Table 2.
Selected clinical trials involving anti-epidermal growth factor receptor, regorafenib or anti-epidermal growth factor receptor vs anti-epidermal growth factor receptor receptor agents
| Ref. | Drug and study name | Study description | No. of patients | Comparison | Median OS (mo) | Median TTP/PFS (mo) | ORR | 1-yr survival |
| Cetuximab (C) | ||||||||
| Cunningham et al[34] 2004 | BOND trial | RCT, phase 2, 2nd line irinotecan-refractory | 329 | Irinotecan + C vs irinotecan | 8.6 vs 6.9 | 4.1 vs 1.5 | 23% vs 11% | 29% vs 32% |
| Van Cutsem et al[37] 2009 | CRYSTAL trial | RCT, 1st line | 1198 | FOLFIRI + C vs FOLFIRI | 20 vs 18.5 and (25 vs 21) | 9 vs 8 and (10 vs 8.7) | 47% vs 39% (59 vs 43%) | Not reported (approximately 35% vs 25%) |
| Maughan et al[59] 2011 | COIN trial | RCT, phase 3, 1st line | 729 (KRAS wild type) | Oxaliplatin-based chemo + C vs chemo alone | 17 vs 17.9 | 8.6 vs 8.6 | 64% vs 57% | Not reported |
| Tveit et al[60] 2011 | NORDIC VII trial | RCT, open label, 1st line | 571 | FLOX + C vs intermittent FLOX + C vs FLOX | 19.7 vs 20.3 vs 20.4 | 8.3 vs 7.3 vs 7.9 | 49% vs 47% vs 41% | Not reported (approximately 70%) |
| Panitumumab (P) | ||||||||
| Douillard et al[39] 2010 | PRIME trial | RCT, phase 3, 1st line | 1183 | FOLFOX-4 + P vs FOLFOX-4 | 24 vs 20 (WT) 15 vs 19 (MT) | 9.6 vs 8 (WT) 7.3 vs 8.8 (MT) | 55 vs 48% (WT) 40 vs 40% (MT) | Approximately 75% both (WT) approximately 60% vs 75% (MT) |
| Regorafenib (R) | ||||||||
| Grothey et al[47] 2013 | CORRECT trial | RCT, phase 3, 3rd line | 760 | Regorafenib vs placebo | 6.4 vs 5.0 | 1.9 vs 1.7 | 1.0% vs 0.4% | 24.3% vs 20.0% |
| Cetuximab (C) vs Bevacizumab (B) | ||||||||
| Stintzing et al[63] 2013 | FIRE-3trial | RCT, phase 3, 1st line | 592 | FOLFIRI + C vs FOLFIRI + B | 28.7 vs 25 | 10 vs 10.3 | 62 % vs 58% | Not reported |
RCT: Randomized controlled trial; OS: Overall survival; TTP: Time to progression; PFS: Progression free survival; ITT: Intention to treat; ORR: Overall response rate.