Abstract
Aim
Patients in clinical practice are relatively vulnerable compared to those enrolled in clinical trials. We focused on analyzing the pattern of regorafenib use in routine clinical practice, which included initial starting dose and follow-up schedule. We also evaluated the efficacy and safety according to clinical regimen.
Methods
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 134 Korean heavily pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients who had received regorafenib monotherapy as salvage treatment in routine clinical practice between January 2014 and January 2018.
Results
Among the 134 mCRC patients, the median age was 55 years (range, 22–80 years), and 51% had previously received four or more chemotherapy treatments. Thirty-eight (28.3%) patients had more than three metastatic lesions. As an initial starting dose, 120 mg regorafenib was mostly frequently used (n=65, 48.5%), followed by 80 mg (32.8%) and 160 mg (18.7%). The first follow-up after regorafenib initiation was most frequently at 28 days (45.5%), followed by 14 days (29.9%), 7 days (13.4%), and 21 days (11.2%). There was no significant difference in response rate according to initial dose of regorafenib (80 mg vs 120 mg vs 160 mg, 4.5% vs 1.5% vs 4.0%, P=0.596) or disease control rate (80 mg vs 120 mg vs 160 mg, 38.6% vs 29.2% vs 31.6%, P=0.299). Progression-free survival did not differ according to initial dose (80 mg vs 120 mg vs 160 mg, 2.8 months [95% CI 2.1–3.5] vs 2.2 months [95% CI 1.7–2.8] vs 1.9 months [95% CI 1.3–2.4], P=0.076). Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 17 (12.7%) patients and were not related to initial dose of regorafenib (P=0.126).
Conclusion
Here, we present efficacy and safety data according to different initial doses of regorafenib in clinical practice. These data may provide useful information when using regorafenib for refractory mCRC in clinical practice.
Keywords: regorafenib, colorectal cancer, initial dose
Introduction
Regorafenib (Stivarga, BAY 73–4506; Bayer Pharma AG, Berlin, Germany) is a novel oral multikinase inhibitor that blocks the activity of several protein kinases, including kinases involved in the regulation of tumor angiogenesis (VEGFR1 [also known as FLT1], VEGFR2 [KDR], VEGFR3 [FLT4], TIE2 [TEK]), oncogenesis (KIT, RET, RAF1, BRAF, and BRAFV600E), and the tumor microenvironment (PDGFR and FGFR).1,2 In two recent Phase III trials, CORRECT and CONCUR, regorafenib had shown a survival benefit in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who had progressed on standard treatments.3 Currently, regorafenib is regarded as one of the standard therapies for refractory mCRC patients.
The purpose of chemotherapy in refractory cancer patients is palliation.4 Thus, when considering chemotherapy in refractory cancer patients, clinicians must consider treatment efficacy as well as treatment safety.5–7 In two large Phase III clinical trials, regorafenib has been shown to be efficacious and safe. However, the criteria for enrollment in clinical trials were strict and selective; thus, findings from clinical trials may differ from results in clinical practice. In particular, although strict criteria were applied, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in ~54% of patients on regorafenib in the CORRECT and CONCUR trials,3,8 and the dose was reduced in 38% of patients. It is important to assess the clinical benefit of regorafenib while also considering the clinical impact of its toxicities. Due to toxicities associated with the standard recommended dose of 160 mg regorafenib, investigators have studied a reduced dose in mCRC patients. Osawa et al had reported that an initial dose of 120 mg regorafenib was also effective and tolerable in eight Japanese refractory mCRC patients.9 Also, some investigators have recommended a starting dose of 80 mg.10 However, there have been little data describing the efficacy and safety of different initial doses of regorafenib, in particular 80, 120, and 160 mg.
Patients in clinical practice are relatively friable compared to those in clinical trials. In clinical practice, patients may be managed differently than the protocol applied in clinical trials. Here, we analyzed the pattern of regorafenib use in routine practice, which included initial starting dose and follow-up schedule. We also evaluated the efficacy and safety according to clinical practice regimen.
Materials and methods
Patients
mCRC patients who received regorafenib monotherapy at Samsung Medical Center between January 2014 and January 2018 were included in this analysis. All patients had previously received fluorouracil (FU), irinotecan, and oxaliplatin with or without biologic agents such as cetuximab or bevacizumab.
Each patient’s medical records, which included age, sex, primary site, histologic type, KRAS/BRAF mutation results, extent of metastasis, treatment details, and treatment outcomes, were analyzed. We also evaluated patient data on dose, safety, and efficacy of regorafenib.
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Samsung Medical Center (approval number: 2018-08-013) and the requirement for informed consent was waived. This retrospective study was a level of research that does not exceed the minimum risk to the subject and is expected to have social benefits in treatment of similar patients. We used data from which personally identifiable information had been removed, so did not require a separate privacy plan for subject. To protect the personal information of the subject and confidentiality of the data, all data were anonymous. It was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the Korea Good Clinical Practice guidelines.
Regorafenib
In routine clinical practice, patients received oral regorafenib once daily for the first 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle until disease progression, death, or unacceptable toxic effects. The initial dose of regorafenib and the first follow-up visit were determined by the physician. Dose reductions and delays in the following cycle were also by physician’s choice. If the patient required an additional dose reduction at 80 mg or a delay of more than 28 days between cycles, discontinuation of regorafenib treatment was recommended.
Assessment
Tumor response to regorafenib was assessed with computed tomography (CT) scan after every two cycles. The response was defined as complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), or progressive disease based on the RECIST criteria (version 1.1).11 The adverse effects of regorafenib treatment were calculated using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03.12,13
Statistical methods
We analyzed the clinical practice patterns including initial starting dose, first follow-up visit, treatment outcomes, and toxicities of regorafenib in refractory mCRC patients. Descriptive statistics were calculated as proportions and medians. Treatment outcomes were estimated as response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity. Treatment outcomes were compared by the Fisher’s exact test or chi-squared test according to initial dose of regorafenib. PFS was defined as the time from the first study treatment to the date of disease progression. Survival data were assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method. We also calculated the 95% CI for the median time to event.
Results
Patients
A total of 134 patients with mCRC receiving regorafenib as salvage therapy were included in this study. Patient baseline characteristics are given in Table 1. The median age was 55 years (range, 22–80 years) with the majority of patients younger than 65 years (n=111, 82.8%). The numbers of males and females were 72 (53.7%) and 62 (46.3%), respectively, and 51% of patients had previously received four or more chemotherapy treatments. Thirty-eight (28.3%) patients had more than three metastatic lesions. Fifty-three (39.6%) patients had a KRAS mutation, and four had the BRAF V600E mutation (3.0%). In total, 116 (86.6%) patients had received prior bevacizumab-containing therapy, and 55 (41.0%) patients with the wild-type RAS were previously treated with cetuximab-containing therapies.
Table 1.
Baseline patient characteristics (N=134)
| Characteristics | N (%) |
|---|---|
| Median age (years [IQR]) | 55 (22–80) |
| Age (years) | |
| <65 | 111 (82.8) |
| ≥65 | 23 (17.2) |
| Sex | |
| Male | 72 (53.7) |
| Female | 62 (46.3) |
| ECOG | |
| 0–1 | 129 (96.3) |
| 2 | 5 (3.7) |
| Primary site of disease | |
| Ascending colon | 89 (66.4) |
| Descending colon | 38 (28.4) |
| Rectosigmoid | 7 (5.2) |
| Disease status | |
| Metastatic | 90 (67.2) |
| Recurrence | 44 (32.8) |
| KRAS mutation | |
| Wild | 66 (49.3) |
| Mutant | 53 (39.6) |
| Unknown | 15 (11.2) |
| BRAF V600E | |
| Wild | 72 (53.7) |
| Mutant | 4 (3.0) |
| Unknown | 58 (43.3) |
| No of previous systemic anticancer therapies | |
| ≤3 | 66 (49.2) |
| ≥4 | 68 (50.7) |
| Metastatic site | |
| <3 | 96 (71.6) |
| ≥3 | 38 (28.3) |
| Previous anti-VEGF treatment (bevacizumab) | 116 (86.6) |
| Previous anti-EGFR treatment (cetuximab) | 55 (41.0) |
Abbreviation: ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.
Regorafenib
The median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of patients receiving regorafenib was 1 (0–2). The initial starting doses of regorafenib and the first follow-up visit are listed in Table 2. A starting dose of 120 mg regorafenib was most frequently used (n=65, 48.5%), followed by 80 mg (32.8%) and 160 mg (18.7%). The first follow-up after starting regorafenib treatment was most commonly 28 days (45.5%), followed by 14 days (29.9%), 7 days (13.4%), and 21 days (11.2%). Sixty-one patients (45.5%) visited the hospital 28 days after initiating regorafenib according to the standard follow-up schedule.
Table 2.
The initial starting dose of regorafenib and the first follow-up after initiating regorafenib treatment
| N (%)(total=134) | 80 mg (n=44) | 120 mg (n=65) | 160 mg (n=25) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regorafenib first dose | ||||
| 80 mg | 44 (32.8) | 44 (32.8%) | ||
| 120 mg | 65 (48.5) | 65 (48.5%) | ||
| 160 mg | 25 (18.7) | 25 (18.7%) | ||
| First follow-up date | ||||
| 7 days | 18 (13.4) | 2 (4.5%) | 12 (18.5%) | 4 (16.0%) |
| 14 days | 40 (29.9) | 7 (15.9%) | 25 (43.1%) | 5 (20.0%) |
| 21 days | 15 (11.2) | 2 (4.5%) | 9 (13.8%) | 4 (16.0%) |
| 28 days | 61 (45.5) | 33 (75.0%) | 16 (24.6%) | 12 (48.0%) |
Among the 134 patients analyzed in this study, 130 were available for response evaluation (Table 3). None of the patients showed a CR, and a PR was reported in only four patients (3.0%). Thirty-seven patients showed SD. The response rate was 3.0%, and disease control rate was 30.4%. There was no significant difference in response rate according to initial dose of regorafenib (80 mg vs 120 mg vs 160 mg, 4.5% vs 1.5% vs 4.0%, P=0.596) or disease control rate (80 mg vs 120 mg vs 160 mg, 38.6% vs 29.2% vs 31.6%, P=0.299). Additionally, there was no difference in response rate according to KRAS/BRAF mutation results (Table S1).
Table 3.
Treatment efficacy according to initial regorafenib starting dose
| Treatment outcomes | Total | 80 mg (n=44) | 120 mg (n=65) | 160 mg (n=25) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PR | 4 (3.0%) | 2 (4.5%) | 1 (1.5%) | 1 (4.0%) | |
| SD | 37 (27.4%) | 15 (34.1%) | 18 (27.7%) | 4 (16.0%) | |
| PD | 89 (66.4%) | 26 (59.1%) | 44 (67.7%) | 19 (76.0%) | |
| NE | 4 (3.0%) | 1 (2.3%) | 2 (3.1%) | 1 (4.0%) | |
| Response rate | 3.00% | 4.50% | 1.50% | 4.00% | 0.596 |
| Disease control rate | 30.40% | 38.60% | 29.20% | 31.60% | 0.299 |
Abbreviations: PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease; NE, not evaluated.
The median PFS was 2.4 months (95% CI, 2.0–2.8 months) (Figure 1). PFS also did not differ according to initial dose (80 mg vs 120 mg vs 160 mg, 2.8 months [2.1–3.5] vs 2.2 months [1.7–2.8] vs 1.9 months [1.3–2.4], P=0.076).
Figure 1.
(A) Kaplan–Meier estimate of progression-free survival (PFS). (B) Kaplan–Meier estimate of PFS according to initial starting dose of regorafenib.
Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 17 (12.7%) patients (Table 4). The most frequent grade 3/4 toxicities were hand-foot skin reaction (n=9, 6.7%), followed by bowel perforation (n=3, 2.2%) and mucositis (n=1, hepatitis, diarrhea, and fatigue). Grade 3/4 adverse events were not related to initial regorafenib dose (P=0.126). Dose modification occurred in 49 patients (36.5%), which included dose reductions in 42 (31.3%) and dose increases in seven (5.2%). Dose reductions were observed in 44.0% of patients receiving 160 mg regorafenib as the initial dose and 38.5% of patients receiving 120 mg initially.
Table 4.
Grade 3 or 4 adverse events
| N (%) | 80 mg (n=44) | 120 mg (n=65) | 160 mg (n=25) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dose modification | 0.02 | ||||
| Reduction | 42 (31.3) | 6 (13.6%) | 25 (38.5%) | 11 (44.0%) | |
| Increase | 7 (5.2) | 4 (9.1%) | 3 (4.6%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| No modification | 85 (63.4) | 34 (77.3%) | 37 (56.9%) | 14 (56.0%) | |
| Grade 3/4 AE | 0.126 | ||||
| No | 117 (87.3) | 41 (93.2%) | 57 (87.7%) | 19 (76.0%) | |
| Yes | 17 (12.7) | 3 (6.8%) | 8 (12.3%) | 6 (24.0%) | |
| Type of grade 3/4 AE | |||||
| HFSR | 9 (6.7) | 1 (2.3%) | 5 (7.6%) | 3 (12.0%) | |
| Mucositis | 2 (1.4) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (3.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| Bowel perforation | 3 (2.2) | 1 (2.3%) | 1 (1.5%) | 1 (4.0%) | |
| Hepatitis | 1 (0.7) | 1 (2.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| Diarrhea | 1 (0.7) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (4.0%) | |
| Fatigue | 1 (0.7) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (4.0%) | |
Abbreviations: AE, adverse event; HFSE, hand-foot skin reaction.
