Abstract
Purpose: Colorectal cancer (CRC) affects many older adults. We investigated the efficacy and safety of adding anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents to doublet chemotherapy (DC) in older patients. Methods: Patients with RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic CRC (mCRC) receiving first-line DC + anti-EGFR (n = 1191) or DC alone (n = 729) from seven trials in the Aide de Recherche en Cancerologie Digestive database were included. The prognostic and predictive effects of age were investigated. Progression-free and overall survival (OS) were evaluated between age groups (≥70 vs <70) for DC + anti-EGFR. In addition, outcomes were compared between DC+/-anti-EGFR within age groups in three trials with a DC alone arm. Subsequently, the same analysis was conducted for left-sided tumours. Adverse events grade ≥3 (G3+) were compared between age groups. Results: Older (vs younger) patients receiving DC + anti-EGFR had similar progression-free survival (PFS) (8.7 vs 10.3 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 1.20 [0.96–1.49];p = 0.107) but inferior OS (21.3 vs 26.3; HR = 1.36 [1.08–1.72];p = 0.011). DC + anti-EGFR (vs DC alone) improved OS (23.9 vs 20.3; HR = 0.82 [0.70–0.95];p = 0.008) and PFS (11.2 vs 8.9; HR = 0.70 [0.60–0.82];p < 0.001) in younger but not older patients: OS (24.7 vs 17.6; HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] = 0.77 [0.58–1.04];p = 0.092) and PFS (9.1 vs 8.7; HR [95% CI] = 0.85[0.63–1.15];p = 0.287). In left-sided ‘only’ tumours, the following outcomes for older (vs younger) patients were observed. For DC + anti-EGFR, PFS 9 versus 11.2 months; HR1.10 (95% CI 0.83–1.46); p = 0.52, OS 25.6 vs 30.3 HR 1.32 (95% CI 0.97–1.79), p = 0.086. For DC + anti-EGFR (vs DC alone), PFS and OS for younger patients were 11.9 vs 9.2 months HR 0.60 (95% CI 0.47–0.78) p < 0.001 and 24.1 versus 23.3 months HR 0.84 (95% CI 0.67–1.04), respectively. For older patients, PFS and OS were 13.1 versus 8.5 months, HR 0.51 (95% CI, 0.28–0.93), P = 0.027 and 26.3 versus 16.5 months HR 0.49 (95% CI, 0.28–0.85), respectively. There was no significant difference in toxicity among different age groups. Conclusions: Older (vs younger) patients with mCRC RAS WT patients had comparable toxicity and efficacy with the addition of anti-EGFR agents to chemotherapy.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 1-15 |
Number of pages | 15 |
Journal | European Journal of Cancer |
Volume | 163 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Mar 2022 |
Keywords
- Anti-EGFR
- Cetuximab
- Colorectal cancer
- Older patients
- Panitumumab
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Oncology
- Cancer Research
Access to Document
Other files and links
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Efficacy of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer ≥ 70 years'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS
In: European Journal of Cancer, Vol. 163, 03.2022, p. 1-15.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Efficacy of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer ≥ 70 years
AU - Papamichael, Demetris
AU - Lopes, Guilherme S.
AU - Olswold, Curt L.
AU - Douillard, Jean Yves
AU - Adams, Richard A.
AU - Maughan, Timothy S.
AU - Van Cutsem, Eric
AU - Venook, Alan P.
