Advertisement

Drugs

, Volume 67, Issue 17, pp 2585–2607 | Cite as

Cetuximab

A Review of its Use in Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck and Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
  • Stephanie K. A. Blick
  • Lesley J. Scott
Adis Drug Evaluation

Summary

Abstract

Cetuximab (Erbitux®) is a human-mouse chimeric monoclonal antibody, which competitively binds to the accessible extracellular domain of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) to inhibit dimerisation and, subsequently, inhibit tumour growth and metastasis. In the EU and the US, cetuximab has been approved for use with concomitant radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) and in combination with irinotecan for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in patients with EGFR-expressing tumours who are refractory to irinotecan-based therapy. In the US, cetuximab has also been approved as monotherapy in patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN for whom platinum-based therapy has failed and in patients with mCRC who are intolerant of irinotecan-based regimens.

In treatment-naive patients with locoregionally advanced SCCHN, cetuximab plus radiotherapy was more effective than radiation therapy alone in prolonging locoregional disease control. In addition, more limited noncomparative data from a large trial indicated a 13% overall objective response rate (ORR) in platinum-refractory patients with SCCHN. In patients with EGFR-expressing mCRC, cetuximab plus irinotecan improved ORR more than cetuximab monotherapy in a trial in irinotecan-refractory patients; however, there was no difference in overall survival (OS) between cetuximab plus irinotecan and cetuximab monotherapy in oxaliplatin-refractory recipients in another trial. In an ongoing trial, progression-free survival (PFS) exceeded 50% after 12 weeks in irinotecan-refractory patients receiving three different dosages of cetuximab plus irinotecan. In another large trial, cetuximab monotherapy prolonged OS compared with best supportive care (BSC) in heavily pretreated patients.

Overall, cetuximab treatment had an acceptable tolerability profile, with the majority of adverse events being mild or moderate in severity and clinically manageable. In particular, cetuximab therapy did not exacerbate toxicities commonly associated with chemo- or radiotherapeutic regimens. Albeit occurring with high incidence, adverse cutaneous reactions appear to be a marker for response.

Results of ongoing head-to-head comparative trials comparing cetuximab with other biological agents will help to establish definitively the role of cetuximab in the management of SCCHN and mCRC. In the meantime, cetuximab, with its highly targeted mechanism of action and synergistic activity with current treatment modalities, is a valuable treatment option in patients with SCCHN and mCRC.

Pharmacological Properties

Cetuximab binds to the readily accessible extracellular domain of the EGFR with high affinity (dissociation constant = 0.39 nmol/L), competing with endogenous ligand binding. This competition, resulting in the blockade of receptor-dependent signal transduction pathways, provides antitumour effects involving a number of different actions including cell-cycle arrest, induction of apoptosis, inhibition of angiogenesis, inhibition of metastasis, internalisation and downregulation of the EGFR, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and enhancement of sensitivity to radio- or chemotherapy. Cetuximab recipients have a low propensity for developing human antichimeric antibodies.

Cetuximab exhibits nonlinear pharmacokinetics in the dose range of 50–500 mg/m2, independent of concurrent administration of radio- or chemotherapy. Greater than dose-proportional increases in mean maximum plasma concentrations and mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve were observed with cetuximab doses up to 500 mg/m2; the volume of distribution was approximately equal to that of vascular space. The major route of cetuximab clearance is hypothesised to be via internalisation of the antibody-receptor complex. Cetuximab has a long terminal elimination half-life of approximately 112 hours. Importantly, no significant pharmacokinetic interactions were observed with the concomitant administration of cetuximab and irinotecan in patients with mCRC.

