Immunohistochemical evaluation of the prognostic and predictive power of epidermal growth factor receptor ligand levels in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors are limited to patients with RAS wild-type tumours. Not all patients will benefit from treatment and better predictive biomarkers are needed. Here we investigated the prognostic and predictive impact of the EGFR ligands amphiregulin (AREG) and epiregulin (EREG). Expression levels were assessed by immunohistochemistry on 99 KRAS wild-type tumours. AREG and EREG positivity was seen in 49% and 50% of cases, respectively. No difference in expression was observed by primary tumour side. There was no significant difference in OS by AREG or EREG expression. In the subset of patients who received an EGFR inhibitor, EREG positivity was associated with longer OS (median 34.0 vs. 27.0 months, p = 0.033), driven by a difference in patients with a left-sided primary (HR 0.37, p = 0.015). Our study supports further investigation into EREG as a predictive biomarker in mCRC.

A randomized, phase II study of afatinib versus cetuximab in metastatic or recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

BACKGROUND: Afatinib is an oral, irreversible ErbB family blocker that has shown activity in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated lung cancer. We hypothesized that the agent would have greater antitumor activity compared with cetuximab in recurrent or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patients, whose disease has progressed after platinum-containing therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An open-label, randomized, phase II trial was conducted in 43 centers; 124 patients were randomized (1 : 1) to either afatinib (50 mg/day) or cetuximab (250 mg/m(2)/week) until disease progression or intolerable adverse events (AEs) (stage I), with optional crossover (stage II). The primary end point was tumor shrinkage before crossover assessed by investigator (IR) and independent central review (ICR). RESULTS: A total of 121 patients were treated (61 afatinib, 60 cetuximab) and 68 crossed over to stage II (32 and 36 respectively). In stage I, mean tumor shrinkage by IR/ICR was 10.4%/16.6% with afatinib and 5.4%/10.1% with cetuximab (P = 0.46/0.30). Objective response rate was 16.1%/8.1% with afatinib and 6.5%/9.7% with cetuximab (IR/ICR). Comparable disease control rates were observed with afatinib (50%) and cetuximab (56.5%) by IR; similar results were seen by ICR. Most common grade ≥3 drug-related AEs (DRAEs) were rash/acne (18% versus 8.3%), diarrhea (14.8% versus 0%), and stomatitis/mucositis (11.5% versus 0%) with afatinib and cetuximab, respectively. Patients with DRAEs leading to treatment discontinuation were 23% with afatinib and 5% with cetuximab. In stage II, disease control rate (IR/ICR) was 38.9%/33.3% with afatinib and 18.8%/18.8% with cetuximab. CONCLUSION: Afatinib showed antitumor activity comparable to cetuximab in R/M HNSCC in this exploratory phase II trial, although more patients on afatinib discontinued treatment due to AEs. Sequential EGFR/ErbB treatment with afatinib and cetuximab provided sustained clinical benefit in patients after crossover, suggesting a lack of cross-resistance.