Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Effects of Type of Antibody to EGFR and Hypomagnesemia on Overall Survival in First-line Treatment of Patients With Unresectable Advanced/Recurrent Colorectal Cancer

MICHIO KIMURA, EISEKI USAMI and TOMOAKI YOSHIMURA
Anticancer Research December 2020, 40 (12) 7135-7140; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.14743
MICHIO KIMURA
Department of Pharmacy, Ogaki Municipal Hospital, Gifu, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: kimkim0305nao@yahoo.co.jp
EISEKI USAMI
Department of Pharmacy, Ogaki Municipal Hospital, Gifu, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TOMOAKI YOSHIMURA
Department of Pharmacy, Ogaki Municipal Hospital, Gifu, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Aim: To clarify the differences in overall survival (OS) depending on the presence or absence of hypomagnesemia and the type of epidermal growth factor receptor antibody as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients and Methods: We retrospectively compared the OS in 68 patients who received cetuximab or panitumumab for mCRC at Ogaki Municipal Hospital (Ogaki, Japan) between January 2010 and December 2019. Results: The complete and partial response rates in the cetuximab and panitumumab groups were 60.0% and 72.0%, respectively (p=0.470). The OS was significantly longer in the panitumumab group (median=1,007 days, range=208-1,433 days) than in the cetuximab group (median=735 days, range=181-2,391 days; p=0.047). Hypomagnesemia did not contribute to differences in OS in the two groups. Conclusion: Panitumumab may lead to a longer OS than cetuximab as first-line treatment of mCRC. The presence or absence of hypomagnesemia in cetuximab- or panitumumab-treated patients did not affect OS.

Key Words:
  • Cetuximab
  • panitumumab
  • first-line treatment
  • overall survival
  • metastatic colorectal cancer
  • hypomagnesemia

Cetuximab and panitumumab are monoclonal antibodies used as standard treatments for unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that target the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) (1). EGFR antibodies (cetuximab and panitumumab) are usually first-line therapies used in combination with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/fuorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan

(FOLFOX/FOLFIRI) therapy in unresectable mCRC with wild-type Kirsten rat sarcoma 2 viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) (2-4). Such therapy results in additional effects on progression-free and overall survival (OS), and the response rate. However, to our knowledge, the OS associated with cetuximab and panitumumab has not been compared.

Hypomagnesemia is an adverse event (AE) of anti-EGFR therapy, and the incidence of severe hypomagnesemia is 4.4-5.4%. Because expression of transient receptor potential melastatin 6 (TRPM6) is regulated by EGF, antibodies targeting EGFR reduce TRPM6 expression and prevent magnesium reabsorption. Thus, hypomagnesemia may indicate the effectiveness of anti-EGFR therapy (5-8) but as far as we are aware, no comparisons exist between the types of EGFR antibodies. In addition, reported correlations between AEs and effectiveness relate only to second and subsequent treatments, and do not compared the relationship in the first treatment.

In this way, the relationships between OS, the type of EGFR antibody and hypomagnesemia in mCRC have not yet been clarified. There is a need to identify patients who can benefit from anti-EGFR treatment; moreover, clarifying the relationship between the type of EGFR antibody and OS can strengthen clinical decision-making and patient outcomes.

Panitumumab has a stronger affinity for EGFR than cetuximab (9), and the risk of developing hypomagnesemia is significantly higher with use of panitumumab (10). The purpose of this study was to clarify the relationship between the type of EGFR antibody (panitumumab and cetuximab), magnesium level, and OS in first-line treatment in patients with mCRC. We hypothesized that panitumumab is associated with a higher incidence of hypomagnesemia than cetuximab, and that its effect on OS would be significant.

