Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/19816
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorShapiro, Jeremy D-
dc.contributor.authorThavaneswaran, Subotheni-
dc.contributor.authorUnderhill, Craig R-
dc.contributor.authorRobledo, Kristy P-
dc.contributor.authorKarapetis, Christos S-
dc.contributor.authorDay, Fiona L-
dc.contributor.authorNott, Louise M-
dc.contributor.authorJefford, Michael-
dc.contributor.authorChantrill, Lorraine A-
dc.contributor.authorPavlakis, Nick-
dc.contributor.authorTebbutt, Niall C-
dc.contributor.authorPrice, Timothy J-
dc.contributor.authorKhasraw, Mustafa-
dc.contributor.authorVan Hazel, Guy A-
dc.contributor.authorWaring, Paul M-
dc.contributor.authorTejpar, Sabine-
dc.contributor.authorSimes, John-
dc.contributor.authorGebski, Val J-
dc.contributor.authorDesai, Jayesh-
dc.contributor.authorSegelov, Eva-
dc.date2018-06-08-
dc.date.accessioned2018-11-26T00:51:07Z-
dc.date.available2018-11-26T00:51:07Z-
dc.date.issued2018-12-
dc.identifier.citationClinical colorectal cancer 2018; 17(4): 313-319-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/19816-
dc.description.abstractThe Irinotecan Cetuximab Evaluation and Cetuximab Response Evaluation (ICECREAM) study assessed the efficacy of cetuximab monotherapy compared with cetuximab combined with chemotherapy for quadruple wild-type (KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, or P13KCA exon 20) metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients were enrolled in an open-label, multicenter, phase II trial and randomly assigned to cetuximab 400 mg/m2, then 250 mg/m2 cetuximab weekly, with or without irinotecan 180 mg/m2 every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival; secondary endpoints were response rate, overall survival, toxicity, and quality of life. From 2012 to 2016, 48 patients were recruited. Two were ineligible, and 2 were not evaluable for response. Characteristics were balanced, except gender (male, 62% vs. 72%) and primary sidedness (left, 95% vs. 68%). For cetuximab compared with cetuximab-irinotecan, progression-free survival was 14% versus 41% (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.78; P = .008); response rate was 10% (2 partial responses) versus 38% (1 complete, 8 partial); P = .04. Grade 3 to 4 toxicities were less with cetuximab monotherapy (23% vs. 50%); global and specific quality of life scores did not differ. In comparison with cetuximab alone, cetuximab plus irinotecan increases the response rate and delays progression in irinotecan-resistant RAS wild-type colorectal cancer. This echoes data from molecularly unselected patients.-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.subjectCetuximab-
dc.subjectChemotherapy colon cancer-
dc.subjectIrinotecan-
dc.subjectRAS-
dc.titleCetuximab Alone or With Irinotecan for Resistant KRAS-, NRAS-, BRAF- and PIK3CA-wild-type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The AGITG Randomized Phase II ICECREAM Study.-
dc.typeJournal Article-
dc.identifier.journaltitleClinical colorectal cancer-
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medical Oncology, Geelong Hospital, Geelong, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Oncology, Monash Health and Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationCabrini Haematology and Oncology Centre, Cabrini Hospital and Monash University, Malvern, Victoria, Australia-
dc.identifier.affiliationOncology Department, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgiumen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medical Oncology, Royal Melbourne Hospital and Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationNational Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationAlbury-Wodonga Regional Cancer Centre and University of New South Wales, East Albury, New South Wales, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medical Oncology, Flinders Medical Centre and Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medical Oncology, Calvary Mater Newcastle Hospital and University of Newcastle, Waratah, New South Wales, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medical Oncology, Royal Hobart Hospital, Hobart, Tasmania, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medical Oncology, Kinghorn Cancer Centre, St Vincent's Hospital and University of New South Wales, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationNorthern Cancer Institute, Royal North Shore Hospital, and University of Sydney, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medical Oncology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationMedical Oncology Unit, Queen Elizabeth Hospital and Lyell McEwin Hospital, Elizabeth Vale, South Australia, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationSchool of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Pathology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.clcc.2018.06.002-
dc.identifier.pubmedid30463680-
dc.type.austinJournal Article-
local.name.researcherTebbutt, Niall C
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.languageiso639-1en-
crisitem.author.deptMedical Oncology-
crisitem.author.deptOlivia Newton-John Cancer Wellness and Research Centre-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

24
checked on Nov 25, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.