Skip to main content
. 2011 Apr 1;3(2):1844–1860. doi: 10.3390/cancers3021844

Table 2.

Trials assessing downstream mutations in the EGFR pathway and resistance to the EGFR monoclonal antibodies.

Trial Patient Number Wt KRAS (%)
Responders (%)
Mt KRAS (%) BRAF mutation Association PTEN loss of expression Association PIK3CA mutation Association Other
Lievre et al. 30 17 (63%)
Res 11/17 (65%)
13 (43%) 0 na 2 (7%) [in KRAS mt pts] EGFR copy number (3 pts-10%) correlates with response
Di Nicolantonio et al. 113 79 (70%)
Res 22/79 (28%)
34 (30%) 11/79 (10%) Shorter PFS (p = 0.011) and OS (p < 0.0001) na na Sorafenib restored sensitivity to EGFR mabs in pts with BRAF MT
Laurent-Puig et al 169 116 (69%)
Res 52/116 (45%)
53 (31%) 5/116 (2.9%) Lower RR (p = 0.63), PFS and OS (p < 0.001) 22/116 (19.8%) Shorter OS (p = 0.013) na High EGFR polysomy in 17.7% and correlates with response
Loupakis et al. 122 (88 KRAS, 85 PTEN) 53
Res 13/53 (25%)
35/88 (40%) Concordance 95% na 49/85 (58%) Concordance 60% Higher RR/PFS with KRAS wt/PTEN + mets (p = 0.0004, p = 0.001) na pAKT-positive 35/96 (40%)
Concordance 68%
Sartore-Bianchi et al. 132 43
Res 22/43 (51%)
35 (26.5%) 11 (8.3%) Shorter OS 41 (36%) Lower RR and OS 15 (12.3%) More common in exon 20 Lower RR KRAS and BRAF mutually exclusive only

Res = responders; na = not assessed; NR = non-responder; Wt = wild type; mt = mutant; RR = response rate; PFS = progression free survival; OS = overall survival; mabs = monoclonal antibodies; Concordance = concordance between primary tumor and metastases.