AU - Lenz, Heinz Josef
AU - Heinemann, Volker
AU - Kaplan, Richard
AU - Bokemeyer, Carsten
AU - Chibaudel, Benoist
AU - Grothey, Axel
AU - Yoshino, Takayuki
AU - Zalcberg, John
AU - De Gramont, Aimery
AU - Shi, Qian
N1 - Funding Information: This study was supported by a grant by Merck Serono – unrestricted grant.The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: DP: Merck Serono – AdBoards, invited speaker; Amgen – invited speaker. MSD – research grant. GSL reported no Conflict of interest to disclose. CLO reported no conflict of interest to disclose. JD reported no conflict of interest to disclose. RAA: honoraria – Amgen; Merck Serono; SERVIER. consulting or advisory role – Amgen; Bayer; Merck Serono; SERVIER. Speakers' Bureau – Merck Serono. Research funding – AstraZeneca (Inst); Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst). Travel, accommodations, expenses – Amgen; AstraZeneca; Merck Serono; SERVIER. TSM: consulting or advisory role – vertex; vertex; vertex; vertex. EVC: consulting or advisory role – Array BioPharma; AstraZeneca; Bayer; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Celgene; Halozyme; Lilly; Merck KGaA; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Novartis; Roche; SERVIER. Research funding – Amgen (Inst); Bayer (Inst); Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst); Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst); Celgene (Inst); Ipsen (Inst); Lilly (Inst); Merck (Inst); Merck KGaA (Inst); Novartis (Inst); Roche (Inst); SERVIER (Inst). APV: consulting or advisory role – Bayer; Bayer; Bayer; Bayer; Eisai; Eisai; Eisai; Eisai; Halozyme; Halozyme; Halozyme; Halozyme; Taiho Pharmaceutical; Taiho Pharmaceutical; Taiho Pharmaceutical; Taiho Pharmaceutical. Research funding – Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst); Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst); Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst); Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst); Genentech/Roche (Inst); Genentech/Roche (Inst); Genentech/Roche (Inst); Genentech/Roche (Inst). Patents, royalties, other Intellectual property – Royalties from Now-UptoDate for authoring and maintaining two chapters; royalties from Now-UptoDate for authoring and maintaining two chapters; royalties from Now-UptoDate for authoring and maintaining two chapters; royalties from Now-UptoDate for authoring and maintaining two chapters. Travel, accommodations, expenses - Bayer; 275 Bayer; Bayer; Bayer; Genentech; Genentech; Genentech; Genentech; Halozyme; Halozyme; Halozyme; Halozyme; Roche; Roche; Roche; Roche. HL: Ad board/consulting. BMs Roche Merck kg Bayer oncocyte fulgent Jazz therapeutics G1 therapeutics. Astellas. Clinical trial support. SWOG NCI BMs Boehringer Ingelheim. NGM psioyx Genentech Pfizer Merck Bayer. VH: honoraria – Amgen; Amgen; Amgen; Amgen; Baxalta; Baxalta; Baxalta; Baxalta; Boehringer Ingelheim; Boehringer Ingelheim; Boehringer Ingelheim; Boehringer Ingelheim; Celgene; Celgene; Celgene; Celgene; Lilly; Lilly; Lilly; Lilly; Merck; Merck; Merck; Merck; Roche; Roche; Roche; Roche; Sanofi; Sanofi; Sanofi; Sanofi; SERVIER; SERVIER; SERVIER; SERVIER; Sirtex Medical; Sirtex Medical; Sirtex Medical; Sirtex Medical; Taiho Pharmaceutical; Taiho Pharmaceutical; Taiho Pharmaceutical; Taiho Pharmaceutical Consulting or advisory role - Amgen; Amgen; Amgen; Amgen; Baxalta; Baxalta; Baxalta; Baxalta; Boehringer Ingelheim; Boehringer Ingelheim; Boehringer Ingelheim; Boehringer Ingelheim; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Celgene; Celgene; Celgene; Celgene; Halozyme; Halozyme; Halozyme; Halozyme; Merck; Merck; Merck; Merck; MSD; MSD; MSD; MSD; MSD Oncology; MSD Oncology; MSD Oncology; MSD Oncology; Roche; Roche; Roche; Roche; Sanofi; Sanofi; Sanofi; Sanofi; SERVIER; SERVIER; SERVIER; SERVIER; Sirtex Medical; Sirtex Medical; Sirtex Medical; Sirtex Medical. Research funding - Amgen (Inst); Amgen (Inst); Amgen (Inst); Amgen (Inst); Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst); Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst); Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst); Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst); Celgene (Inst); Celgene (Inst); Celgene (Inst); Celgene (Inst); Merck (Inst); Merck (Inst); Merck (Inst); Merck (Inst); Roche (Inst); Roche (Inst); Roche (Inst); Roche (Inst); Servier (Inst); Servier (Inst); Servier 298 (Inst); Servier (Inst); Shire (Inst); Shire (Inst); Shire (Inst); Shire (Inst); Sirtex Medical (Inst); Sirtex Medical (Inst); Sirtex Medical (Inst); Sirtex Medical (Inst). Travel, accommodations, expenses – Amgen; Amgen; Amgen; Amgen; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Merck; Merck; Merck; Merck; MSD; MSD; MSD; MSD; Roche; Roche; Roche; Roche; SERVIER; SERVIER; SERVIER; SERVIER; Shire; Shire; Shire; Shire; Sirtex Medical; Sirtex Medical; Sirtex Medical; Sirtex Medical. RK reported no conflict of interest to disclose. CB: honoraria – AstraZeneca; Bayer; Berlin Chemie; Berlin Chemie; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Merck KGaA; Merck Sharp Dohme; Roche; Sanofi. Consulting or advisory role – AOK Health Insurance; Bayer Schering Pharma; GSO; Lilly/ImClone; Merck Serono; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Novartis; Sanofi. Research funding – AbbVie (Inst); ADC Therapeutics (Inst); Agile Therapeutics (Inst); Alexion Pharmaceuticals (Inst); Amgen (Inst); Apellis Pharmaceuticals (Inst); Astellas Pharma (Inst); AstraZeneca (Inst); Bayer (Inst); BerGenBio (Inst); Blueprint Medicines (Inst); Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst); Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst); Celgene (Inst); Daiichi Sankyo (Inst); Eisai (Inst); Gilead Sciences (Inst); GlaxoSmithKline (Inst); Glycotope GmbH (Inst); Incyte (Inst); IO Biotech (Inst); Isofol Medical (Inst); Janssen- Cilag (Inst); Karyopharm Therapeutics (Inst); Lilly (Inst); Millennium (Inst); MSD (Inst); Nektar (Inst); Novartis (Inst); Rafael Pharmaceuticals (Inst); Roche (Inst); Springworks Therapeutics (Inst); Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst). Travel, accommodations, expenses – Bristol-Myers Squibb; Merck Serono; Pfizer; Sanofi. BC: honoraria - Bayer; Pfizer; Roche; Sanofi; SERVIER. Consulting or advisory role – BeiGene; Roche; Sanofi; SERVIER. Travel, accommodations, expenses – Merck; MSD; Roche; Sanofi. AG: honoraria – Aptitude Health; Elsevier; IMEDEX. Consulting or advisory role – Amgen (Inst); Array BioPharma (Inst); Bayer (Inst); Boston Biomedical (Inst); Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst); Daiichi Sankyo (Inst); Genentech/Roche; Lilly (Inst); OBI Pharma. Research Funding - Array BioPharma (Inst); Bayer (Inst); Boston Biomedical (Inst); Daiichi Sankyo (Inst); Eisai (Inst); Genentech/Roche (Inst); Lilly (Inst); Pfizer (Inst). Travel, accommodations, expenses – Amgen; Array BioPharma; Bayer; Boston Biomedical; Bristol-Myers Squibb; Genentech/Roche. TY: Research funding from Taiho Pharmaceuticals, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd, Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, Amgen KK, Sanofi KK, Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd, Meck Sharp and Dohme KK, Parexel International Inc., and ONO Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Honoraria - Bayer Yakuhin; Chugai Pharma; Lilly Japan; Merck; Takeda. Research Funding - Amgen (Inst); Chugai Pharma (Inst); DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY, LIMITED (Inst); MSD (Inst); Ono Pharmaceutical (Inst); PAREXEL International Inc. (Inst); Sanofi (Inst); Sumitomo Dainippon (Inst); Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst). JZ: stock and other ownership interests – Acceleron Pharma; Aimmune; Alnylam; Amarin Corporation; BioMarin; Concert Pharmaceuticals; Frequency Therapeutics; Gilead Sciences; Global Blood