Skip to main content
. 2018 Feb 21;7(3):565–582. doi: 10.1002/cam4.1298

Table 2.

Baseline characteristics of cohort groups of cetuximab for meta‐analysis

Study Study design Enrollment Neoadjuvant therapy Median age, year Stage at enrollment Distance from anal verge, cm KRAS status Preoperative Grade3/4 toxicity pCR
Bengala 2009 Prospective Phase II 40 5‐FU + cetuximab + RT 61 uT3N0: 12; uT3N1: 25; uT4N1: 3 NR Wild‐type: 30; Mutated: 9 NR 7.7% (3/39)
Horisberger 2009 Prospective Phase II 50 Capecitabine+Irinotecan+cetuximab+RT 57 cT2: 5; T3: 42; cT4: 2; Local relapse: 1; cN0: 13; cN+: 37 7.5 (Median) (1–13, Range) NR NR 8% (4/50)
Kim 2011 Prospective Phase II 40 CapIri + cetuximab + RT 56.5 cT3N0: 6; cT3N+: 30; cT4N0: 2; cT4N+: 2 ≤5: 19 > 5: 21 5.5 (Median) (0–8.0, Range) Wild‐type: 33; Mutated: 5 17.9% (7/39) 23.1% (9/39)
Machiels 2007 Prospective Phase I/II 40 Capecitabine + cetuximab + RT 61 cT2N+: 2; cT3N0: 18; cT3N+: 13; cT4N0: 5; cT4N+: 2 <6 cm: 25 6–10 cm: 10 > 10 cm: 5 NR NR 5% (2/40)
Rodel 2008 Prospective Phase I/II 60 Capox + cetuximab + RT 61.5 cT2N1‐2: 1; cT3N0: 7; cT3N1‐2: 43; cT4N0: 2; cT4N1‐2: 7 7 ± 3.5 (Mean ± SD) 0–14 (Range) Lower third (≤6 cm): 27 Middle third (6–12 cm): 27 Upper third (≥12 cm): 6 NR NR 8.9% (4/45)
Sun 2012 Prospective Phase II 63 Capecitabine + cetuximab + RT 64 cT3N0: 8; cT3N1: 21; cT3N2: 26; cT4N0: 2; cT4N1: 2; cT4N2: 4 5 (Median) (1–9, Range) Wild‐type: 44; Mutated: 19 NR 12.7% (8/63)
Velenik 2012 Prospective Phase II 47 Capecitabine + cetuximab + RT 55 cT3N0: 3; cT2N1: 1; cT3N1: 13; cT2N2: 1; cT3N2: 15; cT4N2: 4 6 (Median) (1–11, Range) Wild‐type: 30; Mutated: 7 NR 8.1% (3/37)
Dewdney 2012 Prospective Phase II 83 Capecitabine + cetuximab + RT 61 cT3c‐ T3d: 47; T4: 21 NR aWild‐type: 46; Mutated: 37 NR 18% (15/83)

pCR, pathologic complete response; RT, radiotherapy; 5‐FU, fluorouracil; CapIri, capecitabine plus irinotecan; Capox, capecitabine plus oxaliplatin; NR, not reported.

a

KRAS/BRAF status.