Table 2.

Evidence for cetuximab rechallenge in patients with KRAS wt mCRC whose disease has previously progressed on cetuximab plus chemotherapy treatment and received who have received at least one line of additional, non–anti-EGFR therapy

Study	Previous regimen
Liu et al71 (2015; retrospective study)	Summary: Patients with KRAS wt mCRC received anti-EGFR therapy (cetuximab or panitumumab) based treatment When PD occurred, patients received a break from anti-EGFR therapy (median duration, 4.6 months) 80 patients were retreated with cetuximab ± CT ± other targeted agents Results: 58.0% (CR/PR/SD) Patients who responded to prior anti-EGFR therapy were more likely to obtain clinical benefit upon rechallenge (PFS, 4.9 vs 2.5 months; P=0.007) The clinical benefit rate on rechallenge showed a marginally significant association with interval time between the two anti-EGFR based therapies (P=0.053)
Santini et al73 (2012)	Summary: Patients with KRAS wt mCRC received anti-EGFR therapy (cetuximab) + (FOLF)IRI When PD occurred, patients received a break from anti-EGFR therapy (median duration, 6.0 months) 39 patients were retreated with cetuximab + (FOLF)IRI Results: ORR, 53.8% (plus 35.9% SD) Median PFS, 6.6 months Interval effect not discussed
Rossini et al105 (2017; CRICKET)	Summary: Patients with RAS/BRAF wt mCRC who became resistant to first-line cetuximab + irinotecan Treated with third-line cetuximab + irinotecan N=26 Results: ORR, 23% (plus 31% SD)

CR, complete response; CT, chemotherapy; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; FOLFIRI, 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan; IRI, irinotecan; mCRC, metastatic colorectal cancer; ORR, overall response rate; PD, progressive disease; PFS, progression-free survival; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; wt, wild-type.