Adagrasib with or without Cetuximab in Colorectal Cancer with Mutated KRAS G12C.

BACKGROUND: Adagrasib, an oral small-molecule inhibitor of mutant KRAS G12C protein, has shown clinical activity in pretreated patients with several tumor types, including colorectal cancer. Preclinical studies suggest that combining a KRAS G12C inhibitor with an epidermal growth factor receptor antibody could be an effective clinical strategy. METHODS: In this phase 1-2, open-label, nonrandomized clinical trial, we assigned heavily pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with mutant KRAS G12C to receive adagrasib monotherapy (600 mg orally twice daily) or adagrasib (at the same dose) in combination with intravenous cetuximab once a week (with an initial loading dose of 400 mg per square meter of body-surface area, followed by a dose of 250 mg per square meter) or every 2 weeks (with a dose of 500 mg per square meter). The primary end points were objective response (complete or partial response) and safety. RESULTS: As of June 16, 2022, a total of 44 patients had received adagrasib, and 32 had received combination therapy with adagrasib and cetuximab, with a median follow-up of 20.1 months and 17.5 months, respectively. In the monotherapy group (43 evaluable patients), a response was reported in 19% of the patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 8 to 33). The median response duration was 4.3 months (95% CI, 2.3 to 8.3), and the median progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% CI, 4.1 to 8.3). In the combination-therapy group (28 evaluable patients), the response was 46% (95% CI, 28 to 66). The median response duration was 7.6 months (95% CI, 5.7 to not estimable), and the median progression-free survival was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.4 to 8.1). The percentage of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events was 34% in the monotherapy group and 16% in the combination-therapy group. No grade 5 adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Adagrasib had antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with mutant KRAS G12C, both as oral monotherapy and in combination with cetuximab. The median response duration was more than 6 months in the combination-therapy group. Reversible adverse events were common in the two groups. (Funded by Mirati Therapeutics; KRYSTAL-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03785249.).

A phase 2 trial combining afatinib with cetuximab in patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion-positive non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion (ex20ins) mutations are the third most common EGFR mutations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and are associated with primary resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). There is evidence of activity of combining EGFR TKIs with monoclonal antibodies. This study reports on the efficacy and safety of afatinib in combination with cetuximab. METHODS: In this single-arm phase 2 trial, patients with advanced NSCLC harboring an EGFR ex20ins mutation were treated with afatinib 40 mg once daily in combination with cetuximab 500 mg/m2 every 2 weeks. The primary end point was disease control rate (DCR) at 18 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients started treatment, with a median age of 65 years (range, 40-80 years), 78% female, and 95% White. The study achieved its primary end point with a DCR of 54% at 18 weeks, an overall response rate (ORR) of 43%, and a 32% confirmed ORR. Best responses were partial (n = 16), stable (n = 16), progressive disease (n = 2), or not evaluable (n = 3). Median progression-free survival was 5.5 months (95% CI, 3.7-8.3 months) and median overall survival was 16.8 months (95% CI, 10.7-25.8 months). The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were diarrhea (70%), rash (65%), dry skin (59%), paronychia (54%), and erythema (43%). Grade 3 TRAEs were reported in 54% of all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Combination treatment with afatinib and cetuximab demonstrated antitumor activity with a DCR of 54% at 18 weeks and a 32% confirmed ORR. Toxicity was significant, although manageable, after dose reduction.

Cetuximab every 2 weeks versus standard weekly dosing administration schedule.

Cetuximab every 2 weeks (Q2W) dosing schedule is approved by the US FDA and by the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Phase II trials have found comparable efficacy and safety for the weekly (Q1W) and Q2W schedules, and real-world studies have shown noninferiority of the Q2W compared with the Q1W schedule. Several guidelines recommend cetuximab Q2W administration as an alternative to the Q1W dosing schedule. Cetuximab Q2W can be administered with a Q2W dose of chemotherapy, making it a more convenient option to the Q1W schedule, potentially resulting in reduced costs for administration, increased flexibility for clinical staff and improved patient adherence.

