4.7 Article

Elevated basal antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) and high epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression predict favourable outcome in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer treated with cetuximab and radiotherapy

期刊

CANCER IMMUNOLOGY IMMUNOTHERAPY
卷 66, 期 5, 页码 573-579

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00262-017-1960-8

关键词

ADCC; Cetuximab; EGFR; Head and neck cancer; Outcome

资金

  1. Associazione Ricerca Clinica Oncologica (ARCO) Foundation, Cuneo, Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) may contribute to the antitumor activity of cetuximab. However, the extent of this contribution is unclear. In this study, we investigated the impact of baseline ADCC on the outcome of patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma treated with cetuximab and radiotherapy. Methods We determined baseline ADCC in 28 patients treated with cetuximab and radiotherapy and in 15 patients treated with chemoradiation. We linked the values observed with complete response and with overall survival. We also considered the role of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression and studied the combined effect of EGFR and ADCC. Results We observed a wide range of baseline values of ADCC. Complete response did not correlate with either ADCC or EGFR expression. However, when ADCC and EGFR were considered together using a mixed score, they significantly correlated with achieving a complete response (p = 0.04). High baseline ADCC significantly correlated with outcome compared to low (p = 0.03), but not in patients treated without cetuximab. Patients showing high baseline levels of both ADCC and EGFR3+ achieved the best outcome compared to the others (p = 0.02). Conclusions In this study, patients treated with cetuximab and radiotherapy, showing high baseline of both ADCC and EGFR3+, have significant higher probability of achieving a complete response and a long overall survival compared to the others.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据