Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Irinotecan Plus Cetuximab Versus Cetuximab as Maintenance Therapy in First-Line Therapy for RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Phase III ERMES Study.

PURPOSE: The intensity of anti-EGFR-based first-line therapy for RAS/BRAF wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), once disease control is achieved, is controversial. A de-escalation strategy with anti-EGFR monotherapy represents a potential option to maintain efficacy while reducing cytotoxicity. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, phase III trial, patients with untreated RAS/BRAF wt mCRC were randomly assigned to receive either fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan/cetuximab (FOLFIRI/Cet) until disease progression (arm A) or FOLFIRI/Cet for eight cycles followed by Cet alone (arm B). The coprimary end points were a noninferior progression-free survival (PFS) in the modified per-protocol (mPP) population (>eight cycles) and a lower incidence of grade (G) 3-4 adverse events (AEs) for arm B compared with arm A. RESULTS: Overall, 606 patients were randomly assigned, with 300 assigned to arm A and 306 to arm B. The median follow-up was 22.3 months. In the mPP population, 291 events occurred with a PFS of 10 versus 12.2 months for arms B and A, respectively (P of noninferiority = .43). In the intention-to-treatment (ITT, ≥one cycle) population, 503 events occurred with a PFS of 9 versus 10.7 months (P = .39). The overall survival was 35.7 versus 30.7 months (P = .119) and 31.0 versus 25.2 months (P = .32) in the mPP and ITT population, respectively. Arm B had lower G3-4 AEs during the maintenance period than arm A (20.2% v 35.1%). CONCLUSION: The ERMES study did not demonstrate noninferiority of maintenance with Cet alone. Despite a more favorable safety profile, maintenance with single-agent Cet after induction with FOLFIRI/Cet cannot be recommended for all patients but could represent an option in selected cases.

Droplet digital PCR quantification of miR-1290 as a circulating biomarker for pancreatic cancer.

Droplet digital PCR was used to validate miR-1290 as circulating biomarker for pancreatic cancer (PC). The diagnostic performance of miR-1290 was evaluate in 167 PC patients and 267 healthy subjects at clinical risk of developing the disease (HS). MiR-1290 plasma levels were compared to CA 19-9 determinations, and the combination of the two biomarkers was also taken into account. Plasma levels of miR-1290 were higher in PC patients compared to HS (p = 2.55 × 10-16). A similar trend was observed for CA 19-9 determinations (p = 1.03 × 10-47). ROC curve analysis revealed that miR-1290 in combination with CA 19-9 was effective for discriminating between PC patients and HS (AUC = 0.956, 95% CI = 0.933-0.979) than the two biomarkers tested alone (miR-1290: AUC = 0.734, 0.678-0.789; CA 19-9: AUC = 0.914, 0.877-0.951). The discriminating ability was higher when only PC patients with low or slightly increased CA 19-9 levels were compared with HS. MiR-1290 concentrations were not able to differentiate between PC patients with single or multiple risk factors for developing PC. Our data suggest that the absolute quantification of circulating miR-1290 levels does not allow to select patients at clinical risk of PC for entry into a surveillance program, and underline the methodological challenges still existing in utilizing circulating miRNAs as new promising biomarkers for PC.