FIRE-4 (AIO KRK-0114): Efficacy of third-line rechallenge with cetuximab versus investigator’s choice in relation to the interval between initial and third-line anti-EGFR therapy.
Abstract
3575 Background: The randomized FIRE-4 study evaluated the effect of cetuximab rechallenge versus investigator’s choice in the 3 rd -line treatment of patients (pts) with RAS-wildtype (RAS-wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The present analysis focuses on the time between the end of initial anti-EGFR-based treatment and start of 3 rd -line therapy (TIS-3) as a potential predictor of response. Methods: In FIRE-4, all pts received induction therapy with FOLFIRI plus cetuximab. After 1 st PD, an anti-EGFR-free “window therapy” was recommended. At diagnosis of 2 nd PD, pts who had responded to induction therapy were re-evaluated for RAS status and, after exclusion of RAS mutations, were offered randomization to either rechallenge with cetuximab plus chemotherapy or investigator’s choice. Overall survival in 3 rd -line (OS-3) was evaluated as a primary endpoint. Results: Of the 87 pts entering 3 rd -line treatment in FIRE-4, 45 received (FOLF)IRI plus cetuximab (rechallenge arm), and 42 received investigator’s choice (standard arm). Numerically superior outcome parameters regarding ORR-3 (OR 2.70), PFS-3 (HR 0.87) and OS-3 (HR 0.86) were observed in the rechallenge arm, without, however, reaching the level of statistical significance. To evaluate the relevance of TIS-3, we focused on the median (13.8 months) and the first quartile (9.0 months). Based on these cut-off values, treatment effects were evaluated in pts with longer and shorter TIS-3 intervals (see Table). Conclusions: Longer TIS-3 intervals were associated with longer survival times in 3 rd -line treatment. This observation was particularly true for pts receiving cetuximab rechallenge, but also for those receiving investigator’s choice. Clinical trial information: NCT02934529 . Treatment arm N Interval PFS (mo) HR OS (mo) HR FOLF(IRI) + Cetuximab 21 > 13.8 mo 7.4 0.475P=0.019 20.0 0.639P=0.187 24 < 13.8 mo 4.1 12.6 34 > 9.0 mo 5.9 0.680P=0.274 19.6 0.601P=0.173 11 < 9.0 mo 4.0 10.8 Investigator’s choice 23 > 13.8 mo 5.6 0.772P=0.415 16.2 0.516P=0.055 19 < 13.8 mo 4.4 12.2 32 > 9.0 mo 5.5 0.690P=0.313 16.9 0.458P=0.042 10 < 9.0 mo 4.5 7.8
Article Details
Journal Info
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Authors (20)
Lena Weiss
Sebastian Stintzing
Ludwig Fischer von Weikersthal
4Gesundheitszentrum St. Marien, Amberg, Germany
Florian Kaiser
8ÜBAG-MVZ Dr. Vehling-Kaiser GmbH, Landshut, Germany
Martin Fuchs
Staedt. Klinikum Muenchen GmbH, Munich, Germany
Gerald W. Prager
Department of Medicine I, Comprehensive Cancer Center, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Kathrin Heinrich
Andreas Dickhut
10Tumorklinik, Klinikum Fulda, Fulda, Germany
Ralf Hofheinz
Mannheim Cancer Center, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany
Thomas Decker
16Oncological Practice, Ravensburg, Germany
Stefan Angermeier
Tom Ganten
RKH Fuerst-Stirum-Klinik Bruchsal, Haemato-Onkologie, Bruchsal, Germany
Christof Burkart
Schwarzwald-Baar Clinic, Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany
Matthias Sandmann
Petrus-Krankenhaus Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany
Leopold Öhler
St Josef Krankenhaus, Wien, Austria
Dora Niedersuess-Beke
Thomas Kubin
Department für Hematology, Oncology and Palliative Care, Clinics Südostbayern AG, Clinic Traunstein, Traunstein, Germany
Dominik Paul Modest
Swantje Held
AIO-Studien-gGmbH, Berlin, Germany
Volker Heinemann