Search Videos by Topic or Participant
Browse by Series:

Treatment Selection in RAS Wild-Type mCRC

Panelists: Axel F. Grothey, MD , Mayo Clinic ; Daniel G. Haller, MD, University of Pennsylvania; Herbert I. Hurwitz, MD, Duke University Medical Center; J
Published: Thursday, Mar 19, 2015
For High-Definition, Click
The large amount of data that have been collected for upfront treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) allows for a more individualized treatment approach for many patients. This personalization should extend beyond frontline therapy, as the frontline therapy utilized is likely not as important as the overarching treatment strategy, notes Axel Grothey, MD.

For RAS wild-type unresectable metastatic tumors, there is clearly a choice between cetuximab or panitumumab and bevacizumab with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI, based on the FIRE-3 and SWOG/CALGB 80405 data. There are nuances in terms of efficacy and toxicity between each of these therapies. When tumor burden is a large concern, there may be an advantage to using an EGFR antibody over bevacizumab, says Grothey. Since most patients are not in that situation, toxicity becomes more of an issue.

When considering the continuum of care, bevacizumab lends itself to a maintenance plan, and it can also be used beyond progression and as second-line therapy. Delaying anti-EGFR therapy also delays the onset of rash and gastrointestinal toxicities, Grothey suggests. Additionally, data from the phase III 80405 and EPIC trials has not clarified the role for an EGFR inhibitor in patients with operable liver metastases.


Slider Left
Slider Right
For High-Definition, Click
The large amount of data that have been collected for upfront treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) allows for a more individualized treatment approach for many patients. This personalization should extend beyond frontline therapy, as the frontline therapy utilized is likely not as important as the overarching treatment strategy, notes Axel Grothey, MD.

For RAS wild-type unresectable metastatic tumors, there is clearly a choice between cetuximab or panitumumab and bevacizumab with FOLFOX or FOLFIRI, based on the FIRE-3 and SWOG/CALGB 80405 data. There are nuances in terms of efficacy and toxicity between each of these therapies. When tumor burden is a large concern, there may be an advantage to using an EGFR antibody over bevacizumab, says Grothey. Since most patients are not in that situation, toxicity becomes more of an issue.

When considering the continuum of care, bevacizumab lends itself to a maintenance plan, and it can also be used beyond progression and as second-line therapy. Delaying anti-EGFR therapy also delays the onset of rash and gastrointestinal toxicities, Grothey suggests. Additionally, data from the phase III 80405 and EPIC trials has not clarified the role for an EGFR inhibitor in patients with operable liver metastases.
View Conference Coverage
Online CME Activities
TitleExpiration DateCME Credits
Community Practice Connections™: CDK4/6 Inhibitors With the Experts: The Role of Emerging Agents for the Management of Metastatic Breast CancerMay 30, 20182.0
Medical Crossfire®: Clinical Updates on PARP Inhibition and its Evolving Use in the Treatment of CancersMay 30, 20181.5
Publication Bottom Border
Border Publication
x