Therapeutics; GW Pharmaceuticals; Madrigal Pharmaceuticals; Moderna. Therapeutics; Myovant Sciences; Opthea; Orphazyme; Sangamo Bioscience; Twist Bioscience; UniQure; Vertex; Zogenix. Honoraria - Deciphera; Gilead Sciences; Halozyme; Merck Serono; Specialised Therapeutics; Targovax. Consulting or advisory role – Centre for Emerging and Neglected Diseases (CEND); Deciphera; H 342 Halozyme; Lipotec; Merck Serono; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Specialised Therapeutics; Targovax. Research funding - AstraZeneca (Inst); Bristol-Myers Squibb (Inst); Eisai (Inst); Ipsen (Inst); IQvia (Inst); Medtronic (Inst); Merck Serono (Inst); MSD Oncology (Inst); Mylan (Inst); Pfizer (Inst). Travel, accommodations, expenses – AstraZeneca; Deciphera; Merck Serono; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Sanofi. AdG: honoraria – Chugai Pharma; Chugai Pharma; Chugai Pharma; Chugai Pharma; Yakult Pharmaceutical; Yakult Pharmaceutical; Yakult Pharmaceutical; Yakult Pharmaceutical. QS: Dr. Shi reports consulting/advisory role from Yiviva Inc, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hoosier Cancer Research Network (to myself), honorarium/speaker role from Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, stock from Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, and Merck & CO. (to myself), research funds from Celgene/BMS, Roche/Genentech, Janssen, Novartis (to institution). Funding Information: This study was supported by a grant by Merck Serono – unrestricted grant. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2022/3
Y1 - 2022/3
N2 - Purpose: Colorectal cancer (CRC) affects many older adults. We investigated the efficacy and safety of adding anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents to doublet chemotherapy (DC) in older patients. Methods: Patients with RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic CRC (mCRC) receiving first-line DC + anti-EGFR (n = 1191) or DC alone (n = 729) from seven trials in the Aide de Recherche en Cancerologie Digestive database were included. The prognostic and predictive effects of age were investigated. Progression-free and overall survival (OS) were evaluated between age groups (≥70 vs <70) for DC + anti-EGFR. In addition, outcomes were compared between DC+/-anti-EGFR within age groups in three trials with a DC alone arm. Subsequently, the same analysis was conducted for left-sided tumours. Adverse events grade ≥3 (G3+) were compared between age groups. Results: Older (vs younger) patients receiving DC + anti-EGFR had similar progression-free survival (PFS) (8.7 vs 10.3 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 1.20 [0.96–1.49];p = 0.107) but inferior OS (21.3 vs 26.3; HR = 1.36 [1.08–1.72];p = 0.011). DC + anti-EGFR (vs DC alone) improved OS (23.9 vs 20.3; HR = 0.82 [0.70–0.95];p = 0.008) and PFS (11.2 vs 8.9; HR = 0.70 [0.60–0.82];p < 0.001) in younger but not older patients: OS (24.7 vs 17.6; HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] = 0.77 [0.58–1.04];p = 0.092) and PFS (9.1 vs 8.7; HR [95% CI] = 0.85[0.63–1.15];p = 0.287). In left-sided ‘only’ tumours, the following outcomes for older (vs younger) patients were observed. For DC + anti-EGFR, PFS 9 versus 11.2 months; HR1.10 (95% CI 0.83–1.46); p = 0.52, OS 25.6 vs 30.3 HR 1.32 (95% CI 0.97–1.79), p = 0.086. For DC + anti-EGFR (vs DC alone), PFS and OS for younger patients were 11.9 vs 9.2 months HR 0.60 (95% CI 0.47–0.78) p < 0.001 and 24.1 versus 23.3 months HR 0.84 (95% CI 0.67–1.04), respectively. For older patients, PFS and OS were 13.1 versus 8.5 months, HR 0.51 (95% CI, 0.28–0.93), P = 0.027 and 26.3 versus 16.5 months HR 0.49 (95% CI, 0.28–0.85), respectively. There was no significant difference in toxicity among different age groups. Conclusions: Older (vs younger) patients with mCRC RAS WT patients had comparable toxicity and efficacy with the addition of anti-EGFR agents to chemotherapy.
