ABSTRACT
AIM: Cetuximab is an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody used for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer and head and neck cancer. Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) are associated with cetuximab use. The aim of the study was to evaluate the utility of anti-cetuximab immunoglobulin E (IgE) detection in order to identify patients at risk of HSR to cetuximab. METHODS: We included patients ready to receive a first cetuximab infusion in a prospective cohort carried out at nine French centres. Pretreatment anti-cetuximab IgE levels were measured. We compared the proportion of severe HSRs in the low anti-cetuximab IgE levels (≤29 IgE arbitrary units) subgroup with that in a historical cohort of 213 patients extracted from a previous study. RESULTS: Of the 301 assessable patients (mean age: 60.9 ± 9.3 years, head-and-neck cancer: 77%), 66 patients (22%) had high anti-cetuximab IgE levels, and 247 patients received cetuximab (including 38 with high anti-cetuximab levels). Severe HSRs occurred in eight patients (five grade 3 and three grade 4). The proportion of severe HSRs was lower in the low anti-cetuximab IgE levels subgroup vs. the historical cohort (3/209 [1.4%] vs. 11/213 [5.2%], odds ratio, 0.27, 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.97), and higher in high vs. low anti-cetuximab IgE levels subgroup (5/38 [13.2%] vs. 3/209 [1.4%]; odds ratio, 10.4, 95% confidence interval, 2.4-45.6). Patients with severe HSRs had higher anti-cetuximab IgE levels than patients without reaction (median, 45 vs. 2 IgE arbitrary units, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Detection of pretreatment anti-cetuximab IgE is feasible and helpful to identify patients at risk of severe cetuximab-induced HSRs.
Subject(s)
Cetuximab/immunology , Drug Hypersensitivity/epidemiology , Immunoglobulin E/blood , Drug Hypersensitivity/blood , Drug Hypersensitivity/immunology , Female , France/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Risk FactorsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: GEMPAX was an open-label, randomized phase III clinical trial designed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel versus gemcitabine alone as second-line treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) who previously received 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan. METHODS: Patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed mPDAC were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive GEMPAX (paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 + gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2; IV; once at day (D) 1, D8, and D15/arm A) or gemcitabine (arm B) alone once at D1, D8, and D15 every 28 days until progression, toxicity, or patient's decision. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life, and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 211 patients (median age, 64 [30-86] years; 62% male) were included. After a median study follow-up for alive patients of 13.4 versus 13.8 months in arm A versus arm B, the median OS (95% CI) was 6.4 (5.2 to 7.4) versus 5.9 months (4.6 to 6.9; hazard ratio [HR], 0.87 [0.63 to 1.20]; P = 0.4095), the median PFS was 3.1 (2.2 to 4.3) versus 2.0 months (1.9 to 2.3; HR, 0.64 [0.47 to 0.89]; P = 0.0067), and the ORR was 17.1% (11.3 to 24.4) versus 4.2% (0.9 to 11.9; P = 0.008) in arm A versus arm B, respectively. Overall, 16.7% of patients in arm A and 2.9% in arm B discontinued their treatment because of adverse events (AEs). One grade 5 AE associated with both gemcitabine and paclitaxel was reported in arm A (acute respiratory distress), and 58.0% versus 27.1% of patients experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs in arm A versus arm B, among which 15.2% versus 4.3% had anemia, 15.9% versus 15.7% had neutropenia, 19.6% versus 4.3% had thrombocytopenia, 10.1% versus 2.9% had asthenia and 12.3% versus 0.0% had neuropathy. CONCLUSION: While GEMPAX did not meet the primary end point of OS versus gemcitabine alone in patients with mPDAC in the second-line setting, both PFS and ORR were significantly improved.