Cetuximab is a drug for patients with colorectal cancer or cancer of the head and neck. It is usually administered once a week. However, studies have shown that cetuximab given once every 2 weeks instead has similar clinical benefits and side effects. Based on this evidence, the every 2 weeks dosing schedule has been approved for use in USA and Japan. The every 2 weeks dosing schedule is a convenient alternative to the weekly schedule. It may result in fewer hospital visits, improved patient quality of life, reduced healthcare costs and more flexibility for medical staff. This review summarizes the current evidence and benefits for the every 2 weeks dosing schedule.

Risk Factors of Cetuximab-Induced Hypomagnesemia and the Effect of Magnesium Prophylaxis in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer: A Retrospective Study.

Hypomagnesemia is a characteristic adverse event of cetuximab in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). However, there is limited information about its prevalence, risk factors, and preventive strategies. This study aimed to investigate the risk factors of hypomagnesemia and examine the preventive effects of prophylactic magnesium (Mg) administration. We initially investigated HNC patients treated with cetuximab between 2013 and 2019. Our institute started prophylactic Mg treatment (20-mEq Mg sulfate administration before cetuximab) in practice during this period. We retrospectively assess the preventive efficacy by comparing patients before and after its implementation. In total, 109 patients were included. In 60 patients without prophylaxis, all-grade and grade ≥2 hypomagnesemia at 3 months occurred in 61.7 and 15.0% of patients. The incidence of hypomagnesemia was not affected by regimens and concomitant medications. In 49 patients treated with prophylactic Mg treatment, there was no significant decrease in the cumulative incidence of hypomagnesemia. However, the preventive Mg treatment eliminated the need for additional Mg repletion to maintain Mg levels in patients treated with paclitaxel + cetuximab. A risk factor in patients without prophylaxis was a low Mg level at pre-treatment (≤2.0 mg/dL) (odds ratio: 6.03, 95% confidence interval: 1.78-20.4, p = 0.004), whereas that in patients with prophylaxis was the number of cetuximab doses (≥10) (odds ratio: 5.50, 95% confidence interval: 1.52-19.87, p = 0.009). In conclusion, a low pre-treatment Mg level was the only risk factor that could be avoided by prophylactic Mg administration. This preventive intervention is recommended for managing cetuximab-induced hypomagnesemia.

Premedication strategy in cetuximab rechallenge after Grade 2 hypersensitivity reactions.

INTRODUCTION: Cetuximab, an IgG1 monoclonal antibody, is utilized in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer and squamous cell head and neck cancers. Due to the risk of hypersensitivity reactions, standard premedication with a histamine-1 (H-1) antagonist is recommended prior to administration, however, there is less guidance for premedication strategies to assist with rechallenge after infusion reactions. Here, we describe two cases of successful cetuximab treatment after Grade 2 reactions, in addition to risk factors and proposed premedication strategies for successful rechallenge. CASE REPORT: Two patients who experienced Grade 2 hypersensitivity reactions were both successfully rechallenged with increased premedications 1-2 weeks after initial infusions. The first patient was a 56-year-old male diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving cetuximab as part of a clinical trial. The second patient was a 73-year-old male diagnosed with head and neck cancer receiving cetuximab as part of standard of care concurrent with radiation. MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOME: Each patient was rechallenged with an increased premedication strategy including dexamethasone, famotidine, diphenhydramine, and acetaminophen in addition to reducing the infusion rate. Both patients either continued treatment or successfully completed therapy, without any additional infusion-related reactions. DISCUSSION: We aimed to review risk factors related to cetuximab infusion reactions and propose a premedication strategy for rechallenge postreaction. Known risk factors include male sex and the accumulation of cetuximab-specific IgE. These may be mitigated by the addition of increased premedication with dexamethasone and famotidine with concurrent reduced infusion rate.

Efficacy and safety of adapalene gel as a reactive treatment for cetuximab-induced skin toxicity in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: A historical cohort comparison study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the common occurrence of cetuximab (Cmab)-induced skin toxicity, management strategies are not well established. The traditional mainstay method consists of topical steroids, which, if used excessively, may give rise to other concerns. Alternatively, adapalene can activate epidermal growth factor receptor pathways to potentially alleviate these toxicities. METHODS: We prospectively studied 31 patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (R/M SCCHN) who were eligible to use adapalene gel as a reactive treatment for topical steroid-refractory skin toxicity. For comparison, we retrospectively reviewed 99 patients with R/M SCCHN (historical control cohort) whose skin toxicity was mainly treated with topical steroids. We compared the frequency and severity of Cmab-induced skin toxicity, Cmab therapy status (e.g., dose modification), side effects caused by topical steroids and adapalene gel itself, and other medical interventions. RESULTS: Adapalene gel was used by eight patients (25.8%) in the prospective cohort. Patients in the historical control cohort more frequently required escalation of topical steroid potency (34.3% vs. 12.9%, p = 0.022). Although there was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of grade ≥3 facial skin rash and paronychia between the two cohorts, the prospective cohort showed a significantly shorter time to complete recovery from grade 2/3 paronychia (16 vs. 47 days, p = 0.017). Further, while no skin infections were observed in the prospective cohort, 13 patients in the historical control cohort developed skin infections, especially periungual infection (0% vs. 13.1%, p = 0.024). In addition, no patients in the prospective cohort received a dose reduction of Cmab due to skin toxicities, compared to 20 patients in the historical control cohort (0% vs. 20.2%, p = 0.003). No apparent adapalene gel-related side effects were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Adapalene gel may be an effective management option for topical steroid-refractory Cmab-induced skin toxicities and could improve compliance with Cmab therapy.

A Real-World Retrospective Study to Evaluate the Reliability of Cetuximab plus Capecitabine versus Capecitabine as Maintenance Therapy in Patients with RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The optimal maintenance therapy for rat sarcoma (RAS) and v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF) metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRCs) remains unclear. It is critical to evaluate the reliability of cetuximab-capecitabine (the observation group) relative to capecitabine alone (control group). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, patients with RAS and BRAF mCRC admitted to Huizhou Municipal Central Hospital, between January 2016 and October 2020 were enrolled and treated with cetuximab plus 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as an initial therapy. Patients whose disease was controlled after at least six cycles of treatment were administered a maintenance therapy until disease progression. We also analyzed the prognosis of patients according to clinicopathological features. Altogether, 39 RAS and BRAF mCRC patients were recruited from January 2016 to October 2020, with 18 cases in the treatment group and 21 cases in the control group. The difference in baseline clinicopathological features between the two treatments is not obvious. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival after maintenance treatment in observation group (9.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI) = 6.4-12.6]), was significantly better than the control group (7.3 months [95% CI = 5.8-8.8]). During maintenance treatment, there were no deaths caused by treatment-related adverse events, and the overall incidence of rash acne was different between the observation and control groups (p < 0.05). Most adverse events were mild and easily controlled. Primary tumor site, baseline carcinoembryonic antigen levels, and microsatellite instability status were independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: Maintenance therapy using cetuximab plus capecitabine improved survival in patients with mCRC and was well tolerated by patients.

