Antibodies against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)--cetuximab and panitumumab--are widely used to treat colorectal cancer. Unfortunately, patients eventually develop resistance to these agents. We describe an acquired EGFR ectodomain mutation (S492R) that prevents cetuximab binding and confers resistance to cetuximab. Cells with this mutation, however, retain binding to and are growth inhibited by panitumumab. Two of ten subjects studied here with disease progression after cetuximab treatment acquired this mutation. A subject with cetuximab resistance harboring the S492R mutation responded to treatment with panitumumab.

PURPOSE The optimal therapeutic sequence of the adjuvant chemotherapy component of preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer is controversial. Induction chemotherapy before preoperative CRT may be associated with better efficacy and compliance. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 108 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer were randomly assigned to arm A-preoperative CRT with capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and concurrent radiation followed by surgery and four cycles of postoperative adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX)-or arm B-induction CAPOX followed by CRT and surgery. The primary end point was pathologic complete response rate (pCR). Results On an intention-to-treat basis, the pCR for arms A and B were 13.5% (95% CI, 5.6% to 25.8%) and 14.3% (95% CI, 6.4% to 26.2%), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in other end points, including downstaging, tumor regression, and R0 resection. Overall, chemotherapy treatment exposure was higher in arm B than in arm A for both oxaliplatin (P < .0001) and capecitabine (P < .0001). During CRT, grades 3 to 4 adverse events were similar in both arms but were significantly higher in arm A during postoperative adjuvant CT than with induction CT in arm B. There were three deaths in each arm during the treatment period. CONCLUSION Compared with postoperative adjuvant CAPOX, induction CAPOX before CRT had similar pCR and complete resection rates. It did achieve more favorable compliance and toxicity profiles. On the basis of these findings, a phase III study to definitively test the induction strategy is warranted.

The Oncologist 2012;17:15-25 www.TheOncologist.com Patients and Methods. Patients were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of bevacizumab, capecitabine, and oxaliplatin every 3 weeks followed by XELOX plus bevacizumab or bevacizumab alone until progression. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) interval; secondary endpoints were the overall survival (OS) time, objective response rate (RR), time to response, duration of response, and safety.Results. The intent-to-treat population comprised 480 patients (XELOX plus bevacizumab, n ‫؍‬ 239; bevacizumab, n ‫؍‬ 241); there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. The median follow-up was 29.0 months (range, 0 -53.2 months). There were no statistically significant differences in the median PFS or OS times or in the RR between the two arms. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities in the XELOX plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab arms were diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, and neuropathy. Conclusion. Although the noninferiority of bevacizumab versus XELOX plus bevacizumab cannot be confirmed, we can reliably exclude a median PFS detriment >3 weeks. This study suggests that maintenance therapy with singleagent bevacizumab may be an appropriate option following induction XELOX plus bevacizumab in mCRC patients. The Oncologist 2012;17:15-25

No abstract