Patients and Methods

Patients and evaluations. We retrospectively reviewed 71 patients who received cetuximab or panitumumab for mCRC (stage IV) at Ogaki Municipal Hospital (Ogaki, Japan) between January 2010 and December 2019. However, we excluded three patients who were transferred to another hospital during the treatment or did not receive more than two courses of EGFR antibody therapy. Thus, 68 patients were eligible for this study. Patient characteristics, OS, treatment period, response rate, reason for discontinuation, and AEs (hypomagnesemia) were analyzed using data collected from electronic charts and pharmacy service records. The occurrence of hypomagnesemia (<1.5 mg/dl) after starting anti-EGFR treatment were evaluated according to receiving either cetuximab or panitumumab. Patient characteristics were extracted from anonymized patient records. The most severe grades of AEs were evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for AEs, version 4.0 (11). The study’s retrospective protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Ogaki Municipal Hospital (Ogaki, Japan; 20200924-2), and the requirement for informed consent was waived based on the retrospective nature of the study. OS was defined as the interval between the date of initiation of cetuximab or panitumumab therapy and the date of death from any cause. Tumor responses were assessed according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 (12).

Statistical analysis. We evaluated the differences between the two patient groups using either the Mann–Whitney U-test or Fisher’s exact probability test. The Kaplan–Meier log-rank test was used to compare OS. Significance was defined as p<0.05, and all statistical analyses were performed using EZR software (v1.30; Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan), a graphical user interface for R (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) (13).

Results

Patient characteristics. The cetuximab and panitumumab groups comprised 37 and 31 patients, respectively. The patient characteristics are summarized in Table I. The median age of the patients in the cetuximab and panitumumab groups was 64 (range=37-80) and 68 (range=47-78) years, respectively. The cetuximab group had a higher percentage of patients with peritoneal metastases than the panitumumab group (p=0.014).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Patient characteristics.

Development of hypomagnesemia according to anti-EGFR treatment. Hypomagnesemia was significantly (p=0.009) more frequently observed in patients who received cetuximab (seven out of 37) than in those who received panitumumab (15 out of 31).

Response rate and reasons for discontinuation. The response rate (complete plus partial responses) in the cetuximab and panitumumab groups was 60.0% and 72.0%, respectively, with no significance (p=0.470) (Table II). Rates of progressive disease, stable disease, partial response and complete response did not differ significantly between the two groups.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Comparison of response rate between cetuximab- and panitumumab-treated groups.

Table III summarizes the reasons for discontinuation of first-line treatment (cetuximab or panitumumab). Discontinuation was significantly more common for panitumumab (32.3%) than cetuximab (8.1%) in patients undergoing conversion surgery after treatment with anticancer drugs (p=0.012), whilst the converse was true for patients with progressive disease (72.3% vs. 29.0%, respectively; p=0.001).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Reasons for discontinuation after first-line treatment.

Overall survival and treatment duration according to hypomagnesemia. Figure 1 summarizes the treatment duration according to the presence or absence of hypomagnesemia. In patients using cetuximab, the median treatment duration was 296 (range=168-585) and 259 (range=72-1,001) days, in patients with and without hypomagnesemia, respectively, with no significance (p=0.683). In patients using panitumumab, the duration of treatment in those with hypomagnesemia was significantly longer (p=0.043) at 271 (range=28-658) days than in those without (150 days, range=42-568 days), respectively.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Kaplan–Meier survival curves of treatment duration according to presence or absence of hypomagnesemia in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with panitumumab or cetuximab.

Overall, in patients using cetuximab, the median OS was 581 (range=228-868) and 717 (range=181-2,391) days in those with and without hypomagnesemia respectively, with no significance (p=0.101). In those using panitumumab, the corresponding OS was 576 (range=236-1,433) and 528 (range=207-1,251) days, respectively, with no significance (p=0.345).

OS and treatment duration by type of EGFR antibody. Figure 2 shows the Kaplan–Meier survival curves for treatment duration and OS of patients administered cetuximab or panitumumab as first-line treatment. The median duration of cetuximab and panitumumab treatment was 275 (range=72-1001) and 176 (range=28-658) days, respectively (log-rank test, p=0.382; Figure 2A). The OS was significantly longer in the panitumumab group at 1,007 (range=208-1,433) days than that in the cetuximab group of 735 days (range=181-2,391; p=0.047; Figure 2B).

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Kaplan–Meier survival curves of treatment duration and overall survival following first-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer with panitumumab or cetuximab.