Risk factors for oral mucositis in patients with solid tumors under treatment with cetuximab: a retrospective cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: This study retrospectively analyzed the risk factors for oral mucositis (OM) during cetuximab treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We screened patients using cetuximab and retrospectively evaluated the presence of OM based on medical records. We collected information from 2 years of evaluations. Patient medical records were reviewed to obtain data on chemotherapy cycle and dose, sex, age, primary tumor, TNM stage, and head and neck radiotherapy (HNR) history. The X2 test and multinomial logistic regression were used for statistical analysis (SPSS 20.0, p < 0.05). RESULTS: Among 1831 patients, OM was showed in 750 in any grade (41%), during cetuximab treatment. Most patients were female (n=944, 51.6%), <70years-old (n=1149, 62.8%), had larynx cancer (n=789, 43.1%) in T4 (n=579, 47.7%), N0 (n=509, 52.6%) stages. Primary tumor surgery was performed in 1476 (80.6%) patients, radiotherapy in 606 (33.1%) patients and cetuximab protocols most used involved up to four cycles (n=1072, 58.5%) of <400mg (n=996, 54.4%) cetuximab doses. Female (OR [odds ratio] = 2.17, CI95% = 1.26-3.75), >70 years-old patients (OR = 16.02, CI95% = 11.99-21.41), with HHNR (OR = 1.84, 1.41-2.40), treated with >4 cycles (OR = 1.52, CI95% = 1.16-2.01) and high doses of cetuximab (OR = 3.80, CI95% = 2.52-5.71) are the greatest risk factors for OM. CONCLUSIONS: Since the clinical benefit of cetuximab in the treatment of older patients is limited and there is a high OM, especially in women with head and neck treated with radiotherapy, high doses and a high number of cetuximab cycles must be administered with caution.

A phase Ia/Ib study of novel anti-ErbB3 monoclonal antibody, barecetamab (ISU104) in refractory solid cancers and monotherapy or in combination with cetuximab in recurrent or metastatic head and neck cancer.

We evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and antitumor activity of barecetamab monotherapy and combination cetuximab therapy in patients with advanced solid cancers, especially head and neck cancer (HNC). Part 1 was a 3 + 3 dose-escalation study in which 15 patients received barecetamab at 1, 3, 5, 10 and 20 mg/kg intravenously (IV) on days 1 and 28 and weekly in patients with advanced solid cancer. Part 2 was a dose-expansion study including two patient groups with advanced HNC, including six patients receiving barecetamab at 20 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks and 12 patients receiving barecetamab and cetuximab (400 mg/m2 on day 1 followed by 250 mg/m2 every week). No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed. Maximum serum target engagement was reached with trough levels of doses ≥3 mg/kg IV weekly. Common adverse drug reactions were diarrhea, stomatitis, dermatitis acneiform and decreased appetite. One durable complete response of more than 17 months was observed, and the overall response and disease control rates were 36.4% (4/11) and 81.1% (9/11), respectively, in the combination therapy group. In conclusion, DLT was not observed in barecetamab at 1 to 20 mg/kg. The recommended phase II dose was determined to be 20 mg/kg triweekly. Barecetamab and in cetuximab combination was well tolerated and demonstrated meaningful antitumor effects.

China special issue on gastrointestinal tumors-Cetuximab retreatment plus camrelizumab and liposomal irinotecan in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: Cohort B of the phase II CRACK study.

Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have poor long-term survival. Rechallenge with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) based therapy has shown certain activity as late-line therapy. To further improve clinical outcomes, we evaluated the antitumor efficacy and safety of cetuximab in combination with camrelizumab and liposomal irinotecan in patients with RASwt mCRC pretreated with anti-EGFR-based therapy. Patients with RASwt mCRC who had received at least two prior systemic therapies, including anti-EGFR-based treatment in the metastatic or unresectable disease setting, were enrolled in cohort B. Patients were treated with cetuximab (500 mg/m2 ) and camrelizumab (200 mg) plus liposomal irinotecan (HR070803, 60 mg/m2 ) intravenously once every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR) by RECIST v1.1. The secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. At the data cutoff (23 November 2022), 19 patients were enrolled in the two stages, and 16 were evaluable for efficacy analyses. The ORR was 25% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.2%-49.5%), and DCR was 75% (95% CI: 50.5%-89.8%). The median PFS and OS were 6.9 (95% CI: 2.6-11.2) and 15.1 (95% CI: 6.1-24.0) months, respectively. Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 15.8% (3/19) of patients. No grade ≥4 TRAEs were found in the safety population. Our study suggests that anti-EGFR retreatment therapy with cetuximab plus camrelizumab and liposomal irinotecan (HR070803) is a promising late-line treatment option with good antitumor activity and well-tolerated toxicity in RASwt mCRC patients.

A Phase Ib/II Study of WNT974 + Encorafenib + Cetuximab in Patients With BRAF V600E-Mutant KRAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: WNT974 is a small molecule inhibitor of Wnt signaling that specifically inhibits porcupine O-acyltransferase. This phase Ib dose--escalation study evaluated the maximum tolerated dose of WNT974 in combination with encorafenib and cetuximab in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer with RNF43 mutations or RSPO fusions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received once-daily encorafenib and weekly cetuximab, in addition to once-daily WNT974, in sequential dosing cohorts. In the first cohort, patients received 10-mg WNT974 (COMBO10), which was reduced in subsequent cohorts to 7.5-mg (COMBO7.5) or 5-mg (COMBO5) after dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed. Primary endpoints were incidence of DLTs and exposure to WNT974 and encorafenib. Secondary endpoints were anti-tumor activity and safety. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled (COMBO10, n = 4; COMBO7.5, n = 6; COMBO5, n = 10). DLTs were observed in 4 patients, including grade 3 hypercalcemia (COMBO10, n = 1; COMBO7.5, n = 1), grade 2 dysgeusia (COMBO10, n = 1), and lipase increased (COMBO10, n = 1). A high incidence of bone toxicities (n = 9) was reported, including rib fracture, spinal compression fracture, pathological fracture, foot fracture, hip fracture, and lumbar vertebral fracture. Serious adverse events were reported in 15 patients, most frequently bone fracture, hypercalcemia, and pleural effusion. The overall response rate was 10% and disease control rate 85%; most patients achieved stable disease as their best response. CONCLUSION: Concerns surrounding the safety and lack of preliminary evidence of improved anti-tumor activity of WNT974 + encorafenib + cetuximab, compared with previous encorafenib + cetuximab data, ultimately led to study discontinuation. Phase II was not initiated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02278133.

Validation of an anti-α-Gal IgE fluoroenzyme-immunoassay for the screening of patients at risk of severe anaphylaxis to cetuximab.

BACKGROUND: The link between immediate hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) following the first cetuximab infusion and the IgE sensitization against anti-galactose-α-1,3-galactose (α-Gal) is now well-established. An automated Fluoroenzyme-Immunoassay (FEIA) is available and may facilitate the screening of patients with anti-α-Gal IgE before treatment. METHODS: This study aimed to evaluate its performances as compared to a previously validated anti-cetuximab IgE ELISA, using 185 samples from two previously studied cohorts. RESULTS: Despite 21.1% of discrepancies between the two techniques, FEIA discriminated better positive patients and similarly negative ones with a ≥ 0.525 kUA/L threshold. Sensitivity was 87.5% for both tests, specificity was better for FEIA (96.3% vs ELISA: 82.1%). FEIA had a higher positive likelihood ratio (23.9 vs ELISA: 4.89) and a similar negative likelihood ratio (0.13 vs ELISA: 0.15). In our population, the risk of severe HSR following a positive test was higher with FEIA (56.7% vs ELISA: 19.6%) and similar following a negative test (0.7% vs ELISA: 0.8%). CONCLUSION: Although the predictive value of the IgE screening before cetuximab infusion remains discussed, this automated commercial test can identify high-risk patients and is suitable for routine use in laboratories. It could help avoiding cetuximab-induced HSR by a systematic anti-α-Gal IgE screening before treatment.

NEXUS trial: a multicenter phase II clinical study evaluating the efficacy and safety of the perioperative use of encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab in patients with previously untreated surgically resectable BRAF V600E mutant colorectal oligometastases.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment strategy for resectable BRAF V600E mutant colorectal oligometastases (CRM) has not been established due to the rarity and rapid progression of the disease. Since the unresectable recurrence rate is high, development of novel perioperative therapies are warranted. On December 2020, the BEACON CRC triplet regimen of encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab was approved for unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer in Japan. METHODS: The NEXUS trial is a multicenter phase II clinical study evaluating the efficacy and safety of the perioperative use of encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab in patients with previously untreated surgically resectable BRAF V600E mutant CRM. The key inclusion criteria are as follows: histologically diagnosed with colorectal adeno/adenosquamous carcinoma; RAS wild-type and BRAF V600E mutation by tissue or blood; and previously untreated resectable distant metastases. The triplet regimen (encorafenib: 300 mg daily; binimetinib: 45 mg twice daily; cetuximab: 400 mg/m2, then 250 mg/m2 weekly, 28 days/cycle) is administered for 3 cycles each before and after curative resection. The primary endpoint of the study is the 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) rate and the secondary end points are the PFS, disease-free survival, overall survival, and objective response rate. The sample size is 32 patients. Endpoints in the NEXUS trial as well as integrated analysis with the nationwide registry data will be considered for seeking regulatory approval for the perioperative use of the triplet regimen. DISCUSSION: The use of the triplet regimen in the perioperative period is expected to be safe and effective in patients with resectable BRAF V600E mutant CRM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: jRCT2031220025, April. 16, 2022.

Cetuximab severe cutaneous toxicity a gateway for bacteremia: case report.

EGFR inhibitors used in the treatment of metastatic wild-RAS colorectal cancer in combination with chemotherapy are associated with dermatologic side events that are low grade in most cases. We report a case of severe cutaneous toxicity secondary to cetuximab associated with bacterial cellulitis. A 57-year-old woman with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon, receiving FOLFIRI and Cetuximab as a first-line treatment, presented with a severe erythematous rash and xerosis resistant to local treatment with moisturizing emollients. Few days later, the patient becomes febrile, and the rash becomes more diffuse with a sandpaper appearance on the face, neck, chest, and flexor creases with exfoliation of large areas of skin. A bacterial cellulitis secondary to a dermatologic severe toxicity of Cetuximab was suspected. The patient started on antibiotics and local treatment with good response. This is a life-threatening cutaneous toxicity of cetuximab with secondary bacterial infection. Early recognition of cutaneous side effects of EGFR inhibitors is important to prevent such type of toxicities.

Cost-effectiveness of FOLFOX6+Bevacizumab Versus FOLFOX6+Cetuximab in Stage IV Colorectal Cancer Patients in Shiraz, Iran.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers in the world, with about one million cases diagnosed annually. Various treatment methods can be used to treat colorectal cancer, including chemotherapy with different drug regimens. Considering the need to opt for more effective and less expensive drugs in the treatment of this disease, the present study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of FOLFOX6+Bevacizumab with FOLFOX6+Cetuximab in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer referred to medical centers in Shiraz, Iran, in 2021. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a decision tree, the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the 2 drug regimens were compared in all studied patients through the census method. Having a societal perspective, this study considered direct medical costs, direct non-medical costs, and indirect costs. The effectiveness indicators included the rate of major response to the drug combination used and the Quality-adjusted Life Year (QALY). The data were analyzed using Treeage 2011 and Excel 2016 software. In order to ensure the robustness of the results, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed as well. RESULTS: The results showed that the expected costs, the effectiveness (major response rate), and the QALYs of the FOLFOX6+Bevacizumab drug regimen were $16746.13(USD), .49, and .19, respectively, and those of the FOLFOX6+Cetuximab regimen were, respectively, $15191.05 (USD), .68, and .22. Therefore, FOLFOX6+Cetuximab compared to FOLFOX6+Bevacizumab was less costly and more effective and had a greater QALY, thus being considered as the dominant option. Also, the results of the sensitivity analyses showed that there was a bit of uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Considering that the FOLFOX6+Cetuximab regimen was more cost-effective, it is suggested to be prioritized in preparing clinical guidelines for Iranian colorectal cancer patients. In addition, increasing the basic and supplementary insurance coverage for this drug combination as well as the use of remote technology to guide patients by oncologists can be solutions to reduce direct and indirect costs of the patients.

