Skip to content

    Colorectal Cancer Health Center

    Font Size

    Rectal Cancer Treatment (PDQ®): Treatment - Health Professional Information [NCI] - Stage IV and Recurrent Rectal Cancer


    Similarly, the addition of panitumumab to a regimen of FOLFOX/bevacizumab resulted in a worse PFS and worse toxicity compared with a regimen of FOLFOX/bevacizumab alone in patients not selected for KRAS mutation in metastatic rectal cancer (11.4 months vs. 10.0 months, HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.06-1.52).[62][Level of evidence: 1iiDiii]

    In another study (NCT00339183 [20050181]), patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who had already received a fluoropyrimidine regimen were randomly assigned to either FOLFIRI or FOLFIRI plus panitumumab.[63] In a post hoc analysis, patients with KRAS wild-type tumors experienced a statistically significant PFS advantage (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90; P = .004, stratified log-rank).[63][Level of evidence: 1iiDiii] Median PFS was 5.9 months (95% CI, 5.5 months-6.7 months) for panitumumab-FOLFIRI and 3.9 months (95% CI, 3.7 months-5.3 months) for FOLFIRI alone. OS was not significantly different. Patients with mutant KRAS tumors experienced no benefit from the addition of panitumumab.

    The Medical Research Council (MRC) (UKM-MRC-COIN-CR10 [NCT00182715] or COIN trial) sought to answer the question of whether adding cetuximab to combination chemotherapy with a fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin in first-line treatment for patients with first-line KRAS wild-type tumors was beneficial.[64,65] In addition, the MRC sought to evaluate the effect of intermittent chemotherapy versus continuous chemotherapy. The 1,630 patients were randomly assigned to three treatment groups:

    • Arm A: fluoropyrimidine/oxaliplatin.
    • Arm B: fluoropyrimidine/oxaliplatin/cetuximab.
    • Arm C: intermittent fluoropyrimidine/oxaliplatin.

    The comparisons between arms A and B and arms A and C were analyzed and published separately.[64,65]

    In patients with KRAS wild-type tumors (arm A, n = 367; arm B, n = 362), OS did not differ between treatment groups (median survival, 17.9 months [interquartile range (IQR) 10.3-29.2] in the control group vs. 17.0 months [IQR, 9.4-30.1] in the cetuximab group; HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.87-1.23, P = .67). Similarly, there was no effect on PFS (8.6 months [IQR, 5.0-12.5] in the control group vs. 8.6 months [IQR, 5.1-13.8] in the cetuximab group; HR, 0.96; 0.82-1.12, P = .60).[64,65][Level of evidence: 1iiA] The reasons for lack of benefit in adding cetuximab are unclear. Subset analyses suggest that the use of capecitabine was associated with an inferior outcome, and the use of second-line therapy was less in patients treated with cetuximab.

    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
    Next Article:

    Today on WebMD

    Colorectal cancer cells
    The right diagnosis is the most important factor.
    man with a doctor
    Our health check will steer you in the right direction.
    sauteed cherry tomatoes
    Fight cancer one plate at a time.
    bladder cancer x-ray
    Do you know the warning signs?
    Colon vs Rectal Cancer
    New Colorectal Treatments
    can lack of sleep affect your immune system
    Cancer Facts Quiz
    Virtual Colonoscopy
    Picture of the Colon
    Vitamin D