Discussion

In this study, we clarified the differences in OS depending on the type of EGFR antibody as first-line therapy in mCRC and the presence or absence of hypomagnesemia. Although there was no difference in response rate between the panitumumab- and cetuximab-treated with groups, our results indicated that OS was longer practically a third for those treated with panitumumab compared with those treated with cetuximab. The panitumumab group (32.3%) also had a higher proportion of conversion surgery than the cetuximab group (8.1%). Conversely, the development of hypomagnesemia did not affect OS.

Petrellir et al. also reported that panitumumab was associated with a significantly increased risk of hypomagnesemia compared with cetuximab (10). The occurrence of grade 3-4 hypomagnesemia was also higher in the panitumumab group [35 (7%) vs. 13 (3%)] in the phase III ASPECCT study on mCRC (1). In our study, the incidence of hypomagnesemia was higher in the panitumumab group than in the cetuximab group. It has been reported that the development of hypomagnesemia prolongs treatment with EGFR antibodies (5). However, these were not individual comparisons of cetuximab and panitumumab. In our study, comparisons of the duration of treatment according to hypomagnesemia revealed a difference only in the panitumumab-treated group. Panitumumab has a stronger affinity for the extracellular domain of the EGFR than does cetuximab (9). Our study showed that hypomagnesemia did not affect OS, albeit this was possibly owing to the small sample size.

No reports have directly compared the subsequent OS of patients treated with EGFR antibodies as first-line treatments for mCRC. In chemotherapy-refractory, ASPECCT study findings showed that panitumumab was non-inferior to cetuximab and that these agents provide similar OS benefits in this patient population, with median OS of 10.4 months with panitumumab and 10.0 months with cetuximab (1). For KRAS wild-type mCRC previously treated with fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin and irinotecan, panitumumab with irinotecan was well tolerated, and displayed a similar level of efficacy to that of cetuximab plus irinotecan (14). Using a systematic literature search, Ciliberto et al. reported that FOLFOX plus panitumumab has the ability to provide improvements in survival with a good safety profile, particularly in patients with RAS wild-type mCRC on first-line treatment (15). In our study, OS was significantly longer in panitumumab than in cetuximab patients.

In a phase II study comparing treatment regimen with fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) with modified FOLFOXIRI plus panitumumab administration as a first-line treatment for RAS wild-type mCRC, it was found that the combination treatment benefited patients eligible for chemotherapy who had a high tumor burden or were aiming for secondary resection of metastases. The group treated with modified FOLFOXIRI plus panitumumab had a significantly higher response (87.3%) and secondary resection rate of metastatic lesions (33.3%). Progression-free survival was similar in both groups but OS tended to be better in the combination group (median=35.7 months) (16). In our study, response rates for the two groups were similar. However, OS was longer for those treated with panitumumab. Panitumumab was more frequently discontinued because of conversion surgery than cetuximab. Conversion surgery transforms advanced inoperable cancer using chemotherapy into a smaller resectable tumor, with excision of the affected area by surgical intervention when the curative intent is evident via imaging. Chemotherapy is the treatment of choice for patients with stage IV cancer. Conversion surgery (curative surgery on patients responding to chemotherapy) may contribute to long-term survival (17-20); therefore, a plausible explanation for the higher OS in the panitumumab-treated group may be attributed to the effects of conversion surgery.

The present study has several limitations. Firstly, the findings are limited due to the lack of standardized prospective tests. Secondly, the primary lesions were not considered separately. A large difference in prognosis is recognized depending on the primary site (right or left) of CRC. Patients with right primary CRC treated with bevacizumab and patients with left primary treated with anti-EGFR had longer survival times (21). Thus, well-designed studies are needed to address these factors and validate our results.

In conclusion, we believe that physicians and pharmacists must collaborate to monitor hypomagnesemia as an AE of treatment; panitumumab may lead to a longer OS than cetuximab in the first-line treatment of mCRC.