AB - Purpose: Colorectal cancer (CRC) affects many older adults. We investigated the efficacy and safety of adding anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents to doublet chemotherapy (DC) in older patients. Methods: Patients with RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic CRC (mCRC) receiving first-line DC + anti-EGFR (n = 1191) or DC alone (n = 729) from seven trials in the Aide de Recherche en Cancerologie Digestive database were included. The prognostic and predictive effects of age were investigated. Progression-free and overall survival (OS) were evaluated between age groups (≥70 vs <70) for DC + anti-EGFR. In addition, outcomes were compared between DC+/-anti-EGFR within age groups in three trials with a DC alone arm. Subsequently, the same analysis was conducted for left-sided tumours. Adverse events grade ≥3 (G3+) were compared between age groups. Results: Older (vs younger) patients receiving DC + anti-EGFR had similar progression-free survival (PFS) (8.7 vs 10.3 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 1.20 [0.96–1.49];p = 0.107) but inferior OS (21.3 vs 26.3; HR = 1.36 [1.08–1.72];p = 0.011). DC + anti-EGFR (vs DC alone) improved OS (23.9 vs 20.3; HR = 0.82 [0.70–0.95];p = 0.008) and PFS (11.2 vs 8.9; HR = 0.70 [0.60–0.82];p < 0.001) in younger but not older patients: OS (24.7 vs 17.6; HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] = 0.77 [0.58–1.04];p = 0.092) and PFS (9.1 vs 8.7; HR [95% CI] = 0.85[0.63–1.15];p = 0.287). In left-sided ‘only’ tumours, the following outcomes for older (vs younger) patients were observed. For DC + anti-EGFR, PFS 9 versus 11.2 months; HR1.10 (95% CI 0.83–1.46); p = 0.52, OS 25.6 vs 30.3 HR 1.32 (95% CI 0.97–1.79), p = 0.086. For DC + anti-EGFR (vs DC alone), PFS and OS for younger patients were 11.9 vs 9.2 months HR 0.60 (95% CI 0.47–0.78) p < 0.001 and 24.1 versus 23.3 months HR 0.84 (95% CI 0.67–1.04), respectively. For older patients, PFS and OS were 13.1 versus 8.5 months, HR 0.51 (95% CI, 0.28–0.93), P = 0.027 and 26.3 versus 16.5 months HR 0.49 (95% CI, 0.28–0.85), respectively. There was no significant difference in toxicity among different age groups. Conclusions: Older (vs younger) patients with mCRC RAS WT patients had comparable toxicity and efficacy with the addition of anti-EGFR agents to chemotherapy.
KW - Anti-EGFR
KW - Cetuximab
KW - Colorectal cancer
KW - Older patients
KW - Panitumumab
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85122668997&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85122668997&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.12.007
DO - 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.12.007
M3 - Article
C2 - 35033994
AN - SCOPUS:85122668997
SN - 0959-8049
VL - 163
SP - 1
EP - 15
JO - European Journal of Cancer
JF - European Journal of Cancer
ER -