Targeted Oncology

, Volume 13, Issue 6, pp 735–743 | Cite as

Impact of Delayed Addition of Anti-EGFR Monoclonal Antibodies on the Outcome of First-Line Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients: a Retrospective Registry-Based Analysis

  • Ondrej Fiala
  • Veronika Veskrnova
  • Renata Chloupkova
  • Alexandr Poprach
  • Igor Kiss
  • Katerina Kopeckova
  • Ladislav Dusek
  • Lubomir Slavicek
  • Milan Kohoutek
  • Jindrich Finek
  • Marek Svoboda
  • Lubos Petruzelka
  • Ludmila Boubliková
  • Josef Dvorak
  • Bohuslav Melichar
  • Tomas BuchlerEmail author
Original Research Article



The addition of monoclonal antibodies targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR Abs) to chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC) is commonly delayed in the real-world clinical practice, usually because of late RAS testing results.


To determine whether delayed addition of anti-EGFR mAbs up to the fourth cycle of backbone chemotherapy adversely affected outcomes of mCRC patients treated with first-line regimens.

Patients and Methods

Clinical data of patients with histologically verified, RAS wild-type mCRC treated with first-line systemic therapy regimens containing anti-EGFR mAbs were retrospectively analysed from a national database. Patients were divided into three groups according to the timing of anti-EGFR mAbs addition to the chemotherapy backbone. Cohort A (n = 401) included patients in whom anti-EGFR mAbs were added to chemotherapy from the first cycle, cohort B (n = 71) patients with anti-EGFR mAbs added to chemotherapy from the second cycle, and cohort C (n = 101) patients who had anti-EGFR mAbs added to chemotherapy from the third or fourth cycle.


Three hundred and thirty-six (58.6%) patients received panitumumab and 237 (41.4%) patients received cetuximab. The median progression-free survival (PFS) of the whole cohort was 12.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.9–13.5), and the median overall survival (OS) was 33.5 months (95% CI 27.6–39.4). The median PFS and OS for patients treated with anti-EGFR mAbs added to chemotherapy were 12.9 (95% CI 11.5–14.3) and 30.6 months (95% CI 25.2–36.1) for cohort A, 9.7 (95% CI 9.1–10.3) and not reached for cohort B, compared to 11.5 (95% CI 9.8–13.2) and 37.9 months (95% CI 28.6–47.3) for cohort C, respectively.


Delayed addition of anti-EGFR mAbs to first-line chemotherapy was not associated with inferior survival or response rates.



We would like to thank the following heads of the comprehensive cancer centres for the permission to use data of patients from their respective regional networks: Dr. Martina Chodacka, Chomutov Hospital and Masaryk Hospital in Usti nad Labem; Dr. Vaclav Janovsky, Ceske Budejovice Hospital; Dr. Otakar Bednarik, University Hospital, Brno; Dr. Jana Prausova, Motol University Hospital, Prague; Dr. David Feltl, University Hospital, Ostrava; Professor Jiri Petera, University Hospital, Hradec Kralove; Dr. Jana Katolicka, St Anna University Hospital, Brno; Professor Rostislav Vyzula, Masaryk Memorial Institute of Oncology, Brno; Dr. Jiri Bartos, County Hospital, Liberec; Dr. Martin Safanda, Na Homolce Hospital, Prague; Dr. Renata Soumarova, Novy Jicin Hospital; Professor Jitka Abrahamova, Thomayer Hospital, Prague. We are also indebted to all physicians who provided data for the CORECT registry.

Compliance with Ethical Standards


This study was supported by grants AZV 15-26535A from the Czech Health Research Council, “Center of Clinical and Experimental Liver Surgery”, UNCE/MED/006, and the National Sustainability Program I (NPU I) Nr. LO1503 from the Ministry of Education Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic.

Conflict of Interest

T. Buchler, and B. Melichar have received research funding, travel grants, and honoraria from Roche, Merck, Bayer, Servier, BMS, MSD, Sanofi, and Amgen. O. Fiala received honoraria from Roche, Merck, and Amgen. J. Finek has received consulting fees and lecture honoraria from Roche, Bayer, BMS, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, and Amgen. M. Svoboda received consulting fees from Amgen. V. Veskrnova, R. Chloupkova, K. Kopeckova, I. Kiss, L. Dusek, L. Slavicek, M. Kohoutek, A. Poprach, L. Petruzelka, L. Boublikova, and J. Dvorak declare no conflict of interest that might be relevant to the contents of the manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Scaltriti M, Baselga J. The epidermal growth factor receptor pathway: a model for targeted therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:5268–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karapetis CS, Khambata-Ford S, Jonker DJ, O’Callaghan CJ, Tu D, Tebbutt NC, et al. K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1757–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lievre A, Bachet J-B, Boige V, Cayre A, Le Corre D, Buc E, et al. KRAS mutations as an independent prognostic factor in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:374–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amado RG, Wolf M, Peeters M, Van Cutsem E, Siena S, Freeman DJ, et al. Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1626–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Cutsem E, Kohne C-H, Lang I, Folprecht G, Nowacki MP, Cascinu S, et al. Cetuximab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: updated analysis of overall survival according to tumor KRAS and BRAF mutation status. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2011–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vaughn CP, Zobell SD, Furtado LV, Baker CL, Samowitz WS. Frequency of KRAS, BRAF, and NRAS mutations in colorectal cancer. Genes Chromosom Cancer. 2011;50:307–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bokemeyer C, Van Cutsem E, Rougier P, Ciardiello F, Heeger S, Schlichting M, et al. Addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy as first-line treatment for KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: pooled analysis of the CRYSTAL and OPUS randomised clinical trials. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:1466–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Douillard J-Y, Oliner KS, Siena S, Tabernero J, Burkes R, Barugel M, et al. Panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1023–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sorich MJ, Wiese MD, Rowland A, Kichenadasse G, McKinnon RA, Karapetis CS. Extended RAS mutations and anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody survival benefit in metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bokemeyer C, Kohne C-H, Ciardiello F, Lenz H-J, Heinemann V, Klinkhardt U, et al. FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:1243–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    De Roock W, Claes B, Bernasconi D, De Schutter J, Biesmans B, Fountzilas G, et al. Effects of KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations on the efficacy of cetuximab plus chemotherapy in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective consortium analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:753–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Misale S, Yaeger R, Hobor S, Scala E, Janakiraman M, Liska D, et al. Emergence of KRAS mutations and acquired resistance to anti-EGFR therapy in colorectal cancer. Nature. 2012;486:532–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jonker DJ, O’Callaghan CJ, Karapetis CS, Zalcberg JR, Tu D, Au H-J, et al. Cetuximab for the treatment of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2040–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Cutsem E, Peeters M, Siena S, Humblet Y, Hendlisz A, Neyns B, et al. Open-label phase III trial of panitumumab plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1658–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peeters M, Price TJ, Cervantes A, Sobrero AF, Ducreux M, Hotko Y, et al. Randomized phase III study of panitumumab with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) compared with FOLFIRI alone as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4706–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Douillard J-Y, Siena S, Cassidy J, Tabernero J, Burkes R, Barugel M, et al. Randomized, phase III trial of panitumumab with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as first-line treatment in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: the PRIME study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4697–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Maughan TS, Adams RA, Smith CG, Meade AM, Seymour MT, Wilson RH, et al. Addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based first-line combination chemotherapy for treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: results of the randomised phase 3 MRC COIN trial. Lancet. 2011;377:2103–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tveit KM, Guren T, Glimelius B, Pfeiffer P, Sorbye H, Pyrhonen S, et al. Phase III trial of cetuximab with continuous or intermittent fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (Nordic FLOX) versus FLOX alone in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the NORDIC-VII study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1755–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Slavicek L, Pavlik T, Tomasek J, Bortlicek Z, Buchler T, Melichar B, et al. Efficacy and safety of bevacizumab in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the Czech population-based registry. BMC Gastroenterol. 2014;14:53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Correale P, Marra M, Remondo C, Migali C, Misso G, Arcuri FP, et al. Cytotoxic drugs up-regulate epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression in colon cancer cells and enhance their susceptibility to EGFR-targeted antibody-dependent cell-mediated-cytotoxicity (ADCC). Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:1703–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    von Einem JC, Heinemann V, von Weikersthal LF, Vehling-Kaiser U, Stauch M, Hass HG, et al. Left-sided primary tumors are associated with favorable prognosis in patients with KRAS codon 12/13 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab plus chemotherapy: an analysis of the AIO KRK-0104 trial. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2014;140:1607–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Loupakis F, Yang D, Yau L, Feng S, Cremolini C, Zhang W, et al. Primary tumor location as a prognostic factor in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(3).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tejpar S, Stintzing S, Ciardiello F, Tabernero J, Van Cutsem E, Beier F, et al. Prognostic and predictive relevance of primary tumor location in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal Cancer retrospective analyses of the CRYSTAL and FIRE-3 trials. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(2):194–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang F, Bai L, Liu T-S, Yu Y-Y, He M-M, Liu K-Y, et al. Right-sided colon cancer and left-sided colorectal cancers respond differently to cetuximab. Chin J Cancer. 2015;34:384–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Brule SY, Jonker DJ, Karapetis CS, O’Callaghan CJ, Moore MJ, Wong R, et al. Location of colon cancer (right-sided versus left-sided) as a prognostic factor and a predictor of benefit from cetuximab in NCIC CO.17. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:1405–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen K-H, Shao Y-Y, Chen H-M, Lin Y-L, Lin Z-Z, Lai M-S, et al. Primary tumor site is a useful predictor of cetuximab efficacy in the third-line or salvage treatment of KRAS wild-type (exon 2 non-mutant) metastatic colorectal cancer: a nationwide cohort study. BMC Cancer. 2016;16:327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moretto R, Cremolini C, Rossini D, Pietrantonio F, Battaglin F, Mennitto A, et al. Location of primary tumor and benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibodies in patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal Cancer. Oncologist. 2016;21:988–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Holch JW, Ricard I, Stintzing S, Modest DP, Heinemann V. The relevance of primary tumour location in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of first-line clinical trials. Eur J Cancer. 2017;70:87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goldberg RM, Sargent DJ, Morton RF, Fuchs CS, Ramanathan RK, Williamson SK, et al. A randomized controlled trial of fluorouracil plus leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin combinations in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tournigand C, Andre T, Achille E, Lledo G, Flesh M, Mery-Mignard D, et al. FOLFIRI followed by FOLFOX6 or the reverse sequence in advanced colorectal cancer: a randomized GERCOR study. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:229–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ocvirk J, Brodowicz T, Wrba F, Ciuleanu TE, Kurteva G, Beslija S, et al. Cetuximab plus FOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI in metastatic colorectal cancer: CECOG trial. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16:3133–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Folprecht G, Gruenberger T, Bechstein W, Raab H-R, Weitz J, Lordick F, et al. Survival of patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases treated with FOLFOX/cetuximab or FOLFIRI/cetuximab in a multidisciplinary concept (CELIM study). Ann Oncol. 2014;25:1018–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Carrato A, Abad A, Massuti B, Gravalos C, Escudero P, Longo-Munoz F, et al. First-line panitumumab plus FOLFOX4 or FOLFIRI in colorectal cancer with multiple or unresectable liver metastases: a randomised, phase II trial (PLANET-TTD). Eur J Cancer. 2017;81:191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cheng A-L, Cornelio G, Shen L, Price T, Yang T-S, Chung IJ, et al. Efficacy, tolerability, and biomarker analyses of once-every-2-weeks cetuximab plus first-line FOLFOX or FOLFIRI in patients with KRAS or all RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: the phase 2 APEC study. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2017;16:e73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Alfonso PG, Benavides M, Ruiz AS, Guillen-Ponce C, Safont MJ, Alcaide J, et al. 499OPHASE ii study of first-line MFOLFOX plus CETUXIMAB (c) for 8 cycles followed by MFOLFOX plus c or single agent (s/a) c as maintenance therapy in patients (p) with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC): the MACRO-2 trial (Spanish Cooperative Group for T). Ann Oncol. 2014;25:iv168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pietrantonio F, Morano F, Corallo S, Lonardi S, Cremolini C, Rimassa L, et al. First-line FOLFOX plus panitumumab (Pan) followed by 5FU/LV plus Pan or single-agent Pan as maintenance therapy in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): The VALENTINO study. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(suppl; abstr 3505).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Price TJ, Peeters M, Kim TW, Li J, Cascinu S, Ruff P, et al. Panitumumab versus cetuximab in patients with chemotherapy-refractory wild-type KRAS exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer (ASPECCT): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(6):569–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ondrej Fiala
    • 1
    • 2
  • Veronika Veskrnova
    • 3
  • Renata Chloupkova
    • 4
  • Alexandr Poprach
    • 5
  • Igor Kiss
    • 5
  • Katerina Kopeckova
    • 6
  • Ladislav Dusek
    • 4
  • Lubomir Slavicek
    • 7
  • Milan Kohoutek
    • 8
  • Jindrich Finek
    • 1
  • Marek Svoboda
    • 5
  • Lubos Petruzelka
    • 9
  • Ludmila Boubliková
    • 3
  • Josef Dvorak
    • 3
  • Bohuslav Melichar
    • 10
  • Tomas Buchler
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of OncologyUniversity HospitalPilsenCzech Republic
  2. 2.Biomedical Center, Faculty of Medicine in PilsenCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  3. 3.Department of Oncology, First Faculty of MedicineCharles University and Thomayer University HospitalPragueCzech Republic
  4. 4.Institute of Biostatistics and Analyses, Faculty of MedicineMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  5. 5.Department of Comprehensive Cancer Care and Faculty of MedicineMasaryk Memorial Cancer Institute and Masaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  6. 6.Department of Oncology, Motol University Hospital and Second Faculty of MedicineCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  7. 7.Department of OncologyJihlava Hospital Comprehensive Cancer CentreJihlavaCzech Republic
  8. 8.Department of OncologyT Bata Hospital and Comprehensive Cancer CentreZlinCzech Republic
  9. 9.Department of OncologyGeneral University Hospital and Charles University First Faculty of MedicinePragueCzech Republic
  10. 10.Department of OncologyPalacky University Medical School and Teaching HospitalOlomoucCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations