS mutations are unlikely to significantly benefit from anti-EGFR mAb therapy in mCRC.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Agents; Cetuximab; Colorectal Neoplasms; Disease-Free Survival; Drug Resistance, Neoplasm; ErbB Receptors; GTP Phosphohydrolases; Humans; Membrane Proteins; Panitumumab; Proto-Oncogene Proteins; Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras); ras Proteins
PubMed: 25115304
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdu378 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Nov 2013Pruritus has been anecdotally described in association with targeted cancer therapies. The risk of pruritus has not been systematically ascertained. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pruritus has been anecdotally described in association with targeted cancer therapies. The risk of pruritus has not been systematically ascertained.
OBJECTIVE
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was conducted for axitinib, cetuximab, dasatinib, erlotinib, everolimus, gefitinib, imatinib, ipilimumab, lapatinib, nilotinib, panitumumab, pazopanib, rituximab, sorafenib, temsirolimus, tositumomab, vandetanib, and vemurafenib.
METHODS
Databases from PubMed, Web of Science (January 1998 through July 2012), and American Society of Clinical Oncology abstracts (2004 through 2012) were searched. Incidence and relative risk of pruritus were calculated using random- or fixed-effects model.
RESULTS
The incidences of all-grade and high-grade pruritus were 17.4% (95% confidence interval 16.0%-19.0%) and 1.4% (95% confidence interval 1.2%-1.6%), respectively. There was an increased risk of all-grade pruritus (relative risk 2.90 [95% confidence interval 1.76-4.77, P < .001]) and variation among different drugs (P < .001).
LIMITATIONS
The reporting of pruritus may vary, resulting from concomitant medications, comorbidities, and underlying malignancies. We found a higher incidence of pruritus in patients with solid tumors, concordant with those targeted therapies with the highest pruritus incidences.
CONCLUSION
There is a significant risk of developing pruritus in patients receiving targeted therapies. To prevent suboptimal dosing and decreased quality of life, patients should be counseled and treated against this untoward symptom.
Topics: Drug Eruptions; Humans; Molecular Targeted Therapy; Neoplasms; Pruritus
PubMed: 23981682
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2013.06.038 -
Health Technology Assessment... Apr 2013Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the UK after breast and lung cancer. People with metastatic disease who are sufficiently fit are usually... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab (mono- or combination chemotherapy), bevacizumab (combination with non-oxaliplatin chemotherapy) and panitumumab (monotherapy) for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer after first-line chemotherapy (review of technology...
BACKGROUND
Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the UK after breast and lung cancer. People with metastatic disease who are sufficiently fit are usually treated with active chemotherapy as first- or second-line therapy. Recently, targeted agents have become available including anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents, for example cetuximab and panitumumab, and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor agents, for example bevacizumab.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of panitumumab monotherapy and cetuximab (mono- or combination chemotherapy) for Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) wild-type (WT) patients, and bevacizumab in combination with non-oxaliplatin chemotherapy, for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer after first-line chemotherapy.
DATA SOURCES
The assessment comprises a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies, a review and critique of manufacturer submissions and a de novo cohort-based economic analysis. For the assessment of effectiveness, a literature search was conducted in a range of electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, from 2005 to November 2010.
REVIEW METHODS
Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or systematic reviews of RCTs of cetuximab, bevacizumab or panitumumab in participants with EGFR-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer with KRAS WT status that has progressed after first-line chemotherapy (for cetuximab and panitumumab) or participants with metastatic colorectal cancer that has progressed after first-line chemotherapy (bevacizumab). All steps in the review were performed by one reviewer and checked independently by a second. Synthesis was mainly narrative. An economic model was developed focusing on third-line and subsequent lines of treatment. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Probabilistic and univariate deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS
The searches identified 7745 titles and abstracts. Two clinical trials (reported in 12 papers) were included. No data were available for bevacizumab in combination with non-oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in previously treated patients. Neither of the included studies had KRAS status performed prospectively, but the studies did report retrospective analyses of the results for the KRAS WT subgroups. Third-line treatment with cetuximab plus best supportive care or panitumumab plus best supportive care appears to have statistically significant advantages over treatment with best supportive care alone in patients with KRAS WT status. For the economic evaluation, five studies met the inclusion criteria. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for KRAS WT patients for cetuximab compared with best supportive care is £98,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), for panitumumab compared with best supportive care is £150,000 per QALY and for cetuximab plus irinotecan compared with best supportive care is £88,000 per QALY. All ICERs are sensitive to treatment duration.
LIMITATIONS
In the specific populations of interest, there is a lack of evidence on bevacizumab, cetuximab and cetuximab plus irinotecan used second line and on bevacizumab and cetuximab plus irinotecan used third line. For cetuximab plus irinotecan treatment for KRAS WT people, there is no direct evidence on progression-free survival, overall survival and duration of treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
Although cetuximab and panitumumab appear to be clinically beneficial for KRAS WT patients compared with best supportive care, they are likely to represent poor value for money when judged by cost-effectiveness criteria currently used in the UK. It would be useful to conduct a RCT for patients with KRAS WT status receiving cetuximab plus irinotecan.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Angiogenesis Inhibitors; Animals; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Agents; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Bevacizumab; Cetuximab; Clinical Protocols; Clinical Trials as Topic; Colorectal Neoplasms; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Disease-Free Survival; Humans; Models, Economic; Panitumumab; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; United Kingdom
PubMed: 23547747
DOI: 10.3310/hta17140 -
PloS One 2013The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene copy number (GCN) has been previously demonstrated to correlate with the clinical outcome of colorectal cancer (CRC)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene copy number (GCN) has been previously demonstrated to correlate with the clinical outcome of colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), although it remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess EGFR GCN as a potential biomarker of survival for patients with advanced CRC receiving treatment with anti-EGFR mAbs.
METHODS
We systematically identified articles investigating EGFR GCN by fluorescent or chromogenic in situ hybridization or other detection techniques in patients with metastatic CRC treated with panitumumab or cetuximab, (last search: 10 August 2012). Eligible studies had to report on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) or time-to-progression (TTP), stratified by EGFR GCN. Summary hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using random-effects models.
RESULTS
Among 13 identified studies, 10 (776 patients, 302 with increased GCN), 8 (893 patients, 282 with increased GCN) and 3 (149 patients, 66 with increased GCN) were eligible for the OS, PFS and TTP meta-analyses, respectively. Increased EGFR GCN was associated with increased OS (HR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.50-0.77; P<0.001), PFS (HR = 0.65; 95% CI 0.47-0.89; P = 0.008) but not TTP (HR = 0.71; 95% CI 0.44-1.14; P = 0.157). It was also shown that EGFR GCN is independent of other factors such as KRAS status. Among those populations received second-line or higher treatment, increased EGFR GCN was strongly associated with improved survival (for OS, HR = 0.60; 95% CI 0.47-0.75; P<0.001; for PFS, HR = 0.59; 95% CI 0.47-0.75; P<0.001), whereas it did not influence survival in patients that received first-line therapy.
CONCLUSION
Among the anti-EGFR-treated patients, increased EGFR GCN appears to be associated with improved survival outcomes. The effect on survival appears to be related to patients receiving the line of treatment.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; Antineoplastic Agents; Biomarkers, Tumor; Cetuximab; Colorectal Neoplasms; Disease Progression; ErbB Receptors; Gene Dosage; Humans; Panitumumab; Prognosis; Publication Bias
PubMed: 23441167
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056205