Footnotes

  • Authors’ Contributions

    MK contributed to the design of the case report, collection, and provision of data. MK is the principal author of the article, and the guarantor of the article and all the data. EU and TY contributed to the clinical studies design, reviewed the article, and supervised the report and publication process. All Authors approved the final version of the article.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors declare no conflicts of interest.

  • Received October 6, 2020.
  • Revision received October 15, 2020.
  • Accepted October 16, 2020.
  • Copyright © 2020 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Price TJ,
    2. Peeters M,
    3. Kim TW,
    4. Li J,
    5. Cascinu S,
    6. Ruff P,
    7. Suresh AS,
    8. Thomas A,
    9. Tjulandin S,
    10. Zhang K,
    11. Murugappan S and
    12. Sidhu R
    : Panitumumab versus cetuximab in patients with chemotherapy-refractory wild-type KRAS exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer (ASPECCT): A randomised, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 15: 569-579, 2014. PMID: 24739896. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70118-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Venook AP,
    2. Niedzwiecki D,
    3. Lenz HJ,
    4. Innocenti F,
    5. Fruth B,
    6. Meyerhardt JA,
    7. Schrag D,
    8. Greene C,
    9. O’Neil BH,
    10. Atkins JN,
    11. Berry S,
    12. Polite BN,
    13. O’Reilly EM,
    14. Goldberg RM,
    15. Hochster HS,
    16. Schilsky RL,
    17. Bertagnolli MM,
    18. El-Khoueiry AB,
    19. Watson P,
    20. Benson AB 3rd, Mulkerin DL,
    21. Mayer RJ and
    22. Blanke C
    : Effect of first-line chemotherapy combined with cetuximab or bevacizumab on overall survival in patients with KRAS wild-type advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 317: 2392-2401, 2017. PMID: 28632865. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.7105
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Tsuji A,
    2. Sunakawa Y,
    3. Ichikawa W,
    4. Nakamura M,
    5. Kochi M,
    6. Denda T,
    7. Yamaguchi T,
    8. Shimada K,
    9. Takagane A,
    10. Tani S,
    11. Kotaka M,
    12. Kuramochi H,
    13. Furushima K,
    14. Koike J,
    15. Yonemura Y,
    16. Takeuchi M,
    17. Fujii M and
    18. Nakajima T
    : Early tumor shrinkage and depth of response as predictors of favorable treatment outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with FOLFOX plus cetuximab (JACCRO CC-05). Target Oncol 11: 799-806, 2016. PMID: 27306648. DOI: 10.1007/s11523-016-0445-6
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. ↵
    1. Peeters M,
    2. Price TJ,
    3. Cervantes A,
    4. Sobrero AF,
    5. Ducreux M,
    6. Hotko Y,
    7. André T,
    8. Chan E,
    9. Lordick F,
    10. Punt CJ,
    11. Strickland AH,
    12. Wilson G,
    13. Ciuleanu TE,
    14. Roman L,
    15. Van Cutsem E,
    16. Tzekova V,
    17. Collins S,
    18. Oliner KS,
    19. Rong A and
    20. Gansert J.
    Randomized, phase III trial of panitumumab with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as first-line treatment in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: The PRIME study. J Clin Oncol 28: 4697-705, 2010. PMID: 20921465. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.4860
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Fujii H,
    2. Iihara H,
    3. Suzuki A,
    4. Kobayashi R,
    5. Matsuhashi N,
    6. Takahashi T,
    7. Yoshida K and
    8. Itoh Y
    : Hypomagnesemia is a reliable predictor for efficacy of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody used in combination with first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 77: 1209-1215, 2016. PMID: 27106835. DOI: 10.1007/s00280-016-3039-1
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Hsieh MC,
    2. Wu CF,
    3. Chen CW,
    4. Shi CS,
    5. Huang WS and
    6. Kuan FC
    : Hypomagnesemia and clinical benefits of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies in wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 8: 2047, 2018. PMID: 29391418. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-19835-8
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Vincenzi B,
    2. Galluzzo S,
    3. Santini D,
    4. Rocci L,
