Reduced incidence of infusion-related reactions in metastatic colorectal cancer during treatment with cetuximab plus irinotecan with combined corticosteroid and antihistamine premedication.

BACKGROUND: : The multinational MABEL study of 1147 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who had recently failed an irinotecan-containing regimen confirmed in a community practice setting the efficacy and safety of cetuximab combined with irinotecan. METHODS: : This report describes a post hoc analysis of the influence of prophylactic premedication on the incidence of infusion-related reactions (IRRs) in the MABEL study. The analysis was focused on the subpopulation of patients premedicated with antihistamines either with (n = 700) or without (n = 422) corticosteroids. Stepwise Cox regression modeling was used to examine the explanatory value of the type of premedication on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) times. RESULTS: : The incidence of IRRs was lower in the group of patients who received antihistamine plus corticosteroid (9.6%) compared with those who received antihistamine alone (25.6%). A similar trend was seen for grade 3 or 4 IRRs (1.0% vs 4.7%, respectively). The 12-week PFS rates (61% vs 60%), median PFS (16.1 vs 13.1 weeks) and OS (9.2 vs 9.0 months) times for patients who received, respectively, antihistamines with and without corticosteroids were similar. Cox regression modeling did not identify any impact of type of premedication used (antihistamine with or without corticosteroids) on the efficacy of treatment in relation to PFS or OS. CONCLUSIONS: : Prophylactically premedicating mCRC patients with both antihistamine and a corticosteroid appeared to reduce the frequency of cetuximab-associated IRRs. Given that this was a post hoc analysis, caution must be exercised in the interpretation of these data, which require formal confirmation in a randomized study. Cancer 2010. (c) 2010 American Cancer Society.

Cetuximab plus irinotecan in heavily pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer progressing on irinotecan: MABEL Study.

PURPOSE: This large, multinational study aimed to confirm in a community practice setting the efficacy and safety of cetuximab plus irinotecan in patients with epidermal growth factor-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who had recently failed an irinotecan-containing regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The primary objective was to determine the progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 12 weeks. The initial cetuximab dose was 400 mg/m(2) and was followed weekly by 250 mg/m(2); irinotecan (according to prestudy regimen) was given weekly (125 mg/m(2) weekly for 4 of 6 weeks), every 2 weeks (180 mg/m(2) each), or every 3 weeks (350 mg/m(2) each). RESULTS: The intention-to-treat/safety population comprised 1,147 treated patients who received irinotecan weekly (n = 93); every 2 weeks (n = 670); every 3 weeks (n = 356); or another dose (n = 28). The PFS rate at 12 weeks was 61%, and the median survival was 9.2 months. Treatment was generally well tolerated. The most common treatment-related grades 3 to 4 adverse events were diarrhea (19%), neutropenia (10%), rash (7%), and asthenia (6%). The rate of grades 3 to 4 infusion-related reactions (IRRs; composite adverse event category) was 1% for patients who received both antihistamine and corticosteroid premedication. CONCLUSION Tolerability (except IRR incidence), PFS rate, and overall survival rate were in line with previous results. At 1%, the rate of IRRs in patients who received prophylactic premedication with both antihistamine and corticosteroid is lower than previously reported. MABEL clearly confirms in a community practice setting the efficacy and safety of cetuximab plus irinotecan in the treatment of mCRC.

New systemic frontline treatment for metastatic colorectal carcinoma.

Options for first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma have broadened considerably with the introduction of irinotecan and oxaliplatin. Furthermore, the oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine has demonstrated efficacy in Phase III trials and recently was approved for first-line treatment in Europe and the United States. Capecitabine yielded similar median times to disease progression and median survival rates compared with bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin (LV) (Mayo Clinic/North Central Cancer Treatment Group regimen), with superior and similar response rates, respectively. However, its role as a first-line, single-agent substitute for intermittent infusional 5-FU/LV remains to be defined. The addition of irinotecan or oxaliplatin to 5-FU/LV resulted in improved response rates and progression-free survival in large, randomized trials; moreover, irinotecan-containing regimens resulted in improved overall survival. Prevalent regimens of irinotecan/5-FU/LV and oxaliplatin/5-FU/LV have been compared in two randomized Phase III trials. One study demonstrated the statistical superiority of oxaliplatin/infusional 5-FU/LV over irinotecan/bolus 5-FU/LV in terms of response, time to disease progression, and median survival; however, those advantages may have been attributable to infusional administration or to major differences in second-line therapy. A randomized Phase III study comparing irinotecan and oxaliplatin in combination with the same infusional 5-FU/LV regimens and crossover in case of disease progression showed equivalent efficacy for both schedules in the first-line setting, but the irinotecan combination proved beneficial in terms of safety. New molecular targeted agents, such as angiogenesis-modulating compounds (e.g., bevacizumab) and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (e.g., cetuximab), are under clinical investigation. This review updates current systemic frontline treatments and future perspectives for patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma.