Safety, pharmacokinetics and efficacy of SCT200, an anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody in patients with wild-type KRAS/NRAS/BRAF metastatic colorectal cancer: a phase I dose-escalation and dose-expansion study

Wen Zhang, Xiaohong Han, Lin Yang, Yuanyuan Song, Liangzhi Xie, Wenlin Gai, Yan Wang, Yuankai Shi, Wen Zhang, Xiaohong Han, Lin Yang, Yuanyuan Song, Liangzhi Xie, Wenlin Gai, Yan Wang, Yuankai Shi

Abstract

Background: An over-expression of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) has been observed in colorectal cancer and is associated with aggressive disease and poor prognosis. SCT200 is a newly developed recombinant, fully humanized, anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody. This study aimed to evaluate its safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and efficacy in patients with wild-type KRAS/NRAS/BRAF metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: This phase I study comprising dose-escalation phase and dose-expansion phase. SCT200 was administrated intravenously to groups of three to six patients. An every 3-week dosing cycle (0.5-15.0 mg/kg) and multiple dosing schedule were evaluated. Blood samples were collected at preset intervals for PK assessment, radiological imaging was used for efficacy assessment, and continuous safety monitoring was performed in each group during the study. RESULTS: From December 16, 2014 to December 31, 2018, fifty-six patients with wild-type KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mCRC receiving ≥ 1 dose of SCT200 were evaluated. Among them, 44.6% (25/56) of the patients failed at least two prior lines of chemotherapy. No dose-limiting toxicities occurred in any group. All of the patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). 96.4% (54/56) of patients experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and 26.8% (15/56) of patients with Grade ≥ 3 TRAEs. No serious TRAEs were observed. The most common TRAEs were dermotoxicity and hypomagnesemia. PK analysis showed non-linear PK in the range of 0.5 - 8.0 mg/kg of single dose SCT200, the clearance decreased, and the elimination half-life (T1/2) prolonged following dose increase. In the multiple-dose period, the clearance decreased, peak concentration increased, and T1/2 prolonged during prolonged drug administration, and a steady state was reached after five consecutive dose of 6.0 mg/kg quaque week (QW). The objective response rate (ORR) was 30.4% (17/56, 95% confidence interval [CI], 18.8%-44.1%). The ORR in the dose-expansion group (6.0 mg/kg QW) was 48.0% (12/25, 95% CI, 27.8%-68.7%), the median progression-free survival was 5.2 months (95%CI, 3.6-5.5), and the median overall survival was 20.2 months (95%CI, 12.1-not reached).

Conclusions: SCT200 showed favorable safety, PK profile, and preliminary efficacy for patients with wild-type KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mCRC.

Trial registration: This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02211443 ).

Keywords: Colorectal cancer; Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor; Monoclonal antibodies; SCT200.

Conflict of interest statement

L.X., W.G. and Y.W. are employees of Sinocelltech Ltd., Beijing, China. The other authors have no competing interests to declare.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Phase I trial flowchart. AE adverse event, QW Quaque week, Q2W Quaque 2 week
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Mean (standard deviation) blood drug concentration–time curves for each dose group of SCT200. Mean (standard deviation) blood drug concentration–time curves for a single-dose groups of SCT200 of 0.5 mg/kg (n=3), 1.0 mg/kg (n=3), 2.0 mg/kg (n=3), 4.0 mg/kg (n=4), 6.0 mg/kg (n=6), and 8.0 mg/kg (n=3); b multiple-dose groups of SCT200  of 0.5 mg/kg QW (n=3), 1.0 mg/kg QW (n=3), 2.0 mg/kg (n=3), 4.0 mg/kg QW (n=3), and 6.0 mg/kg QW (n=27); c multiple-dose groups of SCT200 of 6.0 mg/kg Q2W (n=3), and 8.0 mg/kg Q2W (n=3); and d multiple-dose groups of SCT200 of 9.0 mg/kg QW (n=3), 12.0 mg/kg QW (n=3), and 15.0 mg/kg QW (n=3). QW Quaque week, Q2W Quaque 2 week
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Progression-free survival (PFS) (a) and overall survival (OS) (b) in the 6.0 mg/kg QW dose-expansion group. CI Confidence interval, QW Quaque week