Impact of primary tumor side on clinical outcomes of first-line cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 in RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer.

Aim: To examine the impact of tumor sidedness on clinical outcomes in Chinese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with folinic acid/fluorouracil/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) ± cetuximab in the TAILOR trial. Patients & methods: Clinical data from 391 patients were evaluated for tumor sidedness. Results: Patients with left-sided tumors who received cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 had a significantly longer overall survival (medians: 22.0 vs 18.3 months; p = 0.007) and progression-free survival (medians: 9.3 vs 7.9 months; p = 0.006) compared with FOLFOX-4 alone. Overall survival (medians: 11.5 vs 9.4 months; p = 0.664) and progression-free survival (medians: 7.4 vs 4.5 months; p = 0.068) also improved in patients with right-sided tumors. Conclusion: Adding cetuximab to first-line FOLFOX-4 in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer improved clinical outcomes irrespective of primary tumor side.

Cetuximab is a drug used to treat people with advanced metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with a gene called RAS wild-type (wt) and is given along with standard chemotherapy. The TAILOR study showed that in people with RAS wt mCRC cetuximab together with chemotherapy worked better than chemotherapy alone and had similar side effects. This analysis of the TAILOR study looked at whether Chinese people with RAS wt mCRC responded differently to treatment with cetuximab plus chemotherapy depending on the primary tumor location (whether left or right side of the colon). This analysis found that people with left- or right-sided primary tumors who received cetuximab plus chemotherapy lived longer and their cancer progressed more slowly compared with those who received chemotherapy alone.

Nursing care and management of adverse events for patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer receiving encorafenib in combination with cetuximab: a review.

Encorafenib is a B-Raf proto-oncogene serine/threonine-protein kinase (BRAF) inhibitor, approved in the EU and USA, in combination with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor cetuximab, for the treatment of patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In the pivotal BEACON CRC trial, patients achieved longer survival with encorafenib in combination with cetuximab vs. conventional chemotherapy. This targeted therapy regimen is also generally better tolerated than cytotoxic treatments. However, patients may present with adverse events unique to the regimen and characteristic of BRAF and EGFR inhibitors, which produce their own set of challenges. Nurses play an essential role in navigating the care of patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC and managing adverse events that patients may experience. This includes early and efficient identification of treatment-related adverse events, subsequent management of adverse events and education of patients and their caregivers around key adverse events. This manuscript aims to provide support to nurses managing patients with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC receiving encorafenib in combination with cetuximab, by summarising potential adverse events and providing guidance on how to manage them. Special attention will be paid to the presentation of key adverse events, dose modifications that may be required, practical recommendations and supportive care measures.

Risk factor analysis for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody-induced skin toxicities in real-world metastatic colorectal cancer treatment.

PURPOSE: Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) monoclonal antibodies are effective in treating RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, their administration induces skin toxicity, markedly reducing patients' quality of life. This study is aimed at identifying the risk factors associated with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody-induced skin toxicities. METHODS: Patients with mCRC (n = 116) who received anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody treatment were retrospectively evaluated. Primary endpoint was evaluation of the risk factors for grade ≥ 2 overall skin toxicities during all the treatment periods. Furthermore, factors associated with each grade ≥ 2 skin symptoms were assessed. RESULTS: Incidence of total grade ≥ 2 skin toxicity symptoms was 61.2%, and those of grade ≥ 2 rash, dry skin, fissures, and paronychia were 34.5%, 25.9%, 20.7%, and 25.0%, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that liver metastasis was an independent risk factor for overall grade ≥ 2 skin toxicities (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-6.78; P = 0.02) and prophylactic administration of antibiotics as a preventive factor (OR 0.10; 95%CI 0.01-0.91; P = 0.04). For grade ≥ 2 rash, prophylactic use of systemic antibiotics and topical steroid ointment was a preventive factor (OR 0.37; 95%CI 0.16-0.89; P = 0.03). Moreover, liver metastasis (OR 8.37; 95%CI 1.98-35.47; P = 0.004) and prophylactic administration of antibiotics (OR 0.15; 95%CI 0.03-0.76; P = 0.02) were significantly associated with grade ≥ 2 paronychia. CONCLUSION: Liver metastasis was suggested to be a risk factor for the incidence of overall grade ≥ 2 skin toxicities; moreover, preemptive systemic antibiotic administration drastically decreased this risk during all periods of anti-EGFR treatment for mCRC.

