Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of bttDove Medical PressThis ArticleSubscribeSubmit a ManuscriptSearchFollowDovepressBiologics: Targets and Therapy
Biologics. 2012; 6: 221–231.
Published online 2012 July 13. doi:  10.2147/BTT.S24217
PMCID: PMC3421478

Cetuximab and biomarkers in non-small-cell lung carcinoma


Cancer progression is a highly complex process that is driven by a constellation of deregulated signaling pathways and key molecular events. In non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as in several other cancer types, the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and its downstream signaling components represent a key axis that has been found not only to trigger cancer progression but also to support advanced disease leading to metastasis. Two major therapeutic approaches comprising monoclonal antibodies and small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors have so far been used to target this pathway, with a combination of positive, negative, and inconsequential results, as judged by patient survival indices. Since these drugs are expensive and not all patients derive benefits from taking them, it has become both pertinent and paramount to identify biomarkers that can predict not only beneficial response but also resistance. This review focuses on the chimeric monoclonal antibody, cetuximab, its application in the treatment of NSCLC, and the biomarkers that may guide its use in the clinical setting. A special emphasis is placed on the EGFR, including its structural and mechanistic attributes.

Keywords: NSCLC, cetuximab, biomarker, cancer progression

Statistical data made available by the World Health Organization show that lung cancers are the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in both males and females worldwide.1,2 Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is one of the two major subtypes and accounts for over 85% of cases.3 Lung cancer has been epidemiologically associated largely with cigarette smoking,4 but lifestyle, diet, passive smoking, and occupational exposure have all been found to play contributory roles.58 Although early stage cancer is curable, over 70% of patients present with locally advanced or metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis.9 Chemotherapy has been shown to be beneficial in patients with resected early disease and remains the backbone of therapy for patients with advanced disease, but it is notorious for its side effects,10 and the overall 5-year survival rate is still under 15%.11 Recently, the identification of drugs able to hit molecular targets has been a refreshing addition to the arsenal of tools that can be used against lung cancer.12 One such target is the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR),which is overexpressed in up to 80% of patients with NSCLC.13 EGFR expression in resected patient tissues has been correlated with advanced disease and poor survival.1416 Because EGFR is overexpressed in lung cancer, it thus becomes a logical drug target; therefore, two classes of inhibitors, including monoclonal antibodies and small molecular inhibitors against EGFR, have been developed.17,18

Epidermal growth factor receptor

The EGFR is a cell surface glycoprotein receptor belonging to the ErbB family of proteins, a subfamily of four closely related proteins comprising EGFR (ErbB-1), HER2/c-neu (ErbB-2), Her 3 (ErbB-3), and Her 4 (ErbB-4).19 The extracellular domain of EGFR has four distinct subdomains consisting of two sets of tandem repeats that compose the ligand binding sites.20,21 In the absence of any ligand, the extracellular domain appears to be locked into an auto inhibitory configuration.20 Scatchard analysis indicated that the receptor possesses two different binding affinities; however, the mechanisms regulating the different binding affinities still remain obscure.22

EGFR has a single transmembrane domain consisting of 23 amino acids that attach the receptor to the membrane and function in receptor dimerization.23 Furthermore, this domain also promotes dimer formation when attached to the extracellular portion,24 and mutations in the HER2/c-neu transmembrane domain have been demonstrated to favor its dimerization.25 Moreover, exposure to a peptide corresponding to the transmembrane domain of EGFR results in the inhibition of receptor autophosphorylation and downstream signaling events.26 It is highly likely that the transmembrane domain plays a part in the alignment of the intracellular kinase domain upon dimerization.27,28

The intracellular domain consists primarily of the tyrosine kinase domain (approximately 260 amino acids), a juxtamembrane region (approximately 40 amino acids), and a carboxyl terminal regulatory region domain (approximately 232 amino acids).29 Numerous autophosphorylation sites are located on the intracellular domain of the receptor, which acts as an anchor for SH2 (Src homology 2) domain proteins.30 Analysis of its crystal structure indicated that the tyrosine kinase remains in a constitutively active configuration but is not accessible because of the regulatory region at the carboxy terminus.31,32 Ligand binding enhances the proximal alignment of the receptor, leading to trans-phosphorylation tyrosine residues favoring conformational changes that remove inhibitory constrains on the kinase domain.33 With this configuration, EGFR is now able to phosphorylate tyrosine residues on other molecules, including phospholipase C γ,34 cytoskeletal-associated proteins35 and protein 4.1.36 Moreover, residues including serine, threonine, and even tyrosine can be phosphorylated by nonreceptor kinases.37,38 These sites are phosphorylated by downstream kinases that are part of the EGFR activation cascade,30 which includes protein kinase C,39 Src,40 and PKA.41 Furthermore, phosphotyrosines can act as anchor sites for various proteins that contain SH-2 or phosphotyrosine binding domains, and they thus act as a recruitment hub for members of various cell signaling cascades.30 It is important to stress that EGFR can also copartner with other receptors outside its family and mediate signal transduction. Several studies indicated that the EGFR transactivation mechanism is subject to different regulatory influences.42,43

EGFR signaling

The binding of EGF to its receptor initiates a mitogenic signaling cascade via several pathways, including the Ras/Raf mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), phosphatidylinositol 3 kinase (PI3K)-Akt, JNK, and the Stat3/Stat5 pathways as shown in Figure 1.19,44,45 These pathways converge to enhance DNA synthesis, cell proliferation, angiogenesis, invasion, and metastasis.19,44,45 Activation of the EGFR pathway orchestrates increased autophosphorylation of tyrosine kinases, which leads to a series of intracellular events culminating in enhanced metastatic propensities and angiogenesis.46

Figure 1
The EGFR signaling cascade.

The RAS proto-oncogene family (K-ras, H-ras, N-ras and R-ras) encode four highly homologous 21 kDa membrane bound proteins involved in signal transduction. These proteins exist in either an active state bound to guanosine triphosphate (GTP) or an inactive state bound to guanosine diphosphate (GDP).47 Activating point mutations confer oncogenic potential through a loss of an intrinsic GTPase activity, resulting in an inability to cleave GTP to GDP and culminating in unabated cell proliferation downstream of EGF signaling.48 Activating RAS mutations occur in approximately 15% to 20% of NSCLCs, and in lung cancer, 90% of these mutations are located in the K-ras gene (80% in codon 12, and the remainder in codons 13 and 61), with H-ras and N-ras mutations only occasionally documented.49 K-ras mutations are mutually exclusive in EGFR and Erbb2 mutations and confer resistance to EGFR, tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), and chemotherapy.50,51 Moreover, whereas K-ras mutations are primarily observed in lung adenocarcinomas of smokers, EGFR mutations are primarily observed in lung adenocarcinomas of neversmokers.52,53

The PI3K/Akt pathway is a key regulator of cell growth, proliferation, and survival. It is commonly activated in lung cancer by changes in several of its components including PI3K, PTEN, Akt, EGFR, and K-ras.54 In lung cancer, activation of PI3K/Akt is considered a relatively early event and results in cell survival through an inhibition of apoptosis. This activation occurs either through the binding of the SH-2 domain of P-85 to phosphotyrosine residues of activated receptor tyrosine kinase or more commonly through the amplification of PIK3CA, which encodes the catalytic subunits of PI3K.54,55 Akt, a serine/threonine kinase acting downstream of PI3K, can also have mutations that lead to pathway inactivation. In addition, PTEN regulates the PI3K/Akt pathway via phosphatase activity on phosphatidylinositol 3,4,5 triphosphate (PIP3), which is commonly suppressed in lung cancer by inactivating mutations or loss of expression.56,57

Signal transducers and activators of transcription (STAT) are cytoplasmic transcription factors that, upon activation, translocate into the nucleus where they mediate gene expression of several downstream targets. STAT signaling is a key intrinsic pathway for cancer inflammation and is activated in tumor cells, often resulting in the induction of inflammation-associated genes.58 To date, seven STAT proteins (1–6) have been identified in mammalian cells.59 STAT proteins are important in establishing immune responses in the tumor microenvironment to promote or inhibit cancer progression. In addition, sustained activation of STAT3, and to some extent STAT5, leads to increased tumor cell proliferation, survival, and invasion.58,60 STAT3 is activated by growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases, such as EGFR and platelet-derived growth factor receptors, as well as nonreceptor tyrosine kinases, such as Src.61,62 STAT3 and STAT5 proteins have been found overexpressed in resected NSCLC tissues.63,64

Therapeutic options targeting EGFR in NSCLC

Monoclonal antibodies targeting the extracellular domain of EGFR together with small molecule TKIs have been exploited pharmacologically to block EGFR activation.

Cetuximab (marketed as Erbitux®; Dako, Copenhagen, Denmark) is a 152 kDa chimeric monoclonal antibody of the immunoglobulin G1 subclass produced in mammalian cell culture by mouse myeloma cells (Sp2/0). It was obtained by attaching the variable regions of the murine monoclonal antibody M225 against EGFR to constant regions of the human IgG1.65,66 It has two identical heavy chains consisting of 449 amino acids each and two light chains of 214 amino acids each.67 Cetuximab has a 5- to 10-fold higher affinity for EGFR than the native ligand, resulting in inhibition of the receptor function.68 It is also able to mediate antibody-dependent, cell-mediated cytotoxicity,69 and receptor downregulation leading to a mitigation of EGFR activity that does not affect other HER family receptors.70 A general overview of mechanisms by which cetuximab exerts its activity is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2
The mechanism of cetuximab action.

Biomarkers in cetuximab therapy

The National Institute of Health (NIH) defines a biomarker as a characteristic that is objectively measured and evaluated as an indicator of normal biologic processes, pathogenic processes, or pharmacologic responses to a therapeutic intervention.71 In the context of cetuximab therapy, it is applicable mostly to molecules that have been or can be used to assess both sensitivity and resistance to therapy, with the goal of predicting patient subgroups that would most likely benefit or not benefit from therapy. To date, the following biomarkers have been evaluated in the assessment of the efficacy of cetuximab treatment in NSCLC.

EGFR expression, copy number evaluation, and mutation status

One of the first studies assessing combination chemotherapy with cetuximab in a Phase II trial, in which patients evenly distributed across two arms received cisplatin or carboplatin and gemcitabine with cetuximab in one arm and without cetuximab in the other arm, showed an increased response rate, progression free survival and overall survival in the cetuximab group.72 A similar Phase II study in which cisplatin and vinorelbine were administered with or without cetuximab also showed enhanced survival indices in the cetuximab arm.73 Interestingly, both studies were conducted without any preselection for EGFR status. However, a large Phase III trial investigating paclitaxel or docetaxel and carboplatin, with or without cetuximab in 676 patients with NSCLC, found no notable differences in the primary end point of progression free survival, nor in the secondary end point of overall response rate (ORR), as judged by an independent radiological review committee when the two arms were compared.74,75 This group evaluated EGFR protein expression by IHC, gene copy number by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), and EGFR mutation status by sequencing and did not find any significant difference for all of the biomarkers assessed.76

The efficacy of cetuximab was also evaluated as a mono-therapy in a group of patients that were largely EGFR positive (n = 60/66), who had been previously treated with other chemotherapeutic regimens (number of prior regimens: 1 = 28, 2 = 27, and ≥3 = 11), where the response rate was found to be similar to pemetrexed, docetaxel, and erlotinib in similar groups of patients, even though these patients were heavily pretreated.77

The FLEX study assessed EGFR expression in the tumor tissues using immunohistochemistry and defined EGFR positivity as a prerequisite for study inclusion, with tumor immunohistochemical data available for over 99.6% of enrolled patients. An increased benefit from chemotherapy plus cetuximab was observed in patients with IHC scores greater than 150. Overall and median survival rates were also higher in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group as compared to the chemotherapy alone group in patients with high EGFR expression.78

In a somewhat different approach, a Phase II clinical trial evaluated EGFR gene copy number by FISH as a predictive index for cetuximab efficacy. This trial enrolled 229 patients with advanced NSCLC, who were divided into two groups receiving paclitaxel and carboplatin with or without cetuximab, and found a significantly higher survival benefit in FISH-positive EGFR patients. Median progression-free survival and median survival time were both twice as long in the FISH-positive patients as in the FISH-negative patients, whereas the disease control rate was 81% in FISH-positive and 55% in FISH-negative patients, respectively. Complete response/partial response was also numerically higher in FISH-positive (45%) versus FISH-negative (26%) patients.79

A meta-analysis looking at four trials in which 2018 previously untreated NSCLC patients were ultimately analyzed concluded that cetuximab improved overall survival and overall response rate.80 The meta-analysis did not consider any biomarkers, but nonetheless tried to show the overall benefits of cetuximab. Nevertheless, however, our critical review of all studies on EGFR showed that EGFR currently cannot be considered a reliable biomarker for consistent response in NSCLC.


In the abrogation of the EGFR function, it became evident that in addition to EGFR, other key downstream molecules were equally important. Several reports have shown that constitutive activation of key downstream components renders the EGFR blockade by antibodies and/or TKI ineffective. One of these essential downstream factors is the small G protein proto-oncogene K-ras (Kirsten rat sarcoma 2 viral oncogene homologue). K-ras can acquire activating mutations in exon 2, thus isolating the pathway from the effect of EGFR and rendering EGFR inhibitors ineffective.8184 K-ras mutations are mutually exclusive to EGFR mutations in NSCLC and are more associated with smoking.85,86 Generally, K-ras mutations have been tied to poor outcomes, as confirmed by a meta-analysis of 28 studies encompassing all stages of NSCLC, which showed that tumors with K-ras mutations were associated with poor prognosis.47

In the bid to appraise the use of K-ras a as predictive biomarker in cetuximab therapy, however, a few clinical trials have integrated its analysis into their protocols. The Khambata-Ford et al trial discovered that 17% of the patients from their patient pool harbored K-ras mutations, as detected by sequencing. However, they were unable to find any significant clinical correlation that could be attributable to this biomarker in the context of cetuximab treatment.76 Reevaluation of tissues used for the FLEX study for KRAS mutations in codons 12 and 13 with polymerase chain reaction-based assays revealed 17% positive samples out of 375 patients, in which however, they found no significant predictive or prognostic outcomes differentiating mutant and nonmutant K-ras cases with the administration of cetuximab.87 A Phase II selection design trial of chemotherapy together with concurrent or subsequent cetuximab addition in advanced stage NSCLC patients evaluated the significance of K-ras and did not find any significant association with any efficacy parameters in both K-ras and wild-type patients.88

Phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN)

Thus far, only one study has sought to evaluate PTEN as a biomarker for cetuximab therapy in NSCLC. Data stemming from the FLEX study discussed above found 196 out of 303 patients to be PTEN-positive as assessed by immunohistochemical analysis. Patients in both the cetuximab-plus-chemotherapy and chemotherapy-alone groups experienced better overall survival if their tumors expressed PTEN compared with those whose tumors were negative for expression. Although this finding was not significant, the authors still inferred that the absence of PTEN expression might be a marker of poor prognosis.87,89

Biomarkers in ongoing clinical trials

At present, a number of clinical trials are still evaluating the efficacy of cetuximab in combination with other treatment modalities inclusive of radiotherapy, in combination with TKIs, and other chemotherapeutic drugs (Table 1). Most of these trials are also assessing biomarker status that could be predictive of prognostic value. These trials are studying EGFR expression, KRAS in individualized or combined trials with fluoro-2-depoxy-D-glucose-positrion emission tomography/computed tomography, MAPK, phosphorylated AKT, p27, and Ki-67 biomarkers.

Table 1
An overview of ongoing clinical trials evaluating biomarker status in cetuximab therapy

Putative biomarkers in preclinical studies

In a quest to find alternative biomarkers for cetuximab in NSCLC, especially in cases of cetuximab resistance, several groups have employed different strategies to identify and analyze markers of resistance. In one such study, our group showed that low E-cadherin and high urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (u-PAR), but not EGFR, was associated with resistance to cetuximab in seven NSCLC cell lines. This same expression pattern was also observed in 63% of patients with progressive disease while on cetuximab therapy, implying that low E-cadherin and high u-PAR are markers of cetuximab resistance.90 Furthermore, Yonesaka and colleagues convincingly showed that ERBB2 amplification is a unique mechanism of drug resistance to cetuximab in NSCLC.91 Interestingly, they were able to show that ERBB amplified NSCLC cells remain sensitive to gefitinib, but not to cetuximab. Therefore, a phenomenon likely to be associated with gefitinib but not cetuximab is also able to inhibit ERBB2 in clinically achievable concentrations.91 The expression of amphiregulin (a growth factor regulator related to EGF and transforming growth factor-alpha) expression was also found to predict sensitivity to cetuximab in EGFR wild-type cancers.92


Conflicts of interest exist between pharmaceutical companies that want to market their drugs, physicians that are looking for drugs that will best meet the needs of their patients, and the very ill patients that want to get better at all costs. A good predictive biomarker would be an optimal solution to these conflicts of interest. However, as experience has shown, robust, valid, sensitive, and specific biomarkers are few and far between. In the case of cetuximab, overwhelming evidence, particularly in meta-analysis studies, has shown that patients with advanced NSCLC derive benefit, especially when this antibody is combined with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Cetuximab has even been found to be of benefit after the failure of gefitinib, regardless of EGFR mutational status.93

Existing data on EGFR protein expression, evaluated through IHC, suggested that patients with high scores stand to gain when cetuximab is included in the therapy, which supports its further evaluation as a candidate biomarker. Tangible evidence, however, also exists showing that not all patients benefit. The problem with IHC is that protocols vary, which could have considerable consequences on the outcome. Even in the FLEX study, where this biomarker was evaluated, in an effort to obtain a high degree of consistency in the analysis, all the individuals involved in the interpretation of the results had to be collectively tutored.

The EGFR gene copy number detected by FISH may be another potential biomarker for the selection of NSCLC patients for treatment with EGFR-directed therapies. Patients with FISH-positive tumors have demonstrated a higher disease control rate compared to patients with FISH-negative tumors. Furthermore, survival favored FISH-positive patients receiving concurrent therapy. In the BMS099 trial, EGFR FISH positivity was seen in 54 of 104 (52%) patients, but was neither prognostic nor of predictive value with regard to cetuximab efficacy.76 Thus, EGFR FISH positivity as a predictive factor of benefit from cetuximab therapy remains undecided and needs further exploration.

It was interesting to observe that with small molecule TKIs, a preferential response was observed in females, patients with adenocarcinomas, Asians, and neversmokers.9497 A more in-depth analysis of these subgroups revealed that specific activating mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain of the EGFR gene were responsible for the observed benefit from TKIs.94,98 In agreement with the findings in NSCLC cell line studies that these mutations were associated with sensitivity to gefitinib but not cetuximab,99 these mutations did not seem to affect patients’ response to cetuximab in the Phase III trials. In addition, no significant treatment-specific correlations between EGFR mutation status and progression free survival, overall survival, or response rate were observed in the BMS099 trial.76 Therefore, it is safe to conclude that EGFR mutations are not useful as biomarkers in cetuximab therapy.

In colorectal cancer, KRAS mutation status was found to be a useful marker of resistance because the benefit of cetuximab was found to be limited to patients with KRAS wild-type tumors.100,101 The results from two Phase II trials that compared platinum-based chemotherapy with cetuximab (concurrent/sequential) and with bevacizumab in patients with advanced NSCLC,88 however, showed no differences in progression-free survival or overall survival with cetuximab in relation to K-ras mutation status. The Phase III trials that evaluated K-ras mutations in NSCLC76,87 also found that K-ras mutation status had no impact on progression-free survival, overall survival, or response rate in relation to cetuximab administration. The observed differences between colorectal and NSCLC might be the result of alternative routes of signal transduction in NSCLC that render K-ras insignificant and impressively show that every tumor entity needs to be individually considered when establishing biomarkers for novel therapeutics. An increasing number of putative biomarkers are still in the preclinical pipeline, and it will be interesting to see which ones will be brought over into clinical trials. Thus far, the evidence of their potential use is limited to a few studies, which need to be reinforced by more groups and follow-up studies.


EGFR protein expression still has the potential to advance to a biomarker that is able to predict favorable outcomes from cetuximab administration in NSCLC. It is rather disappointing that with all the advances in molecular cancer research and the several clinical trials that have evaluated cetuximab in the context of NSCLC, no clear significant biomarker has so far been discovered. A major contributing reason that could account for the observed findings is that the methods for the detection of EGFR positivity as well as other potential biomarkers are by no means standardized, which leaves room for a great deal of improvement. Secondly, the analysis conducted on some of the biomarkers as in the case of K-ras mutations was done on a small subset of patients, where statistical validity is difficult to establish. However, the possibility of other unidentified molecular mediators important in the response of NSCLC to cetuximab cannot be ruled out, and only when these mediators are identified can the desired outcomes be achieved. Moreover, in our opinion, the clinical trials do not all have the same endpoints regarding the survival indices being evaluated. To resolve these issues, multicentered clinical trials should be organized such that a significant number of patients with similar clinical backgrounds are included and the approach/method used for biomarker detection is standardized. Ongoing clinical trials and preclinical studies indicate that more biomarkers could soon be in contention.


HA was supported by Alfried Krupp von Bohlen and Halbach Foundation (Award for Young Full Professors), Essen, Hella-Bühler-Foundation, Heidelberg, Dr Ingrid zu Solms Foundation, Frankfurt/Main, the Hector Foundation, Weinheim, Germany, the FRONTIER Excellence Initiative of the University of Heidelberg, the BMBF, Bonn, Germany, the Walter Schulz Foundation, Munich, Germany, the Deutsche Krebshilfe, Bonn, Germany, the DKFZ-MOST German-Israeli program, Heidelberg, Germany, and a Cancer Grant by Genome Biosciences, Germany.



The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.


1. Ferlay J, Shin H, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin D. GLOBOCAN 2008, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 10. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2010. Accessed May 24, 2011.
2. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010;127(12):2893–2917. [PubMed]
3. Laskin JJ, Sandler AB, Johnson DH. Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2005.
4. Alberg AJ, Brock MV, Samet JM. Epidemiology of lung cancer: looking to the future. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(14):3175–3185. [PubMed]
5. Vineis P, Airoldi L, Veglia F, et al. Environmental tobacco smoke and risk of respiratory cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in former smokers and never smokers in the EPIC prospective study. BMJ. 2005;330(7486):277. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
6. Tardon A, Lee WJ, Delgado-Rodriguez M, et al. Leisure-time physical activity and lung cancer: a meta-analysis. Cancer Causes Control. 2005;16(4):389–397. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
7. Lee IM. Physical activity and cancer prevention – data from epidemiologic studies. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35(11):1823–1827. [PubMed]
8. Boffetta P. Epidemiology of environmental and occupational cancer. Oncogene. 2004;23(38):6392–6403. [PubMed]
9. Molina JR, Yang P, Cassivi SD, Schild SE, Adjei AA. Non-small cell lung cancer: epidemiology, risk factors, treatment, and survivorship. Mayo Clin Proc. 2008;83(5):584–594. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
10. Barlesi F, Jacot W, Astoul P, Pujol JL. Second-line treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review. Lung Cancer. 2006;51(2):159–172. [PubMed]
11. Mok TS, Wu YL, Yu CJ, et al. Randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II study of sequential erlotinib and chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(30):5080–5087. [PubMed]
12. Okamoto I. Epidermal growth factor receptor in relation to tumor development: EGFR-targeted anticancer therapy. FEBS J. 2010;277(2):309–315. [PubMed]
13. Mendelsohn J, Baselga J. Status of epidermal growth factor receptor antagonists in the biology and treatment of cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(14):2787–2799. [PubMed]
14. Brabender J, Danenberg KD, Metzger R, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor and HER2-neu mRNA expression in non-small cell lung cancer Is correlated with survival. Clin Cancer Res. 2001;7(7):1850–1855. [PubMed]
15. Bianco R, Gelardi T, Damiano V, Ciardiello F, Tortora G. Mechanisms of resistance to EGFR inhibitors. Target Oncol. 2007;2(1):31–37.
16. Salomon DS, Brandt R, Ciardiello F, Normanno N. Epidermal growth factor-related peptides and their receptors in human malignancies. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 1995;19(3):183–232. [PubMed]
17. Ciardiello F, Tortora G. EGFR antagonists in cancer treatment. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(11):1160–1174. [PubMed]
18. Normanno N, Tejpar S, Morgillo F, De LA, Van CE, Ciardiello F. Implications for KRAS status and EGFR-targeted therapies in metastatic CRC. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009;6(9):519–527. [PubMed]
19. Yarden Y, Sliwkowski MX. Untangling the ErbB signalling network. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2001;2(2):127–137. [PubMed]
20. Ferguson KM, Berger MB, Mendrola JM, Cho HS, Leahy DJ, Lemmon MA. EGF activates its receptor by removing interactions that autoinhibit ectodomain dimerization. Mol Cell. 2003;11(2):507–517. [PubMed]
21. Burgess AW, Cho HS, Eigenbrot C, et al. An open-and-shut case? Recent insights into the activation of EGF/ErbB receptors. Mol Cell. 2003;12(3):541–552. [PubMed]
22. King AC, Cuatrecasas P. Resolution of high and low affinity epidermal growth factor receptors. Inhibition of high affinity component by low temperature, cycloheximide, and phorbol esters. J Biol Chem. 1982;257(6):3053–3060. [PubMed]
23. Schlessinger J. Ligand-induced, receptor-mediated dimerization and activation of EGF receptor. Cell. 2002;110(6):669–672. [PubMed]
24. Tanner KG, Kyte J. Dimerization of the extracellular domain of the receptor for epidermal growth factor containing the membrane-spanning segment in response to treatment with epidermal growth factor. J Biol Chem. 1999;274(50):35985–35990. [PubMed]
25. Bargmann CI, Hung MC, Weinberg RA. Multiple independent activations of the neu oncogene by a point mutation altering the transmembrane domain of p185. Cell. 1986;45(5):649–657. [PubMed]
26. Bennasroune A, Fickova M, Gardin A, et al. Transmembrane peptides as inhibitors of ErbB receptor signaling. Mol Biol Cell. 2004;15(7):3464–3474. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
27. Moriki T, Maruyama H, Maruyama IN. Activation of preformed EGF receptor dimers by ligand-induced rotation of the transmembrane domain. J Mol Biol. 2001;311(5):1011–1026. [PubMed]
28. Bell CA, Tynan JA, Hart KC, Meyer AN, Robertson SC, Donoghue DJ. Rotational coupling of the transmembrane and kinase domains of the Neu receptor tyrosine kinase. Mol Biol Cell. 2000;11(10):3589–3599. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
29. Walton GM, Chen WS, Rosenfeld MG, Gill GN. Analysis of deletions of the carboxyl terminus of the epidermal growth factor receptor reveals self-phosphorylation at tyrosine 992 and enhanced in vivo tyrosine phosphorylation of cell substrates. J Biol Chem. 1990;265(3):1750–1754. [PubMed]
30. Schlessinger J. Cell signaling by receptor tyrosine kinases. Cell. 2000;103(2):211–225. [PubMed]
31. Stamos J, Sliwkowski MX, Eigenbrot C. Structure of the epidermal growth factor receptor kinase domain alone and in complex with a 4-anilinoquinazoline inhibitor. J Biol Chem. 2002;277(48):46265–46272. [PubMed]
32. Weber W, Bertics PJ, Gill GN. Immunoaffinity purification of the epidermal growth factor receptor. Stoichiometry of binding and kinetics of self-phosphorylation. J Biol Chem. 1984;259(23):14631–14636. [PubMed]
33. Ferguson KM. Active and inactive conformations of the epidermal growth factor receptor. Biochem Soc Trans. 2004;32(Pt 5):742–745. [PubMed]
34. Nishibe S, Carpenter G. Tyrosine phosphorylation and the regulation of cell growth: growth factor-stimulated tyrosine phosphorylation of phospholipase C. Semin Cancer Biol. 1990;1(4):285–292. [PubMed]
35. Akiyama T, Kadowaki T, Nishida E, et al. Substrate specificities of tyrosine-specific protein kinases toward cytoskeletal proteins in vitro. J Biol Chem. 1986;261(31):14797–14803. [PubMed]
