An Update of Efficacy and Safety of Cetuximab in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Narrative Review
Colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer, representing 13% of all diagnosed cancers. Cetuximab is a recombinant chimeric monoclonal IgG1 antibody and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor. Cetuximab is approved for the first-line treatment in combination with chemotherapy or as a single agent in patients who have failed or are intolerant to chemotherapy in patients with EGFR-expressing, RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Cetuximab efficacy emerged from studies that were conducted to approve the drug. Cetuximab is well tolerated; its toxicities are caused by its mechanism of action and the most common adverse reaction is skin toxicity. The main purpose of this manuscript is to present an update on the evidence-based summary of efficacy and safety and on the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab. Furthermore, it suggests a management of adverse drug reactions to improve the tolerability of the drug.
KeywordsAdverse drug reactions BRAF Cetuximab EGFR Metastatic colorectal cancer
No sources of funding were used in the preparation of this review. The article processing charges were funded by the author.
Editorial and Other Assistance
Literature search strategy was performed by Laura Ciolfi, a biomedical librarian of the Unit of Scientific and Patients’ Library at CRO Aviano IRCCS.
All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.
Giulia Fornasier, Sara Francescon and Paolo Baldo have nothing to disclose.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
The datasets during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
- 1.Lenz H-J. Anti-EGFR mechanism of action: antitumor effect and underlying cause of adverse events. Oncol (Williston Park). 2006;20:5–13.Google Scholar
- 2.ERBITUX (cetuximab). https://www.erbitux.com/. Accessed 3 Apr 2018.
- 3.ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov/. Accessed 3 Apr 2018.
- 5.Lenz H-J. Cetuximab in the management of colorectal cancer. Biol Targ Ther. 2007;1:77–91.Google Scholar
- 7.European Medicines Agency (EMA)—Erbitux. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/000558/human_med_000769.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124. Accessed 3 Apr 2018.
- 8.I numeri del cancro in Italia—2016, AIRTUM. http://www.registri-tumori.it/cms/it/node/4572. Accessed 3 Apr 2018.
- 9.Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration, Fitzmaurice C, Allen C, et al. Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:524–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Zhao B, Wang L, Qiu H, et al. Mechanisms of resistance to anti-EGFR therapy in colorectal cancer. Oncotarget. 2016;8:3980–4000.Google Scholar
- 16.ASCO Daily News. ASCO Annu. Meet. https://am.asco.org/daily-news. Accessed 17 May 2018.
- 20.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. 1990;2017(70):87–98.Google Scholar
- 22.Van Cutsem E, Köhne C-H, Láng I, 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.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 28.Tveit KM, Guren T, Glimelius B, 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.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 33.Kotake M, Aoyama T, Munemoto Y, et al. Multicenter phase II study of infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, plus biweekly cetuximab as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CELINE trial). Oncol Lett. 2017;13:747–53.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 34.Bokemeyer C, Köhne C-H, Ciardiello F, et al. FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer. 1990;2015(51):1243–52.Google Scholar
- 38.Price TJ, Peeters M, Kim TW, 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;15:569–79.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 43.Array BioPharma. Array BioPharma receives FDA Breakthrough Therapy Designation for Braftovi in combination with Mektovi and cetuximab for BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer. http://www.arraybiopharma.com/. Accessed 24 Aug 2018.
- 44.EudraVigilance database. https://bi.ema.europa.eu/analyticsSOAP/saw.dll?PortalPages. Accessed 29 May 2018.
- 45.FDA Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) public dashboard—FDA adverse events reporting system (FAERS) public dashboard. https://fis.fda.gov/sense/app/777e9f4d-0cf8-448e-8068-f564c31baa25/sheet/45beeb74-30ab-46be-8267-5756582633b4/state/analysis. Accessed 28 May 2018.
- 50.NHS. Guidelines for cetuximab induced rashes. NHS. February 2015. (http://www.kentmedwaycancerguide.nhs.uk/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alId=419417).
- 57.Huxley N, Crathorne L, Varley-Campbell J, Tikhonova I, Snowsill T, Briscoe S, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cetuximab (review of technology appraisal no. 176) and panitumumab (partial review of technology appraisal no. 240) for previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2017;21:1–294.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar