This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lilenbaum, R. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lilenbaum, R. C.

The Evolving Role of Cetuximab in Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer

Author's Affiliation: Thoracic Oncology Program, Mount Sinai Cancer Center, Miami Beach, Florida

Requests for reprints: Rogerio C. Lilenbaum, Thoracic Oncology Program, Mount Sinai Cancer Center, 3rd Floor, 4306 Alton Road, Miami Beach, FL 33140. Phone: 305-535-3310; Fax: 305-535-3324; E-mail: rlilenba{at}salick.com.

	Abstract

Top Abstract Refractory NSCLC First-Line NSCLC Differences between Cetuximab... Ongoing Trials Conclusions Open Discussion References

 
Cetuximab is a monoclonal antibody directed against the ligand binding site in the extracellular domain of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Cetuximab is currently approved for the treatment of patients with refractory colorectal cancer. In locally advanced head and neck carcinoma, cetuximab in combination with radiotherapy significantly improved survival compared with radiotherapy alone, and this treatment awaits Food and Drug Administration approval. In previously treated non–small cell lung cancer, single-agent cetuximab produced an objective response in 3 of 66 eligible patients and a median survival of 8.1 months. Treatment was well tolerated, with skin rash as the principal toxicity. The vast majority of patients (60 of 66) expressed EGFR by immunohistochemistry but no correlation existed between response and EGFR mutations. Two single-arm phase II trials testing cetuximab in combination with a platinum-based doublet in previously untreated patients showed responses in the range of 26% to 29%, with median survival times of 10 to 11 months. A European phase II randomized trial tested cisplatin/vinorelbine with or without cetuximab as first-line therapy in 86 patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. Overall efficacy was slightly superior in the cetuximab arm and a phase III trial is currently ongoing to definitively determine the role of cetuximab in this setting.

Cetuximab is administered at a loading dose of 400 mg/m² followed by a maintenance dose of 250 mg/m² weekly. Single-agent toxicities are primarily skin rash and hypersensitivity reactions. Cetuximab is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for patients with refractory colon cancer alone or in combination with irinotecan (3). More recently, a phase III study of radiotherapy with or without cetuximab in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer showed a significant survival advantage in favor of cetuximab-treated patients (4). This study led the Food and Drug Administration to approve the use of this combination in this setting.

In this review, we discuss the available data for cetuximab in first- and second-line NSCLC and some of the ongoing clinical trials. We also discuss differences in the mechanism of action between cetuximab and the oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors gefitinib and erlotinib, which may have implications for how these agents are used in this disease.

	Refractory NSCLC

Top Abstract Refractory NSCLC First-Line NSCLC Differences between Cetuximab... Ongoing Trials Conclusions Open Discussion References

 
The first clinical trial to explore cetuximab in NSCLC was conducted by investigators at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Patients with refractory NSCLC, defined as progressive disease during first-line platinum-based chemotherapy or within 3 months of its completion, received docetaxel at a dose of 75 mg/m² every 3 weeks in combination with cetuximab at the standard dose and schedule (5). All 54 patients enrolled were positive for EGFR by immunohistochemistry. Among 47 evaluable patients, the authors reported a 28% response rate and a median survival of 7.5 months.

More recently, the only phase II trial of cetuximab as a single agent in recurrent NSCLC was reported (6). Patients treated with at least one prior regimen were eligible. Although both EGFR-positive and EGFR-negative patients were enrolled, the vast majority (60 of 66) had EGFR-positive tumors. A total of 66 patients were entered, all of whom had a performance status of 0 to 1. Adenocarcinoma was the most common histology and 20% of patients were never smokers. Most patients (55 of 66) had received either one or two prior regimens. Three patients had an objective response (4.5%) and 20 patients achieved disease stabilization. Median survival and 1-year survival rates were 8.1 months and 41%, respectively. Toxicities were mild, with only 6% of patients experiencing grade 3/4 rash.

A subsequent analysis of EGFR mutations was done in 39 of 43 available samples. Of the three responders, two had tissue available and neither had a mutation. Of the three patients who were found to carry mutations, two had stable disease as their best response and one had progressive disease. These findings corroborate the existing data suggesting that, in contrast to the oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors, EGFR mutations do not seem to play a role in predicting response from cetuximab. This is not completely unexpected given the fact that the mutations occur at the ATP-biding site of the EGFR, which is the binding site for the tyrosine kinase inhibitors but not for cetuximab.

	First-Line NSCLC

Top Abstract Refractory NSCLC First-Line NSCLC Differences between Cetuximab... Ongoing Trials Conclusions Open Discussion References

 
Two multi-institutional phase II trials, using similar designs, tested the combination of cetuximab with standard platinum-based doublets in patients with previously untreated advanced NSCLC. The first, led by the University of Colorado investigators, used carboplatin and paclitaxel (7); the second, led by University of Alabama researchers, used carboplatin and gemcitabine (8). All patients had EGFR-positive tumors. The concomitant use of cetuximab with chemotherapy did not seem to enhance overall toxicity. The response and survival results in both trials were encouraging (Table 1 ) and compared favorably to previous trials using chemotherapy alone.

	Differences between Cetuximab and the Oral Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors

Top Abstract Refractory NSCLC First-Line NSCLC Differences between Cetuximab... Ongoing Trials Conclusions Open Discussion References

 
The four phase III clinical trials that added gefitinib or erlotinib to standard chemotherapy failed to show a survival advantage (10–13). On the other hand, although not yet subjected to phase III testing, the preliminary experience with cetuximab has shown promising results. Thus, it is pertinent to highlight some of the differences between cetuximab and the tyrosine kinase inhibitors that may have implications for their future use in clinical practice.

First, the effect of cetuximab on the ligand binding site of the receptor leads to internalization and subsequent degradation, with no viable receptor left on the cell surface. The tyrosine kinase inhibitors bind to the intracellular tyrosine kinase domain and cause temporary (reversible) inhibition of the receptor. Second, like other antibodies, it is possible that cetuximab stimulates antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity, which may contribute to its antitumor effects (14). Third, pharmacologic differences may also play a role. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors are subject to oral absorption, which can vary widely among individuals, and interact directly with cytochrome P450 and other cytochrome systems. Cetuximab is administered i.v. and has a more predictable pharmacokinetic curve. Fourth and lastly, most patients who received cetuximab had some degree of EGFR expression and may have represented a more "targeted" population, in contrast to patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors who were not selected on the basis of EGFR expression. Whether or not EGFR immunohistochemical expression is a predictor of benefit from cetuximab or tyrosine kinase inhibitors remains controversial (15).

Clinical responses to gefitinib after failure to cetuximab have been reported (16). However, perhaps more pertinent is a recent report by investigators at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute who compared the effects of gefitinib and cetuximab on NSCLC cell lines bearing EGFR mutations (17). For wild-type cell lines, the effects of the two agents on growth inhibition and induction of apoptosis were comparable. However, for cell lines bearing the EGFR mutations, gefitinib was more effective than cetuximab. The investigators supplemented their experiment with clinical data on four patients, all of whom were mutation carriers, who had significant responses to gefitinib after deriving no substantial benefit from cetuximab.

	Ongoing Trials

Top Abstract Refractory NSCLC First-Line NSCLC Differences between Cetuximab... Ongoing Trials Conclusions Open Discussion References

 
In first-line NSCLC, European investigators are conducting a phase III trial of cisplatin and vinorelbine with or without cetuximab as a follow-up to the randomized phase II results discussed above. U.S. investigators from the Southwest Oncology Group recently completed a randomized phase II study of cetuximab given both concomitantly and after carboplatin and paclitaxel or given only after chemotherapy to address the best sequence of administration of cetuximab and chemotherapy. Investigators from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group recently launched a phase II trial of single-agent cetuximab in patients with bronchioloalveolar carcinoma.

In the second-line therapy setting, a four-arm randomized phase III trial is comparing docetaxel and pemetrexed with and without cetuximab. In addition, there are ongoing trials exploring the combination of cetuximab with gefitinib and erlotinib in patients with refractory NSCLC.

As discussed above, a recent phase III trial in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer showed a significant survival advantage for patients treated with radiation plus cetuximab compared with radiation alone (4). This experience stimulated investigators to explore cetuximab in stage III locally advanced NSCLC. The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group recently completed accrual to a phase II trial of concurrent radiation and carboplatin/paclitaxel/cetuximab followed by two cycles of consolidation with the same triple combination. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B recently activated a randomized phase II trial of radiation plus carboplatin/pemetrexed with or without cetuximab, followed by consolidation with pemetrexed.

Lastly, there are a few initiatives exploring the use of cetuximab in special populations. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B has launched a phase II randomized trial of weekly docetaxel with either cetuximab or bortezomib as first-line therapy for patients with a performance status of 2. Other cooperative groups are developing trials designed to incorporate cetuximab with radiation in poor-prognosis patients with locally advanced disease who are not eligible for more aggressive therapy. Investigators at the Harvard-affiliated institutions are currently testing cetuximab in combination with vinorelbine in elderly patients.

	Conclusions

Top Abstract Refractory NSCLC First-Line NSCLC Differences between Cetuximab... Ongoing Trials Conclusions Open Discussion References

 
Cetuximab is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for refractory colon cancer, alone or with irinotecan, and for locally advanced head and neck cancer, along with radiotherapy. The rationale for testing cetuximab in NSCLC is based on the well-established role of EGFR inhibition in this disease. Preliminary data suggest that cetuximab lends itself to combination with chemotherapy and radiation therapy without excessive toxicity and with promising antitumor activity. Phase III data in first- and second-line NSCLC should become available in the near future. At this time, the data, albeit limited, are sufficient to justify the expectation that cetuximab, used in combination with chemotherapy, may have a different fate than the tyrosine kinase inhibitors in combination with chemotherapy. However, only phase III trials will answer this question definitively.