36. Subrahmanyam G, Bertics PJ, Anderson RA. Phosphorylation of protein 4.1 on tyrosine-418 modulates its function in vitro. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1991;88(12):5222–5226. [PubMed]
37. Heisermann GJ, Gill GN. Epidermal growth factor receptor threonine and serine residues phosphorylated in vivo. J Biol Chem. 1988;263(26):13152–13158. [PubMed]
38. Downward J, Parker P, Waterfield MD. Autophosphorylation sites on the epidermal growth factor receptor. Nature. 1984;311(5985):483–485. [PubMed]
39. Hunter T, Ling N, Cooper JA. Protein kinase C phosphorylation of the EGF receptor at a threonine residue close to the cytoplasmic face of the plasma membrane. Nature. 1984;311(5985):480–483. [PubMed]
40. Sato K, Sato A, Aoto M, Fukami Y. c-Src phosphorylates epidermal growth factor receptor on tyrosine 845. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1995;215(3):1078–1087. [PubMed]
41. Barbier AJ, Poppleton HM, Yigzaw Y, et al. Transmodulation of epidermal growth factor receptor function by cyclic AMP-dependent protein kinase. J Biol Chem. 1999;274(20):14067–14073. [PubMed]
42. Daub H, Weiss FU, Wallasch C, Ullrich A. Role of transactivation of the EGF receptor in signalling by G-protein-coupled receptors. Nature. 1996;379(6565):557–560. [PubMed]
43. Zwick E, Hackel PO, Prenzel N, Ullrich A. The EGF receptor as central transducer of heterologous signalling systems. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 1999;20(10):408–412. [PubMed]
44. Scaltriti M, Baselga J. The epidermal growth factor receptor pathway: a model for targeted therapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(18):5268–5272. [PubMed]
45. Oda K, Matsuoka Y, Funahashi A, Kitano H. A comprehensive pathway map of epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. Mol Syst Biol. 2005;1:2005. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
46. Kolch W, Pitt A. Functional proteomics to dissect tyrosine kinase signalling pathways in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010;10(9):618–629. [PubMed]
47. Mascaux C, Iannino N, Martin B, et al. The role of RAS oncogene in survival of patients with lung cancer: a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2005;92(1):131–139. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
48. Shields JM, Pruitt K, McFall A, Shaub A, Der CJ. Understanding Ras: ‘It ain’t over ‘til it’s over’ Trends Cell Biol. 2000;10(4):147–154. [PubMed]
49. Rodenhuis S, Slebos RJ. Clinical significance of ras oncogene activation in human lung cancer. Cancer Res. 1992;52(Suppl 9):2665s–2669s. [PubMed]
50. Pao W, Wang TY, Riely GJ, et al. KRAS mutations and primary resistance of lung adenocarcinomas to gefitinib or erlotinib. PLoS Med. 2005;2(1):e17. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
51. Eberhard DA, Johnson BE, Amler LC, et al. Mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor and in KRAS are predictive and prognostic indicators in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with chemotherapy alone and in combination with erlotinib. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(25):5900–5909. [PubMed]
52. Riely GJ, Kris MG, Rosenbaum D, et al. Frequency and distinctive spectrum of KRAS mutations in never smokers with lung adenocarcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(18):5731–5734. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
53. Sun S, Schiller JH, Gazdar AF. Lung cancer in never smokers – a different disease. Nat Rev Cancer. 2007;7(10):778–790. [PubMed]
54. Vivanco I, Sawyers CL. The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase AKT pathway in human cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2002;2(7):489–501. [PubMed]
55. Yamamoto H, Shigematsu H, Nomura M, et al. PIK3CA mutations and copy number gains in human lung cancers. Cancer Res. 2008;68(17):6913–6921. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
56. Soria JC, Lee HY, Lee JI, et al. Lack of PTEN expression in non-small cell lung cancer could be related to promoter methylation. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8(5):1178–1184. [PubMed]
57. Marsit CJ, Zheng S, Aldape K, et al. PTEN expression in non-small-cell lung cancer: evaluating its relation to tumor characteristics, allelic loss, and epigenetic alteration. Hum Pathol. 2005;36(7):768–776. [PubMed]
58. Yu H, Pardoll D, Jove R. STATs in cancer inflammation and immunity: a leading role for STAT3. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9(11):798–809. [PubMed]
59. Darnell JE., Jr STATs and gene regulation. Science. 1997;277(5332):1630–1635. [PubMed]
60. Yu H, Jove R. The STATs of cancer – new molecular targets come of age. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4(2):97–105. [PubMed]
61. Kim LC, Song L, Haura EB. Src kinases as therapeutic targets for cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009;6(10):587–595. [PubMed]
62. Aggarwal BB, Kunnumakkara AB, Harikumar KB, et al. Signal transducer and activator of transcription-3, inflammation, and cancer: how intimate is the relationship? Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009;1171:59–76. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
63. Ganti AK. Epidermal growth factor receptor signaling in nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer Invest. 2010;28(5):515–525. [PubMed]
64. Sanchez-Ceja SG, Reyes-Maldonado E, Vazquez-Manriquez ME, Lopez-Luna JJ, Belmont A, Gutierrez-Castellanos S. Differential expression of STAT5 and Bcl-xL, and high expression of Neu and STAT3 in non-small-cell lung carcinoma. Lung Cancer. 2006;54(2):163–168. [PubMed]
65. Maemondo M, Inoue A, Kobayashi K, et al. Gefitinib or chemotherapy for non–small-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(25):2380–2388. [PubMed]
66. Mendelsohn J, Kawamoto, et al. Hybrid cell lines that produce monoclonal antibodies to epidermal growth factor receptor. Jul 20, 1990. United States Patent: 4,943,533.
67. Humblet Y. Cetuximab: an IgG(1) monoclonal antibody for the treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor-expressing tumours. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2004;5(7):1621–1633. [PubMed]
68. Goldstein NI, Prewett M, Zuklys K, Rockwell P, Mendelsohn J. Biological efficacy of a chimeric antibody to the epidermal growth factor receptor in a human tumor xenograft model. Clin Cancer Res. 1995;1(11):1311–1318. [PubMed]
69. Hsu YF, Ajona D, Corrales L, et al. Complement activation mediates cetuximab inhibition of non-small cell lung cancer tumor growth in vivo. Mol Cancer. 2010;9:139. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
