Cisplatin and fluorouracil with or without panitumumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SPECTRUM): an open-label phase 3 randomised trial

Background: Previous trials have shown that anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies can improve clinical outcomes of patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). We assessed the efficacy and safety of panitumumab combined with cisplatin and fluorouracil as first-line treatment for these patients. Methods: This open-label phase 3 randomised trial was done at 126 sites in 26 countries. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years; had histologically or cytologically confi rmed SCCHN; had distant metastatic or locoregionally recurrent disease, or both, that was deemed to be incurable by surgery or radiotherapy; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less; and had adequate haematological, renal, hepatic, and cardiac function. Patients were randomly assigned according to a computer-generated randomisation sequence (1:1; stratifi ed by previous treatment, primary tumour site, and performance status) to one of two groups. Patients in both groups received up to six 3-week cycles of intravenous cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) on day 1 of each cycle) and fl uorouracil (1000 mg/m(2) on days 1-4 of each cycle); those in the experimental group also received intravenous panitumumab (9 mg/kg on day 1 of each cycle). Patients in the experimental group could choose to continue maintenance panitumumab every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival and was analysed by intention to treat. In a prospectively defi ned retrospective analysis, we assessed tumour human papillomavirus (HPV) status as a potential predictive biomarker of outcomes with a validated p16-INK4A (henceforth, p16) immunohistochemical assay. Patients and investigators were aware of group assignment; study statisticians were masked until primary analysis; and the central laboratory assessing p16 status was masked to identifi cation of patients and treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials. gov, number NCT00460265. Findings: Between May 15, 2007, and March 10, 2009, we randomly assigned 657 patients: 327 to the panitumumab group and 330 to the control group. Median overall survival was 11.1 months (95% CI 9.8-12.2) in the panitumumab group and 9.0 months (8.1-11.2) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.873, 95% CI 0.729-1.046; p = 0.1403). Median progression-free survival was 5.8 months (95% CI 5.6-6.6) in the panitumumab group and 4.6 months (4.1-5.4) in the control group (HR 0.780, 95% CI 0.659-0.922; p = 0.0036). Several grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more frequent in the panitumumab group than in the control group: skin or eye toxicity (62 [19%] of 325 included in safety analyses vs six [2%] of 325), diarrhoea (15 [5%] vs four [1%]), hypomagnesaemia (40 [12%] vs 12 [4%]), hypokalaemia (33 [10%] vs 23 [7%]), and dehydration (16 [5%] vs seven [2%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in 14 patients (4%) in the panitumumab group and eight (2%) in the control group. Five (2%) of the fatal adverse events in the panitumumab group were attributed to the experimental agent. We had appropriate samples to assess p16 status for 443 (67%) patients, of whom 99 (22%) were p16 positive. Median overall survival in patients with p16-negative tumours was longer in the panitumumab group than in the control group (11.7 months [95% CI 9.7-13.7] vs 8.6 months [6.9-11.1]; HR 0.73 [95% CI 0.58-0.93]; p = 0.0115), but this difference was not shown for p16-positive patients (11.0 months [7.3-12.9] vs 12.6 months [7.7-17.4]; 1.00 [0.62-1.61]; p = 0.998). In the control group, p16-positive patients had numerically, but not statistically, longer overall survival than did p16-negative patients (HR 0.70 [95% CI 0.47-1.04]). Interpretation: Although the addition of panitumumab to chemotherapy did not improve overall survival in an unselected population of patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN, it improved progression-free survival and had an acceptable toxicity profile. p16 status could be a prognostic and predictive marker in patients treated with panitumumab and chemotherapy. Prospective assessment will be necessary to validate our biomarker findings

A comparability study of 5 commercial KRAS tests

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Activating mutations in the <it>KRAS </it>gene occur frequently in human tumors, including colorectal carcinomas; most mutations occur in codons 12 and 13. Mutations in <it>KRAS </it>have been associated with poor response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies. Therefore, an accurate and readily available analysis of <it>KRAS </it>mutational status is needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate concordance between <it>KRAS </it>assays performed by 6 different laboratories.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Forty formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded colorectal cancer tumor samples were obtained. Sample sections were submitted for <it>KRAS </it>mutation analysis to 5 independent commercial laboratories (Agencourt, Gentris, Genzyme, HistoGeneX, and Invitek) and to the Amgen DNA Sequencing Laboratory for direct polymerase chain reaction sequencing. The assay used by Invitek is no longer commercially available and has been replaced by an alternative technique. Results from the commercial services were compared with those from Amgen direct sequencing by κ statistics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p><it>KRAS </it>mutations were observed in codon 12 and/or 13 in 20 of 40 (50%) samples in Amgen direct sequencing assays. Results from HistoGeneX (κ = 0.95), Genzyme (κ = 0.94), and Agencourt (κ = 0.94) were in almost perfect agreement with these results, and the results from Gentris were in substantial agreement with the results from Amgen (κ = 0.75). The Invitek allele-specific assay demonstrated slight agreement (κ = 0.13).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study provides data on the comparability of <it>KRAS </it>mutational analyses. The results suggest that most (but not all) commercial services provide analysis that is accurate and comparable with direct sequencing.</p