References

    1. Aparicio J, Esposito F, Serrano S, Falco E, Escudero P, Ruiz-Casado A, et al. Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. First Line Therapy for Unresectable Disease. J Clin Med. 2020;9(12):3889. doi: 10.3390/jcm9123889.
    1. Douillard JY, Oliner KS, Siena S, Tabernero J, Burkes R, Barugel M, et al. Panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(11):1023–1034. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1305275.
    1. Van Cutsem E, Lenz HJ, Köhne CH, Heinemann V, Tejpar S, Melezínek I, et al. Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Irinotecan Plus Cetuximab Treatment and RAS Mutations in Colorectal Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(7):692–700. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.59.4812.
    1. Qin S, Li J, Wang L, Xu J, Cheng Y, Bai Y, et al. Efficacy and Tolerability of First-Line Cetuximab Plus Leucovorin, Fluorouracil, and Oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) Versus FOLFOX-4 in Patients With RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The Open-Label, Randomized, Phase III TAILOR Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(30):3031–3039. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.78.3183.
    1. Douillard JY, Siena S, Cassidy J, Tabernero J, Burkes R, Barugel M, et al. 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. 2010;28(31):4697–4705. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.27.4860.
    1. Dokala A, Thakur SS. Extracellular region of epidermal growth factor receptor: a potential target for anti-EGFR drug discovery. Oncogene. 2017;36(17):2337–44. doi: 10.1038/onc.2016.393.
    1. Biller LH, Schrag D. Diagnosis and treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a review. JAMA. 2021;325(7):669–685. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.0106.
    1. Kekelidze M, D’Errico L, Pansini M, Tyndall A, Hohmann J. Colorectal cancer: current imaging methods and future perspectives for the diagnosis, staging and therapeutic response evaluation. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(46):8502–8514. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i46.8502.
    1. Rawla P, Sunkara T, Barsouk A. Epidemiology of colorectal cancer: incidence, mortality, survival, and risk factors. Prz Gastroenterol. 2019;14(2):89–103. doi: 10.5114/pg.2018.81072.
    1. Karapetis CS, Khambata-Ford S, Jonker DJ, O’Callaghan CJ, Tu D, Tebbutt NC, et al. K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(17):1757–1765. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0804385.
    1. Amado RG, Wolf M, Peeters M, Van Cutsem E, Siena S, Freeman DJ, et al. Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(10):1626–1634. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.7116.
    1. Kim TW, Elme A, Kusic Z, Park JO, Udrea AA, Kim SY, et al. A phase 3 trial evaluating panitumumab plus best supportive care vs best supportive care in chemorefractory wild-type KRAS or RAS metastatic colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2016;115(10):1206–1214. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2016.309.
    1. Price TJ, Peeters M, Kim TW, Li J, Cascinu S, Ruff P, et al. 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. 2014;15(6):569–579. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70118-4.
    1. Weiner LM, Belldegrun AS, Crawford J, Tolcher AW, Lockbaum P, Arends RH, et al. Dose and schedule study of panitumumab monotherapy in patients with advanced solid malignancies. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(22):502–508. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1509.
    1. ImClone LLC. Title of WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS. In: ERBITUX- cetuximab solution. 2021. . Accessed 11 Oct 2022.
    1. Brulé SY, Jonker DJ, Karapetis CS, O’Callaghan CJ, Moore MJ, Wong R, et al. Location of colon cancer (right-sided versus left-sided) as a prognostic factor and a predictor of benefit from cetuximab in NCIC CO. 17. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(11):1405–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.03.015.

Source: PubMed

3
订阅