    5. Loupakis F,
    6. Correale P,
    7. Addeo R,
    8. Zoccoli A,
    9. Napolitano A,
    10. Graziano F,
    11. Ruzzo A,
    12. Falcone A,
    13. Francini G,
    14. Dicuonzo G and
    15. Tonini G
    : Early magnesium modifications as a surrogate marker of efficacy of cetuximab-based anticancer treatment in KRAS wild-type advanced colorectal cancer patients. Ann Oncol 22: 1141-1146, 2011. PMID: 21115601. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdq550
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Vickers MM,
    2. Karapetis CS,
    3. Tu D,
    4. O’Callaghan CJ,
    5. Price TJ,
    6. Tebbutt NC,
    7. Van Hazel G,
    8. Shapiro JD,
    9. Pavlakis N,
    10. Gibbs P,
    11. Blondal J,
    12. Lee U,
    13. Meharchand JM,
    14. Burkes RL,
    15. Rubin SH,
    16. Simes J,
    17. Zalcberg JR,
    18. Moore MJ,
    19. Zhu L and
    20. Jonker DJ
    : Association of hypomagnesemia with inferior survival in a phase III, randomized study of cetuximab plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone: NCIC CTG/AGITG CO.17. Ann Oncol 24: 953-960, 2013. PMID: 23144444. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds577
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. García-Foncillas J,
    2. Sunakawa Y,
    3. Aderka D,
    4. Wainberg Z,
    5. Ronga P,
    6. Witzler P and
    7. Stintzing S
    : Distinguishing features of cetuximab and panitumumab in colorectal cancer and other solid tumors. Front Oncol 9: 849, 2019. PMID: 31616627. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00849
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Petrelli F,
    2. Borgonovo K,
    3. Cabiddu M,
    4. Ghilardi M and
    5. Barni S
    : Risk of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody-related hypomagnesemia: Systematic review and pooled analysis of randomized studies. Expert Opin Drug Saf 11: S9-19, 2012. PMID: 21843103. DOI: 10.1517/14740338.2011.606213
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services
    : Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) version 4.0. United States, National Cancer Institute, 2009. Available: http://www.acrin.org/Portals/0/Administration/Regulatory/CTCA E_4.02_2009-09-15_QuickReference_5X7.pdf [Last accessed on 16th September, 2020]
  9. ↵
    1. Eisenhauer EA,
    2. Therasse P,
    3. Bogaerts J,
    4. Schwartz LH,
    5. Sargent D,
    6. Ford R,
    7. Dancey J,
    8. Arbuck S,
    9. Gwyther S,
    10. Mooney M,
    11. Rubinstein L,
    12. Shankar L,
    13. Dodd L,
    14. Kaplan R,
    15. Lacombe D and
    16. Verweij J
    : New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 45: 228-247, 2009. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Kanda Y
    : Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical.statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant 48: 452-458, 2013. PMID: 23208313. DOI: 10.1038/bmt.2012.244
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Yamaguchi T,
    2. Iwasa S,
    3. Nagashima K,
    4. Ikezawa N,
    5. Hamaguchi T,
    6. Shoji H,
    7. Honma Y,
    8. Takashima A,
    9. Okita N,
    10. Kato K,
    11. Yamada Y and
    12. Shimada Y
    : Comparison of panitumumab plus irinotecan and cetuximab plus irinotecan for KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Anticancer Res 36: 3531-3536, 2016. PMID: 27354619.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Ciliberto D,
    2. Staropoli N,
    3. Caglioti F,
    4. Chiellino S,
    5. Ierardi A,
    6. Ingargiola R,
    7. Botta C,
    8. Arbitrio M,
    9. Correale P,
    10. Tassone P and
    11. Tagliaferri P
    : The best strategy for RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients in first-line treatment: A classic and Bayesian meta-analysis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 125: 69-77, 2018. PMID: 29650279. DOI: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2018.03.003
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. ↵
    1. Modest DP,
    2. Martens UM,
    3. Riera-Knorrenschild J,
    4. Greeve J,
    5. Florschütz A,
    6. Wessendorf S,
    7. Ettrich T,
    8. Kanzler S,
    9. Nörenberg D,
    10. Ricke J,
    11. Seidensticker M,
    12. Held S,
    13. Buechner-Steudel P,
    14. Atzpodien J,
    15. Heinemann V,