Treatment Tolerance of Cetuximab versus Alternative Chemotherapy Agents in Non-Cisplatin Candidates with Head and Neck Cancer Receiving Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Standard of care for radiosensitization in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) with high-dose cisplatin. The optimal chemoradiation regimen for patients medically unfit for cisplatin is unclear. We compared our experience with concurrent cetuximab (CTX) versus other cytotoxic non-cisplatin agents. METHODS: We reviewed 53 patients between 2011 and 2017 with HNSCC treated with CCRT ineligible for cisplatin. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy treatment tolerance was evaluated in those receiving CTX versus non-CTX chemotherapy (NCC). Of the NCC regimens, the majority were carboplatin/paclitaxel and were dosed at an area under the curve (AUC) of 2 and 45-50 mg/m2, respectively. Standard radiation dosing was 70 Gray (Gy) in the definitive setting and 60-66 Gy in the postoperative setting. Patient characteristics and treatment toxicities were evaluated using categorical methods. RESULTS: Patients were well balanced overall including differences between performance status and the comorbidity score. NCC patients experienced more radiation treatment breaks (52.4% vs. 21.9%, p = 0.022), radiation delays >1 week (33.3% vs. 3.1%, p < 0.01), and chemotherapy dose-limiting toxicity (61.9% vs. 28.1%, p = 0.015) compared to CTX patients. Nutritional dependence on a PEG tube was more likely in the NCC cohort (52.4% vs. 22.6%, p = 0.027). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest decreased treatment tolerance in non-cisplatin cytotoxic chemotherapy compared to cetuximab. Further prospective study is needed to clarify optimal chemotherapy in patients unable to receive cisplatin.

Encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab in BRAF V600E-mutated colorectal cancer: an early post-marketing phase vigilance study.

BACKGROUND: Triplet and doublet regimens of encorafenib plus cetuximab with and without binimetinib, respectively, were approved in Japan for unresectable, metastatic, BRAF V600E-mutated colorectal cancer (mCRC) that had progressed after 1-2 prior chemotherapies. This early post-marketing phase vigilance (EPPV) study collected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from Japanese patients to ensure safety measures as appropriate. METHODS: Patients with BRAF V600E mCRC who received the triplet or doublet regimens in Japan were selected for this study. ADRs were collected as spontaneous reports between November 27, 2020 and May 26, 2021. Serious ADRs were evaluated according to guidelines of the International Council for Harmonisation and the EudraVigilance list of Important Medical Event Terms. RESULTS: An estimated 550 Japanese patients with mCRC received the triplet or doublet regimens during the 6-month EPPV period. Overall, 101 and 42 patients reported ADRs and serious ADRs, respectively. No ADRs leading to death were reported. The most frequently reported ADRs were nausea (17 patients), serous retinal detachment (16), decreased appetite (12), diarrhea (11), and vomiting (11). Among the important identified/potential risks that are defined in the risk management plans for encorafenib and binimetinib, eye disorder-related ADRs were observed in 32 patients, rhabdomyolysis-related ADRs in 12, hemorrhage-related ADRs in 7, and hepatic dysfunction-related ADRs in 7. Of 22 patients with serious eye disorders, 20 recovered or were recovering during the EPPV period. CONCLUSION: The safety profile in this EPPV study was similar to that from the phase III BEACON CRC study and no new safety concerns were identified.