The Effects of Cetuximab Alone and in Combination With Radiation and/or Chemotherapy in Lung Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) overexpressed in approximately 80% of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC) is a target for novel therapeutics. Concurrent chemoradiation is the current standard of care for treatment of patients with locally advanced NSCLC. However, < 20% of patients remain disease-free at 5 years despite this aggressive treatment. Cetuximab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that recognizes the human EGFR, and in previous studies, inhibited the growth of EGFR-expressing human cancer cell lines. In this report, we investigated the cellular and molecular effects of cetuximab alone and in combination with radiation and/or chemotherapy in human NSCLC cell lines with varying levels of EGFR overexpression in vitro and in vivo. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We evaluated the EGFR status of a panel of human NSCLC cancer cell lines by immunohistochemistry and flow cytometry. We then evaluated cetuximab effects on growth, cell cycle distribution, and downstream intracellular signaling molecules in this panel of NSCLC cancer cell lines. NSCLC cell lines were treated with cetuximab alone or in combination with radiation, chemotherapy, or chemoradiation to determine the cooperative effects of cetuximab both in vitro and in vivo in athymic nude mice bearing NSCLC xenografts. RESULTS: Cetuximab alone inhibited the in vitro growth of some but not all EGFR-expressing NSCLC cell lines in a dose-dependent manner. Flow cytometric analysis of cell cycle distribution after 24 hours of cetuximab treatment revealed a shift into the G(0)/G(1) phase of the cell cycle in cetuximab-sensitive EGFR-expressing cell lines and at concentrations that were growth-inhibitory. There were no cell cycle changes in the EGFR-negative cell lines. After 4 hours of exposure, cetuximab reduced epidermal growth factor (EGF)-induced phosphorylation of EGFR (pEGFR) and HER-2 (pHER2) in cetuximab-sensitive cell lines but not in cetuximab-resistant cell lines. Cetuximab reduced EGF-induced phosphorylation of extracellular signal-regulated kinase-1/2 (pERK) in all EGFR-expressing cell lines. In the absence of EGF, cetuximab alone increased the level of pEGFR and pHER2 above that seen in untreated control cells in both sensitive and resistant cell lines that were EGFR- and HER2-positive, but not in EGFR- or HER2-negative lines. Despite the cetuximab-induced increase in phosphorylation of EGFR and HER2, peak EGF-induced levels of pEGFR and pHER2 were reduced by cetuximab in the cetuximab-sensitive lines but not in the resistant lines. Cooperative (combination index values < 1.0) growth inhibitory effects were observed in vitro combination assays with cetuximab and radiation only in cetuximab-sensitive NSCLC cell lines. A lack of cooperation was seen in cetuximab-insensitive NSCLC cell lines. Similar findings were observed with in vitro combination studies of cetuximab plus cisplatin or paclitaxel. In nude mice bearing EGFR-expressing, cetuximab-sensitive, NSCLC cell line xenografts, cetuximab plus radiation induced a marked improvement in tumor growth inhibition over either agent alone. The growth inhibitory effects of cetuximab-radiation were similar to the growth inhibitory effects of concurrent chemoradiation. Triple combination therapy of cetuximab and chemoradiation yielded a nonsignificant advantage in tumor growth control over doublet combinations (cetuximab and radiation or chemoradiation) in vivo. CONCLUSIONS: Similar results in tumor growth inhibition observed in mice treated with cetuximab-radiation and cisplatin-radiation provide a rationale for the clinical investigation of cetuximab with concurrent radiation in selected patients with locally advanced NSCLC. Local tumor control and treatment toxicity should be evaluated between cetuximab-radiation and chemoradiation regimens. Proper patient selection will be critical to the success of such trials and further studies are needed to identify optimal patient selection criteria.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".