Rubinson, Douglas Adam

Abstract Background Combination irinotecan and cetuximab is approved for irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). It is unknown if adding bevacizumab improves outcomes. Patients and Methods In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, patients with irinotecan-refractory RAS-wildtype mCRC and no prior anti-EGFR therapy were randomized to cetuximab 500 mg/m2, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg, and irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (or previously tolerated dose) (CBI) versus cetuximab, irinotecan, and placebo (CI) every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). Results The study closed early after the accrual of 36 out of a planned 120 patients due to changes in funding. Nineteen patients were randomized to CBI and 17 to CI. Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. Median PFS was 9.7 versus 5.5 months for CBI and CI, respectively (1-sided log-rank P = .38; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-1.66). Median OS was 19.7 versus 10.2 months for CBI and CI (1-sided log-rank P = .02; adjusted HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-1.09). ORR was 36.8% for CBI versus 11.8% for CI (P = .13). Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47% of patients receiving CBI versus 35% for CI (P = .46). Conclusion In this prematurely discontinued trial, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of PFS between CBI and CI. There was a statistically significant improvement in OS in favor of CBI compared with CI. Further investigation of CBI for the treatment of irinotecan-refractory mCRC is warranted. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02292758

102 Background: Combination irinotecan and cetuximab is approved for irinotecan-refractory mCRC; it is unknown if the addition of bevacizumab would improve outcomes. We studied the efficacy and safety of CBI compared with CI in patients (pts) with RAS wildtype, irinotecan-refractory mCRC. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, pts with RAS wildtype mCRC and no prior anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy who failed at least 1 irinotecan-based chemotherapy regimen and received bevacizumab in at least 1 prior line of therapy were randomized 1:1 to irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (or previously tolerated dose), cetuximab 500 mg/m2, and bevacizumab 5 mg/kg vs CI every 2 wks until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models stratified by number of prior lines of therapy and bevacizumab receipt in immediate prior line were performed. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). The study was closed early in January 2018 for reasons related to accrual and funding after enrollment of 36 out of a planned 60 pts. Results: Between July 2015 and December 2017, 36 pts were randomized (19 to CBI, 17 to CI). 34 pts (94%) were treated with 2 or more prior chemotherapy regimens. Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. Median PFS was 9.7 vs 5.5 mo for CBI and CI arms, respectively (log-rank P =0.76; multivariable HR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.25-1.66). Median OS was 19.7 vs 10.2 mo for CBI and CI (log-rank P= 0.04; multivariable HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-1.09). ORR was 37% for CBI vs 12% for CI ( P =0.13). Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47% of pts receiving CBI vs 35% for CI ( P =0.46). Conclusions: In this prematurely discontinued trial, there were non-significant increases in PFS and ORR and a statistically significant 9.5 mo increase in median OS in favor of CBI compared to CI. Further investigation of CBI for treatment of irinotecan-refractory mCRC is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT02292758.