MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two EGFR mutation tests, a tissue-based assay (cobas® v1) and a tissue- and blood-based assay (cobas® v2) were used to analyze matched biopsy and blood samples (897 paired samples) from three Asian studies of first-line erlotinib with similar intent-to-treat populations. ENSURE was a phase III comparison of erlotinib and gemcitabine/platinum, FASTACT-2 was a phase III study of gemcitabine/platinum plus erlotinib or placebo, and ASPIRATION was a single-arm phase II study of erlotinib. Agreement statistics were evaluated, based on sensitivity and specificity between the two assays in subgroups of patients with increasing tumor burden.
RESULTS: Patients with discordant EGFR (tissue+/plasma-) mutation status achieved longer progression-free and overall survival than those with concordant (tissue+/plasma+) mutation status. Tumor burden was significantly greater in patients with concordant versus discordant mutations. Pooled analyses of data from the three studies showed a sensitivity of 72.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 67.8-76.1) and a specificity of 97.9% (95% CI 96.0-99.0) for blood-based testing; sensitivity was greatest in patients with larger baseline tumors.
CONCLUSIONS: Blood-based EGFR mutation testing demonstrated high specificity and good sensitivity, and offers a convenient and easily accessible diagnostic method to complement tissue-based tests. Patients with a discordant mutation status in plasma and tissue, had improved survival outcomes compared with those with a concordant mutation status, which may be due to their lower tumor burden. These data help to inform the clinical utility of this blood-based assay for the detection of EGFR mutations.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: APEC was a nonrandomized phase 2 trial conducted in the Asia-Pacific region. Patients (n = 289) received once-every-2-weeks cetuximab with investigator's choice of chemotherapy (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI). The primary end point was best confirmed overall response rate (BORR); progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were secondary end points. Early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR) were also evaluated.
RESULTS: In the KRAS wt population, BORR was 58.8%, median PFS 11.1 months, and median OS 26.8 months. Expanded RAS mutational analysis revealed that patients with RAS wt mCRC had better outcomes (BORR = 64.7%; median PFS = 13.0 months; median OS = 28.4 months). The data suggest that ETS and DpR may be associated with survival outcomes in the RAS wt population. Although this study was not designed to formally assess differences in outcome between treatment subgroups, efficacy results appeared similar for patients treated with FOLFOX and FOLFIRI. There were no new safety findings; in particular, grade 3/4 skin reactions were within clinical expectations.
CONCLUSION: The observed activity and safety profile is similar to that reported in prior first-line pivotal studies involving weekly cetuximab, suggesting once-every-2-weeks cetuximab is effective and tolerable as first-line therapy and may represent an alternative to weekly administration.