RESUMO
Background: Metastatic colorectal cancer is one of the most common causes of cancer death worldwide, and its incidence increases with age. Treating an older RAS and BRAF wild-type patient represents a challenge for the medical oncologist, even more so for those patients defined as "vulnerable" and undergoing at least two lines of therapy. In this context, recent evidence supports the role of retreatment with anti-EGFR inhibitors and the use of liquid biopsy. However, frequent skin toxicity constitutes a limitation of therapy, especially in older people. Since it has been described that continuous administration of these monoclonal antibodies leads to acquired resistance to anti-EGFRs, with consequent therapeutic failure, an intermittent strategy with chemotherapy plus an anti-EGFR could help maintain the efficacy of the treatment over time, delaying the resistance and improving patients' quality of life. Case presentation: In this case report, we describe the case of an older RAS and BRAF wild-type patient reporting a clinical response after first-line chemotherapy with FOLFOX + panitumumab, subsequently interrupted in the absence of disease progression. After radiological worsening and two additional lines of therapy, the reintroduction of panitumumab plus 5-fluorouracil, administered with a stop-and-go strategy, allowed the patient to benefit from the same drugs for 2 years from diagnosis, to achieve a clinical response during fourth-line treatment lasting more than 3 years, to delay resistance and to avoid unacceptable anti-EGFR skin toxicity. This patient, who died from a myocardial infarction more than 5 years after diagnosis, represents the case of a good synergy between molecular profile of disease and reintroduction of an anti-EGFR with intermittent strategy.
RESUMO
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.