Therapeutic Efficacy

In clinical trials, cetuximab was generally administered as a 120-minute intravenous infusion of 400 mg/m2, followed by weekly 60-minute infusions of 250 mg/m2, with treatment continuing until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

In a large (n >400), randomised, open-label, phase III trial in treatment-naive patients with SCCHN, combining cetuximab with high-dose radiation therapy significantly increased locoregional control (primary endpoint), compared with radiation monotherapy, with a 32% reduction in the risk of locoregional progression. Combination treatment was also associated with a significantly lower risk of disease progression, higher PFS rates and a greater ORR. In a noncomparative study in 103 platinum-refractory patients with SCCHN, cetuximab monotherapy was associated with an overall ORR (primary endpoint) of 13% and a disease control rate of almost 50%.

As second- and subsequent-line therapy in the large (n >300) well designed BOND trial in EGFR-positive patients with mCRC who were refractory to irinotecan, cetuximab plus irinotecan was associated with significantly greater ORR than cetuximab monotherapy. In this trial, there was a 46% reduction in the risk of progression in the combination group; however, no significant between-group difference in OS was observed. There was also no significant between-group difference in OS in another large (n ≈1300), well designed trial (EPIC) [primary endpoint], although cetuximab plus irinotecan therapy was associated with significantly higher overall response rates and longer PFS than irinotecan monotherapy. The primary endpoint of PFS at 12 weeks exceeded the predicted rate of 50% in an ongoing trial evaluating three dosages of irinotecan combined with cetuximab. In a large (n = 572) randomised trial in heavily pretreated patients with mCRC, the addition of cetuximab treatment to BSC significantly improved median OS times (primary endpoint) and ORR compared with BSC and reduced the risk of disease progression by 32%.

In patients with mCRC or SCCHN, the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy or radiotherapy did not negatively impact on health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), compared with either monotherapy. Furthermore, compared with BSC, cetuximab plus BSC was associated with significantly less deterioration in HR-QOL, and cetuximab plus irinotecan was associated with less deterioration in pain, nausea and global health status than irinotecan monotherapy.

Pharmacoeconomic Analyses

Findings from modelling studies from a healthcare payer perspective showed that the predicted incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained of a cetuximab treatment regimen relative to the comparator were generally below recognised thresholds of acceptability. These models predict that the direct medical cost of cetuximab in combination with either radiotherapy or irinotecan is higher than that of other treatments; however, the higher cost is partly offset by increases in life expectancy and reductions in the incidence and costs of complications.

Tolerability

Adverse events directly attributable to cetuximab therapy are difficult to determine given the morbidity of the patient population and the effects of concomitant therapies such as chemo- or radiotherapy. Cetuximab, added to chemo- or radiotherapy regimens, did not exacerbate toxicities commonly associated with such regimens. Cetuximab has an acceptable tolerability profile; the majority of adverse events that occurred during clinical trials were of mild or moderate intensity and tended to resolve on cessation of cetuximab. In pooled analyses, the most common adverse events associated with cetuximab administration that occurred in ≥25% of patients with SCCHN or mCRC in any treatment group were: acneform rash (skin eruptions), weight loss, asthenia, diarrhoea, xerostomia, dysphagia, nausea, abdominal pain, anorexia, constipation, vomiting, fever, pharyngitis, dehydration, stomatitis, leukopenia and headache. The incidence of severe adverse events during clinical trials was low and included infusion reactions, acneform rash, hypersensitivity, cardiopulmonary arrest, hypomagnesaemia and pulmonary toxicity; a black box warning has been included in the US manufacturer’s prescribing information regarding infusion reactions and cardiopulmonary arrest.

Keywords

Overall Survival Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Irinotecan Cetuximab Metastatic Colorectal Cancer 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Vermorken JB, Trigo J, Hitt R, et al. Open-label, uncontrolled, multicenter phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of cetuximab as a single agent in patients with recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who failed to respond to platinum-based therapy. J Clin Oncol 2007 Jun 1; 25(16): 2171–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Starling N, Tilden D, White J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab/irinotecan vs active/best supportive care for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer patients who have failed previous chemotherapy treatment. Br J Cancer 2007 Jan 29; 96(2): 206–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Seiwert TY, Cohen EEW. State-of-the-art management of locally advanced head and neck cancer. Br J Cancer 2005; 92(8): 1341–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ford AC, Grandis JR. Targeting epidermal growth factor receptor in head and neck cancer. Head Neck 2003; 25(1): 67–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S, et al. Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004 Jul 22; 351(4): 337–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bernier J. Cetuximab in the treatment of head and neck cancer. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2006 Nov; 6(11): 1539–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: rectal cancer. Version 1 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/rectal.pdf [Accessed 2007 Jun 16]
  8. 8.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: colon cancer. Version 1 2008 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/colon.pdf [Accessed 2007 Oct 29]
  9. 9.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: head and neck cancer; advanced head and neck cancer. Version 1 2007 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/PDF/head-and-neck.pdf [Accessed 2007 Jun 16]
  10. 10.
    Mayer A, Takimoto M, Fritz E, et al. The prognostic significance of proliferating cell nuclear antigen, epidermal growth factor, and mdr gene expression in colorectal cancer. Cancer 1993 Apr 15; 71(8): 2454–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moosmann N, Heinemann V. Cetuximab in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2007 Feb; 7(2): 243–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prewett MC, Hooper AT, Bassi R, et al. Enhanced antitumor activity of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody IMC-C225 in combination with irinotecan (CPT-11) against human colorectal tumor xenografts. Clin Cancer Res 2002 May; 8(5): 994–1003PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    US Food and Drug Administration. Erbitux™ (cetuximab): prescribing information [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2004/1250841bl.pdf [Accessed 2007 May 24]
  14. 14.
    European Medicines Agency. Cetuximab (Erbitux) 2 mg/mL: summary of product characteristics [online]. Available from URL: http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/arixtra/H-403-PI-en.pdf [Accessed 2007 Jun 5]
  15. 15.
    Reynolds NA, Wagstaff AJ. Cetuximab in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Drugs 2004; 64(1): 109–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burtness B, Goldwasser MA, Flood W, et al. Phase III randomized trial of cisplatin plus placebo compared with cisplatin plus cetuximab in metastatic/recurrent head and neck cancer: an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 2005 Dec 1; 23(34): 8646–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wanebo HJ, Ghebremichael M, Burtness B, et al. Phase II evaluation of cetuximab (C225) combined with induction paclitaxel and carboplatin followed by C225, paclitaxel, carboplatin and radiation for stage III/IV operable squamous cancer of head and neck (ECOG, E2303) [abstract no. 6015]. J Clin Oncol 2007 Jun 1; 25 Suppl. 18: 302Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vermorken J, Mesia R, Vega V, et al. Cetuximab extends survival of patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN when added to first line platinum based therapy: results of a randomized phase III (Extreme) study [abstract no. 6091]. 43rd Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology: Translating Research into Practice; 2007 Jun 1–5; Chicago (IL)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Cutsem E, Nowacki M, Lang I, et al. Randomised phase III study of irinotecan and 5-FU/FA with or without cetuximab in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): the CRYSTAL trial [abstract no. 4000]. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 Suppl. 