Minireviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Gastroenterol. Jan 14, 2016; 22(2): 887-894
Published online Jan 14, 2016. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i2.887
Table 1 Previous studies which evaluated the predictive biomarker of severity of skin toxicity induced by anti- epidermal growth factor receptor antibody treatment in colorectal cancer
Ref.MethodsPredictive markersRisk factors of severe skin toxicity
Jatoi et al[39] (2009)Patient's backgroundsAgeYounger
GenderMen
Graziano et al[40] (2008)EGFR polymorphismCA repeat in EGFR intron-1EGFR intron-1 S/S variant
Vallböhmer et al[42] (2005)mRNA expressionCox-2Low expression
Takahashi et al[43,44] (2014, 2015)Serum levels of ligandsAREG, EREG, HGFLow levels of ligands at pre-treatment
Table 2 Skin toxicity as a biomarker of predicting the efficacy of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody treatment in prospective phase II-III trial of unresectable colorectal cancer
Ref.NumberTreatmentClinical trialObjective response rate
Overall survival
Grade of skin toxicityP valueGrade of skin toxicity (mo)P valueHR (95%CI)
Jonker et al[45] (2007)283CetuximabPhase III--2.6 vs 4.8 vs 8.4 (grade 0 vs grade 1 vs≥ grade 2)< 0.001-
Van Cutsem et al[46] (2007)200Panitumumab + BSCPhase III14% vs 86% (grade 1 vs grade 2-3)-ND-0.59 (0.42-0.85)
Cunningham et al[4] (2004)218IRI + cetuximabPhase III6.3% vs 25.8% (grade 0 vs any grade)0.0053.0 vs 9.1 (grade 0 vs any grade)--
111Cetuximab0% vs 13.0% (grade 0 vs any grade)2.5 vs 8.1 (grade 0 vs any grade)--
Sobrero et al[47] (2008)648IRI + cetuximab (2nd-line)Phase III--5.8 vs 11.7 vs 15.6 (grade 0 vs grade 1-2 vs≥ grade 3)--
Bokemeyer et al[48] (2009)169FOLFOX + cetuximab (1st-line)Phase II13.0 vs 43.2% vs 53.2% vs 66.7% (grade 0 vs 1 vs 2 vs 3)----
Stintzing et al[41] (2013)149CAPIRI/CapOX + cetuximab (1st-line)Phase II41% vs 62% (grade 0-1 vs grade 2-3)0.02118.0 vs 30.3 (grade 0-1 vs grade 2-3)0.1610.75 (0.50-1.12)