Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2007 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition).
Vol 25, No 18S (June 20 Supplement), 2007: 4137
© 2007 American Society of Clinical Oncology

This Article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Siena, S. Articles by Wilke, H. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Siena, S. Articles by Wilke, H.

Abstract

Infusion-related reactions (IRR) associated with cetuximab plus irinotecan treatment in patients with irinotecan-resistant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Findings from the MABEL study

Ospedale Niguarda Ca’ Granda, Milan, Italy; The Cancer Centre, Mount Vernon Hospital, Middlesex, United Kingdom; Klinikum Kreuzschwestern Wels, Wels, Austria; Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France; Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik A, Munster, Germany; Hospital Provincial Reina Sofia, Córdoba, Spain; Clinique de Genolier, Genolier, Switzerland; Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany; Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany

4137

Background: Cetuximab is an IgG1 anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody, active alone and in combination with irinotecan in mCRC patients (pts) who have failed prior irinotecan therapy. In previous studies with cetuximab, IRRs were observed in a small proportion of pts especially at the first infusion. Methods: MABEL investigated cetuximab plus irinotecan in pts with EGFR-detectable mCRC whose last treatment regimen contained irinotecan. A secondary objective of MABEL was to further study cetuximab-related adverse events. Study treatment was cetuximab, initial dose 400 mg/m², weekly 250 mg/m², plus irinotecan with dose and schedule as pre-study. Data analyzed included prophylactic pre-medication, IRRs and medication for IRRs. Prophylactic medication given before the first cetuximab infusion was categorized as chlorphenamine antihistamines, antihistamines other than chlorphenamine, and any antihistamines plus corticosteroids. Results: Overall, 1147 pts were treated in this study: median age was 62 years [25–84], Karnofsky performance status was =70% and 64% pts were male. 1,122 patients were pre-treated with antihistamines. The frequency of IRRs was lower in pts who received antihistamines plus corticosteroids than in pts who received antihistamines alone (9.6% vs 25.6% any grade, 1% vs 4.7% grade 3/4 IRRs). The primary efficacy variable of MABEL was the 12-weeks progression-free survival (PFS) status. Efficacy results by pre-medication groups for PFS (see table) and overall survival do not suggest differences related to prophylactic pre-medication. Conclusions: The data suggest that the type of pre-medication impacts on the occurrence of IRRs, and that the addition of corticosteroids to antihistamines reduces IRRs without altering antitumor efficacy in the analyzed pre-medication groups.

No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Abstract presentation from the 2007 ASCO Annual Meeting