18: 164Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mendelsohn J, Baselga J. Epidermal growth factor receptor targeting in cancer. Semin Oncol 2006 Aug; 33(4): 369–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Li S, Schmitz KR, Jeffrey PD, et al. Structural basis for inhibition of the epidermal growth factor receptor by cetuximab. Cancer Cell 2005 Apr; 7(4): 301–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Feng FY, Lopez CA, Normolle DP, et al. Effect of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor class in the treatment of head and neck cancer with concurrent radiochemotherapy in vivo. Clin Cancer Res 2007 Apr 15; 13(8): 2512–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ciardiello F, Tortora G. A novel approach in the treatment of cancer: targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor. Clin Cancer Res 2001 Oct; 7(10): 2958–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huang SM, Bock JM, Harari PM. Epidermal growth factor receptor blockade with C225 modulates proliferation, apoptosis, and radiosensitivity in squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck. Cancer Res 1999; 59(8): 1935–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim ES, Khuri FR, Herbst RS. Epidermal growth factor receptor biology (IMC-C225). Curr Opin Oncol 2001 Nov; 13(6): 506–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Baselga J. The EGFR as a target for anticancer therapy: focus on cetuximab. Eur J Cancer 2001; 37 Suppl. 4: S16–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kimura H, Sakai K, Arao T, et al. Antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity of cetuximab against tumor cells with wild-type or mutant epidermal growth factor receptor. Cancer Science. Epub 2007 May 13Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bonner JA, Harari PM, Giralt J, et al. Radiotherapy plus cetuximab for squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. N Engl J Med 2006 Feb 9; 354(6): 567–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Balin-Gauthier D, Delord JP, Rochaix P, et al. In vivo and in vitro antitumor activity of oxaliplatin in combination with cetuximab in human colorectal tumor cell lines expressing different level of EGFR. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2006 Jun; 57(6): 709–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gebbia V, Del Prete S, Borsellino N, et al. Efficacy and safety of cetuximab/irinotecan in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal adenocarcinomas: a clinical practice setting, multicenter experience. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2006 Mar; 5(6): 422–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Robert F, Ezekiel MP, Spencer SA, et al. Phase I study of antiepidermal growth factor receptor antibody cetuximab in combination with radiation therapy in patients with advanced head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001 Jul 1; 19(13): 3234–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Baselga J, Pfister D, Cooper MR, et al. Phase I studies of antiepidermal growth factor receptor chimeric antibody C225 alone and in combination with cisplatin. J Clin Oncol 2000 Feb; 18(4): 904–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Delbaldo C, Pierga JY, Dieras V, et al. Pharmacokinetic profile of cetuximab (Erbitux) alone and in combination with irinotecan in patients with advanced EGFR-positive adenocarcinoma. Eur J Cancer 2005 Aug; 41(12): 1739–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tan AR, Moore DF, Hidalgo M, et al. Pharmacokinetics of cetuximab after administration of escalating single dosing and weekly fixed dosing in patients with solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res 2006 Nov 1; 12(21): 6517–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fracasso PM, Burris III H, Arquette MA, et al. A phase 1 escalating single-dose and weekly fixed-dose study of cetuximab: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic rationale for dosing. Clin Cancer Res 2007 Feb 1; 13(3): 986–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vallbohmer D, Zhang W, Gordon M, et al. Molecular determinants of cetuximab efficacy. J Clin Oncol 2005 May 20; 23(15): 3536–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Robert F, Ezekiel MP, Spencer SA, et al. Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody cetuximab (C225) in combination with radiation therapy in patients with advanced head and neck cancer. Cancer Invest 2001; 19 Suppl. 1: 45–7Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fox FE, Mauro D, Bai S, et al. A population pharmacokinetic (PPK) analysis of the anti-EGFr specific IgG1 monoclonal antibody cetuximab [abstract no. 290]. Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium of the American Society of Clinical Oncology; 2004 Jan 22–24; San Fransisco (CA)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tabernero J, Cervantes A, Martinelli E, et al. Optimal dose of cetuximab given every 2 weeks: a phase I pharmacokinetic and phamacodynamic study of weekly (q1w) and q2w schedules in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006 Jan 1; 24 Suppl. 18: 142Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jonker DJ, O’Callaghan CJ, Karapetis CS, et al. Cetuximab for the treatment of colorectal cancer. N Eng J Med 2007 Nov 15; 357(20): 2040–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wilke H, Glynne-Jones R, Thaler J, et al. MABEL: a large multinational study of cetuximab plus irinotecan resistant metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006 Jan 20; 24 Suppl. 