Further, other issues about the optimal use of cetuximab in NSCLC remain open to debate. What is the best sequence of administration for cetuximab and chemotherapy? Is the best use of cetuximab in combination with radiotherapy? What about combinations with other targeted agents? And, finally, are there surrogate markers or clinical predictors for benefit from cetuximab? These and other questions will hopefully be addressed by the ongoing research.

	Open Discussion

Top Abstract Refractory NSCLC First-Line NSCLC Differences between Cetuximab... Ongoing Trials Conclusions Open Discussion References

 
Dr. Bruce Johnson: In my opinion, a response rate of 4.5% is so low a signal that there is no clear advantage from the randomized phase II studies to say that cetuximab would add a lot to chemotherapy. So I'm surprised the company has invested as much as they have in the combination studies without trying to enrich the population.

Dr. Thomas Lynch: The one thing that persuades me this is not a terrible drug to study further is the fact that, in colorectal cancer, it prolonged survival with chemotherapy. And in head and neck cancer, with radiation, it prolonged survival. We haven't been able to find that with the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Dr. Bruce Johnson: I think head and neck cancer is very different from lung cancer, and colon cancer is very different from lung cancer. We have been down this path before of assuming an agent is going to be better with chemotherapy without a whole lot of data going into it.

Dr. Alan Sandler: If you can't beat the results of a phase III study with a phase II, it is hard to go forward. The randomized phase II maybe only shows that the particular way of giving cisplatin/vinorelbine, with a 7-month median survival, isn't a good one. But that is the study that I find the most troubling.

Dr. Paul Bunn: The hazard ratio in the randomized phase II for survival was actually 0.75, although it is not legitimate in a randomized phase II to do that. But most every drug that has been approved for lung cancer has a hazard rate between 0.7 and 0.8. The ongoing trials Dr. Lilenbaum showed are all reasonable. If I owned the stock and it was my money, would I have done as many of these? No. But there is nothing wrong with any of the ones that were done. I think the Southwest Oncology Group study will give us a lot of information. So this is not going to be a home run, but could it be a single? It could be. But we are going to find out from the trials. The trials are the right trials.

Dr. Sandler: All the phase II studies, I think, were fine. The question is, would you go to phase III based on the phase II studies?

Dr. Bunn: No, you wouldn't. But I think this antibody actually might be better than the new ones. When John Mendelsohn and Gordon Sato were making this antibody, they developed a ton of different antibodies. They looked at immunoglobulins G1, G2, and G3, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, and growth inhibition, and this one stood out. It is possible that this antibody could be better than the humanized ones.

Dr. Alex Adjei: Actually the possibility of antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, since this is a chimeric antibody, was the topic I wanted to bring up for discussion. There was a randomized phase II trial of the Amgen/Abgenix antibody panitumumab, comparing it to chemotherapy, and there was absolutely no difference. Clearly it is early, but the signals from cetuximab look a bit more interesting than from the purely humanized panitumumab. But it maybe that antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity is not important. I don't know if anybody has a clue on that.

Dr. David Johnson: I do think this is a good drug. I think gefitinib is a good drug. But I think we've seen some errors made in the development plans. These dollars might have been spent a great deal more wisely in understanding a little bit more about the issues. Why are we asking whether this drug has antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity? That seems to me to be a pretty straightforward question that one could answer. If we intend to make consensus statements as part of this conference, I think we should argue for smarter trials based on more reasonable development plans. I worry this drug will end up never being used in this disease.

Dr. Lynch: One of our ex-presidents of American Society of Clinical Oncology tells us that he thinks the planned trials are good trials that will answer the question of whether or not this drug has activity in lung cancer. Our other ex-president feels that these are not good trials. Where do you disagree and on which trials?

Dr. David Johnson: For each individual trial if you said, "Is this a reasonable thing to do?" The answer is, "Yes, it's a reasonable thing to do." The development plan is unreasonable, in my view. We don't control that, although we are willing participants, and I think that is part of the problem.

Dr. Bunn: My criticisms would be about the surrogate markers. The data thus far suggest that mutations are not going to be as important for the antibody as they are for the small molecule inhibitors. Again, 90% of the people have wild-type receptors. That's the major problem with mutation: it is only pertinent, at least in North America, to 10% or 12% of the population. But wouldn't we like to know if fluorescence in situ hybridization or immunohistochemistry or something else would enrich populations for this drug? There's not a single paper on any of that. When we get done with all these trials, we are not going to know whether enrichment would help this drug. So that is my major criticism. The Southwest Oncology Group trial has been criticized for not having markers, but a randomized phase II to see whether sequential looks better than combination makes sense.

Dr. David Johnson: I also think the Southwest Oncology Group trial is one that I would do.

Dr. Glenwood Goss: I thought you should have a comment from somebody who is never going to be president of American Society of Clinical Oncology. The phase II studies are not overwhelming, and phase II results are usually better than phase III results. I can tell you that, outside of the United States, an i.v. drug will not be used in non–small-cell lung cancer unless they can define a population which allows a better result than is seen in that randomized phase II study.

Dr. Lilenbaum: I don't disagree with most of the comments. I think that it is very hard to get a signal from those studies, and most people now would say there is not enough to move on to a phase III to study the combination with chemotherapy. I'm intrigued, though, by the cetuximab and radiation data. Few people here would have predicted the difference in survival that was reached in that trial [Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004, abstract 5507]. So I still think that maybe the role for this drug will be locally advanced disease.

	Footnotes

 
Presented at the Third Cambridge Conference on Novel Agents in the Treatment of Lung Cancer: Advances in EGFR-Targeted Agents, September 23-24, 2005, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Received 1/15/06; revised 5/19/06; accepted 5/19/06.

	References

Top Abstract Refractory NSCLC First-Line NSCLC Differences between Cetuximab... Ongoing Trials Conclusions Open Discussion References

 

1. Mendelsohn J. Epidermal growth factor inhibition by a monoclonal antibody as anticancer therapy. Clin Cancer Res 1997;3:2703–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Raben D, Helfrich B, Chan DC, et al. The effects of cetuximab alone and in combination with radiation and/or chemotherapy in lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:795–805.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Cunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S. Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;351:337–45.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4. Bonner JA, Giralt J, Harari M. Cetuximab prolongs survival in patients with loc-regionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck: a phase III study of high-dose radiation therapy with or without cetuximab. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004;23: abstr 5507.
5. Kim ES, Mauer AM, Tran HT, et al. A phase II of cetuximab, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) blocking antibody, in combination with docetaxel in chemotherapy refractory/resistant patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003;22:642.
6. Lilenbaum R, Bonomi P, Ansari R, et al. A phase II trial of cetuximab as therapy for recurrent non-small cell lung cancer. Final results. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2005;23: abstr 7036.
7. Kelly K, Hanna N, Rosenberg A, et al. Multicenter phase II study of cetuximab in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in untreated patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003;22:644.
8. Robert F, Blumenschein K, Dicke T, et al. Phase Ib/IIa study of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody, cetuximab, in combination with gemcitabine/carboplatin in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer [abstract 2587]. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2003;22:643.
9. Rosell R, Daniel C, Ramlau R, et al. Randomized phase II study of cetuximab in combination with cisplatin (C) and vinorelbine (V) versus CV alone I the first-line treatment of patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-expressing advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004;23: abstr 7012.
10. Herbst RS, Prager D, Hermann R, et al. TRIBUTE: a phase III trial of erlotinib hydrochloride (OSI-774) combined with carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:5892–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
11. Herbst RS, Giaccone G, Schiller JH, et al. Gefitinib in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial-INTACT 2. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:785–94.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Giaccone G, Herbst RS, Manegold C, et al. Gefitinib in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial-INTACT 1. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:777–84.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
13. Gatzemeier U. Results of a phase III trial of erlotinib (OSI-774) combined with cisplatin and gemcitabine (GC) chemotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2004;22: abstr 7010.
14. Bier H, Hoffmann T, Haas I, et al. Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibodies for the induction of antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity against squamous cell carcinoma lines of the head and neck. Cancer Immunol Immunother 1998;46:167–73.[CrossRef][Medline]
15. Johnson B, Janne P. Selecting patients for epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor treatment: a FISH story or a tale of mutations? J Clin Oncol 2005;23:6813–6.[Free Full Text]
16. Raez L, Lopes G, Lilenbaum R. Clinical responses to gefitinib after failure of treatment with cetuximab in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4244–5.[Free Full Text]
17. Mukohara T, Engelman JA, Hanna N, et al. Differential effects of gefitinib and cetuximab on non-small cell lung cancers bearing epidermal growth factor receptor mutations. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:1185–94.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Peipp, T. Schneider-Merck, M. Dechant, T. Beyer, J. J. Lammerts van Bueren, W. K. Bleeker, P. W. H. I. Parren, J. G. J. van de Winkel, and T. Valerius Tumor Cell Killing Mechanisms of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Antibodies Are Not Affected by Lung Cancer-Associated EGFR Kinase Mutations J. Immunol., March 15, 2008; 180(6): 4338 - 4345. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lilenbaum, R. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lilenbaum, R. C.