Discussion
The CORRECT and CONCUR studies demonstrated that regorafenib significantly prolongs survival in heavily pretreated mCRC patients as compared to best supportive care.3,8 These results led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of regorafenib 160 mg orally once daily on days 1–21 of each 28 days cycle. However, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 54% of patients assigned to regorafenib in these trials. Therefore, physicians have been cautious when using regorafenib in refractory mCRC patients. The present study showed that an initial dose of 80 mg or 120 mg regorafenib had similar efficacy as compared to a standard 160 mg dose of regorafenib. Furthermore, grade 3 or 4 adverse effects were observed at a lower frequency for 80 mg and 120 mg regorafenib doses than for the 160 mg dose.
In the present study, there were only 25 (18.7%) patients who received the standard 160 mg dose of regorafenib. This observation suggests that physicians were concerned about the adverse effects. The patient characteristics of heavily pretreated mCRC patients in clinical practice differ from patients enrolled in clinical trials. The concern of using an initial dose of 160 mg regorafenib has been addressed in previous studies.10
In CONSIGN study, survival data were similar to those reported by previous clinical trials; however, treatment-related adverse events led to dose reduction in 46% of patients and severe adverse effects occurred in 44% of patients.
Here, we report that the preferred initial dose in clinical practice was 120 mg (n=65, 48.5%) or 80 mg (n=44, 32.8%). Grade 3/4 side effects (80 mg vs 120 mg vs 160 mg, 6.8% vs 12.3% vs 24.0%) were more frequent as the initial starting dose increased. Interestingly, there were no significant differences in RR, disease control rate, and PFS associated with initial regorafenib dose. Recently, the ReDOS study also showed that a strategy with weekly dose escalation of regorafenib from 80 mg to 160 mg/day was found not to be inferior to a starting dose of 160 mg/day for survival outcomes.10
The tolerability was better in a strategy including weekly dose escalation as compared to the standard dose. These findings may be helpful in routine clinical practice in regard to the use of regorafenib in heavily pretreated refractory mCRC patients.
Most treatment-related adverse events occur early within the first 3 weeks of starting regorafenib, particularly in patients who receive a 160 mg dose.12 In the REBACCA study which administered 160 mg regorafenib, the median time to first treatment modification was also 0.7 months, due mainly to toxicity.14
Thus, monitoring patients in the first treatment cycle of regorafenib is important for managing and preventing treatment-related adverse effects. In this study, we also analyzed the first follow-up visit after initiating regorafenib treatment. More than half of patients (n=73, 54.5%) regularly visited the hospital within 21 days after starting regorafenib. Early monitoring may detect treatment-related adverse effects before they become more severe. In this study, grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events accounted for only 12.7% of all events. This was fewer than reported in previous Phase III trials (54%).3 This discrepancy may be due to the heterogeneous patient population, different initial regorafenib doses, and/or different follow-up schedules.
In a previous Phase I study of regorafenib, grade 3 or higher adverse effects were fewer with 120 mg than with 160 mg. Both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses revealed that regorafenib had similar effects at doses 120 mg to 220 mg.15 Pharmacodynamic assessments showed pharmacologic activity for dose levels of 120 mg and above, but without significant difference across the dose levels between 120 mg and 220 mg.
Previous clinical studies have also reported that an initial regorafenib dose of 80 mg or 120 mg had good tolerability and modest antitumor activity as salvage therapy for mCRC.9 However, these studies had small sample sizes ranging from 20 to 48 patients. This study has some limitations, such as the retrospective nature, small sample size, and lack of consistency in patients’ follow-up and overall survival. Nevertheless, the efficacy and safety according to initial dose of regorafenib in clinical practice were shown. These data may be useful for physicians considering regorafenib for refractory mCRC in the clinic.
Conclusion
The present study showed that an initial dose of 80 mg or 120 mg regorafenib had similar efficacy as compared to a standard 160 mg dose of regorafenib. Furthermore, grade 3 or 4 adverse effects were observed at a lower frequency for 80 mg and 120 mg regorafenib doses than for the 160 mg dose. These data may provide useful information when using regorafenib for refractory mCRC in clinical practice.
Supplementary material
Table S1.
The response rate according to KRAS and BRAF mutation status.
| N (%) | Na (N) | PR | SD | PD | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KRAS | ||||||
| Wild | 66 (49.3) | 2 | 1 (1.5%) | 24 (36.4%) | 39 (59.1%) | 0.245 |
| Mutant | 53 (39.6) | 2 | 2 (3.8%) | 11 (20.8%) | 38 (71.7%) | |
| NA | 15 (11.2) | |||||
| BRAF | ||||||
| Wild | 72 (53.7) | 3 | 3 (4.2%) | 18 (25.0%) | 48 (66.7%) | 1.000 |
| Mutant | 4 (3.0) | 0 | 0 | 1 (25.0%) | 3 (75.0%) | |
| NA | 58 (43.3%) | |||||
Abbreviations: NA, non assessable; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease; Na, not available.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by funding from the Korean Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HI14C2750, HI14C3418). Support was also provided by a grant from the 20 by 20 Project of Samsung Medical Center (GF01140111).
Footnotes
Disclosure
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
References
- 1.Wilhelm SM, Dumas J, Adnane L, et al. Regorafenib (BAY 73-4506): a new oral multikinase inhibitor of angiogenic, stromal and oncogenic receptor tyrosine kinases with potent preclinical antitumor activity. Int J Cancer. 2011;129(1):245–255. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25864. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Abou-Elkacem L, Arns S, Brix G, et al. Regorafenib inhibits growth, angiogenesis, and metastasis in a highly aggressive, orthotopic colon cancer model. Mol Cancer Ther. 2013;12(7):1322–1331. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-12-1162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Grothey A, van Cutsem E, Sobrero A, et al. Regorafenib monotherapy for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CORRECT): an international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2013;381(9863):303–312. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61900-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Center MM, Jemal A, Smith RA, Ward E. Worldwide variations in colorectal cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59(6):366–378. doi: 10.3322/caac.20038. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Siegel R, Desantis C, Virgo K, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62(4):220–241. doi: 10.3322/caac.21149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.van Cutsem E, Borràs JM, Castells A, et al. Improving outcomes in colorectal cancer: where do we go from here? Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(11):2476–2485. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.03.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.André T, Dumont SN. Regorafenib approved in metastatic colorectal cancer. Bull Cancer. 2013;100(10):1027–1029. doi: 10.1684/bdc.2013.1808. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Li J, Qin S, Xu R, et al. Regorafenib plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care in Asian patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CONCUR): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(6):619–629. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70156-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Osawa H. Response to regorafenib at an initial dose of 120 mg as salvage therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Mol Clin Oncol. 2017;6(3):365–372. doi: 10.3892/mco.2017.1145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Bekaii-Saab TS, Fs O, Anderson DM, Ahn DH, Boland PM, Ciombor KK. Regorafenib dose optimization study (ReDOS): Randomized phase II trial to evaluate dosing strategies for regorafenib in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) – An ACCRU Network study. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(4 Suppl):611. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Villaruz LC, Socinski MA. The clinical viewpoint: definitions, limitations of RECIST, practical considerations of measurement. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(10):2629–2636. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-2935. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Krishnamoorthy SK, Relias V, Sebastian S, Jayaraman V, Saif MW. Management of regorafenib-related toxicities: a review. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2015;8(5):285–297. doi: 10.1177/1756283X15580743. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.National Institute of Cancer [Accessed June 14, 2010];Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). NIH Publ [Internet] 2010 2009:0–71. Available from: http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/ctcaev3.pdf. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Adenis A, de La Fouchardiere C, Paule B, et al. Survival, safety, and prognostic factors for outcome with Regorafenib in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard therapies: results from a multicenter study (REBECCA) nested within a compassionate use program. BMC Cancer. 2016;16:412. doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2440-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Mross K, Frost A, Steinbild S, et al. A phase I dose-escalation study of regorafenib (BAY 73-4506), an inhibitor of oncogenic, angiogenic, and stromal kinases, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(9):2658–2667. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-1900. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Table S1.
The response rate according to KRAS and BRAF mutation status.
| N (%) | Na (N) | PR | SD | PD | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KRAS | ||||||
| Wild | 66 (49.3) | 2 | 1 (1.5%) | 24 (36.4%) | 39 (59.1%) | 0.245 |
| Mutant | 53 (39.6) | 2 | 2 (3.8%) | 11 (20.8%) | 38 (71.7%) | |
| NA | 15 (11.2) | |||||
| BRAF | ||||||
| Wild | 72 (53.7) | 3 | 3 (4.2%) | 18 (25.0%) | 48 (66.7%) | 1.000 |
| Mutant | 4 (3.0) | 0 | 0 | 1 (25.0%) | 3 (75.0%) | |
| NA | 58 (43.3%) | |||||
Abbreviations: NA, non assessable; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease; Na, not available.