18: 158Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Polikoff J, Mitchell EP, Badarinath S, et al. Cetuximab plus FOLFOX for colorectal cancer (EXPLORE): preliminary efficacy analysis of a randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 2005 Jan 1; 23 Suppl. 16: 264Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tejpar S, Peeters M, Humblet H, et al. Phase I/II study of cetuximab dose-escalation in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with no or slight skin reactions on cetuximab standard dose treatment (EVEREST): pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD) and efficacy data [abstract no. 4037]. J Clin Oncol 2007 Jun 20; 25 Suppl. 18: 4037Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sobrero AF, Fehrenbacher L, Rivera F, et al. Randomized phase III trial of cetuximab plus irinotecan versus irinotecan alone for metastatic colorectal cancer in 1298 patients who have failed prior oxaliplatin-based therapy: the EPIC trial [abstract no. LB-2]. 98th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2007 Apr 14–18; Los Angeles (CA)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bouchahda M, Macarulla T, Spano JP, et al. Cetuximab and irinotecan-based chemotherapy as an active and safe treatment option for elderly patients with extensively pre-treated metastatic colorectal cancer. 2007 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings Part I [abstract no. 14528]. J Clin Oncol 2007 Jun 20; 25 Suppl. 18: 14528Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Curran D, Giralt J, Harari PM, et al. Quality of life in head and neck cancer patients after treatment with high-dose radiotherapy alone or in combination with cetuximab. J Clin Oncol 2007 Jun 1; 25(16): 2191–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wilke H, Siena S, Thaler J, et al. Impact of pre-medication on the frequency of infusion-related reactions (IRRs) and efficacy in patients (pts) treated with cetuximab plus irinotecan for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): the MABEL study. Eur J Cancer 2007; 5(4): 243Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Au H, Karapetis C, Jonker D, et al. Quality of life in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab: results of the NCIC CTG and AGITG CO.17 trial. J Clin Oncol 2007 Jun 20; 25 Suppl. 18: 164Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Eng C, Maurel J, Scheithauer W, et al. Impact on quality of life of adding cetuximab to irinotecan in patients who have failed prior oxaliplatin-based therapy: the EPIC trial. J Clin Oncol 2007 Jun 20; 25 Suppl. 18: 164Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Brown B, Robinson P, Launois R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab (Erbitux®) in combination with radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer in France. Value Health 2006 Nov–Dec; 9(6): A289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Brosa M, Robinson P, Brown B. Cost-effectiveness of cetuximab in combination with radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer in Spain. Value Health 2006 Nov–Dec; 9(6): A281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Tilden D, Thurley D, White J, et al. The cost-effectiveness of cetuximab in combination with irinotecan for the treatment of patients with EGFR-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer after failure of irinotecan-including cytotoxic therapy in Scotland [abstract]. Value Health 2005 Nov 31; 8(6): A 38. Plus poster PCN17 presented at the 8th Annual European Congress of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research; 2005 Nov 6–8; FlorenceGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Jönsson B. Changing health environment: the challenge to demonstrate cost-effectiveness of new compounds. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22 Suppl. 4: 5–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mason H, Marshall A, Jones-Lee M, et al. Estimating a value of a QALY from existing UK values of prevented fatalities [abstract]. 67th Health Economists’ Study Group Meeting 2005 Jun 29–Jul 1; Newcastle upon Tyne [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/chsr/abstractfull.htm [Accessed 2007 Sep 5]
  55. 55.
    Fakih MG, Wilding G, Lombardo J. Cetuximab-induced hypomagnesemia in patients with colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2006 Jul; 6(2): 152–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Schrag D, Chung KY, Flombaum C, et al. Cetuximab therapy and symptomatic hypomagnesemia. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005 Aug 17; 97(16): 1221–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Carson EJ, Novak AM, Stella PJ. Hypomagnesemia in patients with stage IV colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab as a single agent [abstract no. 3655]. J Clin Oncol 2005 Jan 1; 23 Suppl. 16: 284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Badarinath S, Mitchell EP, Jennis CD, et al. Cetuximab plus FOLFOX for colorectal cancer (EXPLORE): preliminary safety data analysis of a randomized phase III trial [abstract no. 3531]. 40th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology; 2006 Jun 5–8; New Orleans (LA)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bonner J, Harari P, Giralt J, et al. Duration of mucositis and dysphagia following radiotherapy (+/− cetuximab) for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer [plenary 4]. The Multidisciplinary Head and Neck Cancer Symposium; 2007 Jan 18–20; Rancho Mirage (CA)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Adams DH, Nutt T. A case report and discussion of cetuximab-induced folliculitis. Am J Clin Dermatol 2006; 7(5): 333–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Molinari E, De Quatrebarbes J, André T, et al. Cetuximab-induced acne. Dermatology 2005; 211(4): 330–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Kerob D, Dupuy A, Reygagne P, et al. Facial hypertrichosis induced by cetuximab, an anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody [letter]. Arch Dermatol 2006 Dec; 142(12): 1656–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Montagut C, Grau JJ, Grimait R, et al. Abnormal hair growth in a patient with head and neck cancer treated with the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody cetuximab. J Clin Oncol 2005 Aug 1; 23(22): 5273–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Spitzer G, Zackon I, Stella P, et al. Anti-epidermal growth factor antibody, cetuximab, in patients with stage IV colorectal carcinoma who failed all standard therapy: final report of an access protocol [abstract no. 3646]. J Clin Oncol 2005 Jan 1; 23 Suppl. 16: 282Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Saif MW, Kim R. Incidence and management of cutaneous toxicities associated with cetuximab. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2007 Mar; 6(2): 175–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lyseng-Williamson KA, Robinson DM. Bevacizumab: a review of its use in advanced colorectal cancer, breast cancer, and NSCLC. Am J Cancer 2006; 5(1): 43–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Posner MR, Wirth LJ. Cetuximab and radiotherapy for head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 2006 Feb 9; 354(6): 634–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Van Cutsem EJD, Oliveira J, Kataja VV, et al. ESMO minimum clinical recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of advanced colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2005; 16 Suppl. 1: 118–9Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Italiano A, Saint-Paul M-C, Caroli-Bosc F-X, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status in primary colorectal tumors correlates with EGFR expression in related metastatic sites: biological and clinical implications. Ann Oncol 2005 Sep; 16(9): 1503–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Scartozzi M, Beardi I, Mandolesi A, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) status in primary colorectal tumors does not correlate with EGFR expression in related metastatic sites: implications for treatment with EGFR-targeted monoclonal antibodies. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22(23): 4772–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Mrhalova M, Plzak J, Betka J, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor: its expression and copy numbers of EGFR gene in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Neoplasma 2005; 52(4): 338–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Dei Tos AP. The biology of epidermal growth factor receptor and its value as a prognostic/predictive factor. Int J Biol Markers 2007 Jan–Mar; 22 Suppl. 4: S3–9Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Di Fiore F, Blanchard F, Charbonnier F, et al. Clinical relevance of KRAS mutation detection in metastatic colorectal cancer treated by cetuximab plus chemotherapy. Br J Cancer 2007 Apr 23; 96(8): 1166–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Scartozzi M, Bearzi I, Pierantoni C, et al. Nuclear factor KB (NF-KB) predicts efficacy of cetuximab treatment in EGFR-positive colorectal cancer patients [abstract no. 847P]. Ann Oncol 2006 Sep 1; 17 Suppl. 9: 248Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Paolino A. Circulating VEGF predicts efficacy of cetuximab. Lancet Oncol 2007 May; 8(5): 379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Frieze DA, McCune JS. Current status of cetuximab for the treatment of patients with solid tumors. Ann Pharmacother 2006 Feb; 40(2): 241–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Meropol NJ, Schulman KA. Cost of cancer care: issues and implications. J Clin Oncol 2007 Jan 10; 25(2): 180–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Le Fevre, M. Cetuximab an EXTREMEly important addition in SCCHN. Inpharma 2007 Jun 16; (1592): 15Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Wolters Kluwer Health ¦ AdisMairangi Bay, North Shore, AucklandNew Zealand
  2. 2.Wolters Kluwer HealthConshohockenUSA

Personalised recommendations