Table 1.
Principal first line phase II/III clinical trials with cetuximab and panitumumab in RAS WT population.
| Trial | Phase | Treatment | ORR (%) | mPFS months | mOS months |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
CRYSTAL
Van Cutsem 2015 |
III | FOLFIRI/Cet versus FOLFIRI | 66.3 versus 38.6 p = 0.001 |
11.4 versus 8.4 p < 0.001 |
28.4 versus 20.2 p = 0.0024 |
|
CALGB/SWOG 80405
Lenz 2014 |
III | FOLFOX or FOLFIRI/Cet versus FOLFOX or FOLFIRI/Bev | 68.8 versus 56 p < 0.01 |
11.4 versus 11.3 | 32 versus 31.2 p = 0.40 |
|
FIRE3
Heinemann 2014 |
III | FOLFIRI/Cet versus FOLFIRI/Bev | 65 versus 60 p = 0.32 |
10.4 versus 10.2 p = 0.54 |
33.1 versus 25.6 p = 0.011 |
|
OPUS87
Bokemayer 2015 |
II | 5FU/LFA/Oxaliplatin/Cet versus 5FU/LFA/oxaliplatin | 58 versus 29 p = 0.0084 |
12.0 versus 5.8 p = 0.0615 |
19.8 versus 17.8 p = 0.8 |
|
TAILOR88
Quin 2018 |
III | FOLFOX/Cet versus
FOLFOX |
61.1 versus 39.5 p < 0.001 |
9.2 versus 7.4 p = 0.004 |
20.7 versus 17.8 p = 0.02 |
|
MACBETH89
Cremolini 2018 |
III | FOLFOXIRI/Cet (+ Cet maint) versus FOLFOXIRI/Cet (+ Bev maint) | 71.6 (entire cohort) |
10.1 versus 9.3 | 33.2 versus 32.2 |
|
PRIME
Douillard 2013 |
III | FOLFOX/pan versus FOLFOX | Not reported for RAS WT | 10.1 versus 7.9 p = 0.004 |
26 versus 20.2 p = 0.04 |
|
PEAK90
Schwartzberg2014 |
II | FOLFOX/Pan versus FOLFOX/Bev | 63.6 versus 60.5 | 13.0 versus 9.5 p = 0.029 |
41.3 versus 28.9 p = 0.058 |
|
VOLFI91
Geissler 2019 |
III | FOLFOXIRI/Pan versus
FOLFOXIRI |
87.3.7 versus 60.6 p = 0.004 |
9.7 versus 9.7 p = 0.76 |
35.7 versus 29.8 p = 0.12 |
|
VALENTINO92
Pietrantonio 2018 |
II | FOLFOX/Pan (+ 5FU/Pan maint) versus
FOLFOX/Pan (+ Pan maint) |
66.7 versus 67 | 12 versus 9.9 p = 0.009 |
12 months estimated: 85.4% versus 79.7% p = 0.8 |
5-FU, 5-fluorouracil; Bev, bevacizumab; Cet, cetuximab; LFA, leucovorin, maint, maintenance, mOS, median overall survival; mPFS, median progression free survival; ORR, overall response rate; Pan, panitumumab; WT, wild type.