    16. Seufferlein T,
    17. Tannapfel A,
    18. Reinacher-Schick AC and
    19. Geissler M.J
    : FOLFOXIRI plus panitumumab as first-line treatment of RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: The randomized, open-label, phase II VOLFI Study (AIO KRK0109). Clin Oncol 37: 3401-3411, 2019. PMID: 31609637. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.19.01340
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    1. Fukuchi M,
    2. Mochiki E,
    3. Ishiguro T,
    4. Kumagai Y,
    5. Ishibashi K and
    6. Ishida H
    : Prognostic significance of conversion surgery following first- or second-line chemotherapy for unresectable gastric cancer. Anticancer Res 38: 6473-6478, 2018. PMID: 30396974. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13010
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Morine Y,
    2. Ikemoto T,
    3. Iwahashi S,
    4. Saito YU,
    5. Yamada S,
    6. Takasu C,
    7. Higashijima J,
    8. Imura S and
    9. Shimada M
    : Clinical impact of FOLFOXIRI aiming for conversion surgery in unresectable multiple colorectal liver metastasis. Anticancer Res 39: 5089-5096, 2019. PMID: 31519620. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13703
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Folprecht G,
    2. Grothey A,
    3. Alberts S,
    4. Raab HR and
    5. Köhne CH
    : Neoadjuvant treatment of unresectable colorectal liver metastases: Correlation between tumor response and resection rates. Ann Oncol 16: 1311-1319, 2005. PMID: 15870084. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdi246
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Sirohi B,
    2. Mitra A,
    3. Jagannath P,
    4. Singh A,
    5. Ramadvar M,
    6. Kulkarni S,
    7. Goel M and
    8. Shrikhande SV
    : Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced gallbladder cancer. Future Oncol 11: 1501-1509, 2015. PMID: 25963427. DOI: 10.2217/fon.14.308
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    1. Arnold D,
    2. Lueza B,
    3. Douillard JY,
    4. Peeters M,
    5. Lenz HJ,
    6. Venook A,
    7. Heinemann V,
    8. Van Cutsem E,
    9. Pignon JP,
    10. Tabernero J,
    11. Cervantes A and
    12. Ciardiello F
    : Prognostic and predictive value of primary tumour side in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy and EGFR directed antibodies in six randomized trials. Ann Oncol 28: 1713-1729, 2017. PMID: 28407110. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdx175
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 40 (12)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 40, Issue 12
December 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effects of Type of Antibody to EGFR and Hypomagnesemia on Overall Survival in First-line Treatment of Patients With Unresectable Advanced/Recurrent Colorectal Cancer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
8 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Effects of Type of Antibody to EGFR and Hypomagnesemia on Overall Survival in First-line Treatment of Patients With Unresectable Advanced/Recurrent Colorectal Cancer
MICHIO KIMURA, EISEKI USAMI, TOMOAKI YOSHIMURA
Anticancer Research Dec 2020, 40 (12) 7135-7140; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14743

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Effects of Type of Antibody to EGFR and Hypomagnesemia on Overall Survival in First-line Treatment of Patients With Unresectable Advanced/Recurrent Colorectal Cancer
MICHIO KIMURA, EISEKI USAMI, TOMOAKI YOSHIMURA
Anticancer Research Dec 2020, 40 (12) 7135-7140; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14743
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Bone Toxicity Case Report Combining Encorafenib, Cetuximab and WNT974 in a Phase I Trial
  • Assessment of Breakthrough Cancer Pain Among Female Patients With Cancer: Knowledge, Management and Characterization in the IOPS-MS Study
  • Low-dose Apalutamide in Non-metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: A Case Series
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • cetuximab
  • panitumumab
  • first-line treatment
  • overall survival
  • metastatic colorectal cancer
  • hypomagnesemia
Anticancer Research

© 2025 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire