Cetuximab and Irinotecan With or Without Bevacizumab in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: BOND-3, an ACCRU Network Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Combination irinotecan and cetuximab is approved for irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). It is unknown if adding bevacizumab improves outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, patients with irinotecan-refractory RAS-wildtype mCRC and no prior anti-EGFR therapy were randomized to cetuximab 500 mg/m2, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg, and irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (or previously tolerated dose) (CBI) versus cetuximab, irinotecan, and placebo (CI) every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The study closed early after the accrual of 36 out of a planned 120 patients due to changes in funding. Nineteen patients were randomized to CBI and 17 to CI. Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. Median PFS was 9.7 versus 5.5 months for CBI and CI, respectively (1-sided log-rank P = .38; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-1.66). Median OS was 19.7 versus 10.2 months for CBI and CI (1-sided log-rank P = .02; adjusted HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-1.09). ORR was 36.8% for CBI versus 11.8% for CI (P = .13). Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47% of patients receiving CBI versus 35% for CI (P = .46). CONCLUSION: In this prematurely discontinued trial, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of PFS between CBI and CI. There was a statistically significant improvement in OS in favor of CBI compared with CI. Further investigation of CBI for the treatment of irinotecan-refractory mCRC is warranted.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02292758.

Presurgical language fMRI: Mapping of six critical regions.

Language mapping is a key goal in neurosurgical planning. fMRI mapping typically proceeds with a focus on Broca's and Wernicke's areas, although multiple other language-critical areas are now well-known. We evaluated whether clinicians could use a novel approach, including clinician-driven individualized thresholding, to reliably identify six language regions, including Broca's Area, Wernicke's Area (inferior, superior), Exner's Area, Supplementary Speech Area, Angular Gyrus, and Basal Temporal Language Area. We studied 22 epilepsy and tumor patients who received Wada and fMRI (age 36.4[12.5]; Wada language left/right/mixed in 18/3/1). fMRI tasks (two × three tasks) were analyzed by two clinical neuropsychologists who flexibly thresholded and combined these to identify the six regions. The resulting maps were compared to fixed threshold maps. Clinicians generated maps that overlapped significantly, and were highly consistent, when at least one task came from the same set. Cases diverged when clinicians prioritized different language regions or addressed noise differently. Language laterality closely mirrored Wada data (85% accuracy). Activation consistent with all six language regions was consistently identified. In blind review, three external, independent clinicians rated the individualized fMRI language maps as superior to fixed threshold maps; identified the majority of regions significantly more frequently; and judged language laterality to mirror Wada lateralization more often. These data provide initial validation of a novel, clinician-based approach to localizing language cortex. They also demonstrate clinical fMRI is superior when analyzed by an experienced clinician and that when fMRI data is of low quality judgments of laterality are unreliable and should be withheld. Hum Brain Mapp 38:4239-4255, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.