| People | Locations | Statistics |
|---|---|---|
| Naji, M. |
| |
| Motta, Antonella |
| |
| Aletan, Dirar |
| |
| Mohamed, Tarek |
| |
| Ertürk, Emre |
| |
| Taccardi, Nicola |
| |
| Kononenko, Denys |
| |
| Petrov, R. H. | Madrid |
|
| Alshaaer, Mazen | Brussels |
|
| Bih, L. |
| |
| Casati, R. |
| |
| Muller, Hermance |
| |
| Kočí, Jan | Prague |
|
| Šuljagić, Marija |
| |
| Kalteremidou, Kalliopi-Artemi | Brussels |
|
| Azam, Siraj |
| |
| Ospanova, Alyiya |
| |
| Blanpain, Bart |
| |
| Ali, M. A. |
| |
| Popa, V. |
| |
| Rančić, M. |
| |
| Ollier, Nadège |
| |
| Azevedo, Nuno Monteiro |
| |
| Landes, Michael |
| |
| Rignanese, Gian-Marco |
|
Cutsem, Eric Van
in Cooperation with on an Cooperation-Score of 37%
Topics
Publications (1/1 displayed)
Places of action
| Organizations | Location | People |
|---|
article
Analysis of <i>KRAS</i>/<i>NRAS</i> Mutations in a Phase III Study of Panitumumab with FOLFIRI Compared with FOLFIRI Alone as Second-line Treatment for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
Abstract
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Purpose: We evaluated the influence of RAS mutation status on the treatment effect of panitumumab in a prospective–retrospective analysis of a randomized, multicenter phase III study of panitumumab plus fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) versus FOLFIRI alone as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT0039183).</jats:p><jats:p>Experimental Design: Outcomes were from the study's primary analysis. RAS mutations beyond KRAS exon 2 (KRAS exons 3, 4; NRAS exons 2, 3, 4; BRAF exon 15) were detected by bidirectional Sanger sequencing in wild-type KRAS exon 2 tumor specimens. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were coprimary endpoints.</jats:p><jats:p>Results: The RAS ascertainment rate was 85%; 18% of wild-type KRAS exon 2 tumors harbored other RAS mutations. For PFS and OS, the hazard ratio (HR) for panitumumab plus FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI alone more strongly favored panitumumab in the wild-type RAS population than in the wild-type KRAS exon 2 population [PFS HR, 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54–0.91); P = 0.007 vs. 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59–0.90); P = 0.004; OS HR, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.63–1.03); P = 0.08 vs. 0.85 (95% CI, 0.70–1.04); P = 0.12]. Patients with RAS mutations were unlikely to benefit from panitumumab. Among RAS wild-type patients, the objective response rate was 41% in the panitumumab–FOLFIRI group versus 10% in the FOLFIRI group.</jats:p><jats:p>Conclusions: Patients with RAS mutations were unlikely to benefit from panitumumab–FOLFIRI and the benefit–risk of panitumumab–FOLFIRI was improved in the wild-type RAS population compared with the wild-type KRAS exon 2 population. These findings support RAS testing for patients with mCRC. Clin Cancer Res; 21(24); 5469–79. ©2015 AACR.</jats:p><jats:p>See related commentary by Salazar and Ciardiello, p. 5415</jats:p>