70. Ranson M, Sliwkowski MX. Perspectives on anti-HER monoclonal antibodies. Oncology. 2002;63(Suppl 1):17–24. [PubMed]
71. Atkinson AJ, Colburn WA, DeGruttola VG, et al. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;69(3):89–95. [PubMed]
72. Butts CA, Bodkin D, Middleman EL, et al. Randomized phase II study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin or carboplatin, with or without cetuximab, as first-line therapy for patients with advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(36):5777–5784. [PubMed]
73. Rosell R, Robinet G, Szczesna A, et al. Randomized phase II study of cetuximab plus cisplatin/vinorelbine compared with cisplatin/vinorelbine alone as first-line therapy in EGFR-expressing advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(2):362–369. [PubMed]
74. Lynch TJ, Patel T, Dreisbach L, et al. Cetuximab and first-line taxane/carboplatin chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: results of the randomized multicenter phase III trial BMS099. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(6):911–917. [PubMed]
75. Bristol-Myers Squibb, ImClone LLC Study of taxane/carboplatin +/– cetuximab as first-line treatment for patients with advanced/metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. NCT00112294. 2012. Available from: Accessed on June 18, 2012.
76. Khambata-Ford S, Harbison CT, Hart LL, et al. Analysis of potential predictive markers of cetuximab benefit in BMS099, a phase III study of cetuximab and first-line taxane/carboplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(6):918–927. [PubMed]
77. Hanna N, Lilenbaum R, Ansari R, et al. Phase II trial of cetuximab in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(33):5253–5258. [PubMed]
78. Pirker R, Pereira JR, von PJ, et al. EGFR expression as a predictor of survival for first-line chemotherapy plus cetuximab in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: analysis of data from the phase 3 FLEX study. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(1):33–42. [PubMed]
79. Hirsch FR, Herbst RS, Olsen C, et al. Increased EGFR gene copy number detected by fluorescent in situ hybridization predicts outcome in non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with cetuximab and chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(20):3351–3357. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
80. Lin H, Jiang J, Liang X, Zhou X, Huang R. Chemotherapy with cetuximab or chemotherapy alone for untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lung Cancer. 2010;70(1):57–62. [PubMed]
81. Amado RG, Wolf M, Peeters M, et al. Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(10):1626–1634. [PubMed]
82. Fransen K, Klintenas M, Osterstrom A, Dimberg J, Monstein HJ, Soderkvist P. Mutation analysis of the BRAF, ARAF and RAF-1 genes in human colorectal adenocarcinomas. Carcinogenesis. 2004;25(4):527–533. [PubMed]
83. De RW, Piessevaux H, De SJ, et al. KRAS wild-type state predicts survival and is associated to early radiological response in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(3):508–515. [PubMed]
84. Di FF, Blanchard F, Charbonnier F, et al. Clinical relevance of KRAS mutation detection in metastatic colorectal cancer treated by cetuximab plus chemotherapy. Br J Cancer. 2007;96(8):1166–1169. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
85. Kosaka T, Yatabe Y, Endoh H, Kuwano H, Takahashi T, Mitsudomi T. mutations of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene in lung cancer. Cancer Res. 2004;64(24):8919–8923. [PubMed]
86. Tam IYS, Chung LP, Suen WS, et al. Distinct epidermal growth factor receptor and kras mutation patterns in non-small cell lung cancer patients with different tobacco exposure and clinicopathologic features. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(5):1647–1653. [PubMed]
87. O’Byrne KJ, Gatzemeier U, Bondarenko I, et al. Molecular biomarkers in non-small-cell lung cancer: a retrospective analysis of data from the phase 3 FLEX study. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(8):795–805. [PubMed]
88. Herbst RS, Kelly K, Chansky K, et al. Phase II selection design trial of concurrent chemotherapy and cetuximab versus chemotherapy followed by cetuximab in advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: Southwest Oncology Group study S0342. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(31):4747–4754. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
89. Merck KGaA. Study of cisplatin/vinorelbine +/– cetuximab as First-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (FLEX) NCT00148798. 2012. Available from: Accessed on June 18, 2012.
90. Nikolova DA, Asangani IA, Nelson LD, et al. Fetuximab attenuates metastasis and u-PAR eExpression in non-small cell lung cancer: u-PAR and E-Cadherin are novel biomarkers of cetuximab sensitivity. Cancer Res. 2009;69(6):2461–2470. [PubMed]
91. Yonesaka K, Zejnullahu K, Okamoto I, et al. Activation of ERBB2 signaling causes resistance to the EGFR-directed therapeutic antibody cetuximab. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3(99):99ra86. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
92. Yonesaka K, Zejnullahu K, Lindeman N, et al. Autocrine production of amphiregulin predicts sensitivity to both gefitinib and cetuximab in EGFR wild-type cancers. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(21):6963–6973. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
93. Wu JY, Yang CH, Hsu YC, et al. Use of cetuximab after failure of gefitinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer. 2010;11(4):257–263. [PubMed]
94. Paez JG, Janne PA, Lee JC, et al. EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science. 2004;304(5676):1497–1500. [PubMed]
95. Pao W, Miller V, Zakowski M, et al. EGF receptor gene mutations are common in lung cancers from “never smokers” and are associated with sensitivity of tumors to gefitinib and erlotinib. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101(36):13306–13311. [PubMed]
96. Huang SF, Liu HP, Li LH, et al. High frequency of epidermal growth factor receptor mutations with complex patterns in non-small cell lung cancers related to gefitinib responsiveness in Taiwan. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(24):8195–8203. [PubMed]
97. Herbst RS, Giaccone G, Schiller JH, et al. Gefitinib in combination with paclitaxel and carboplatin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a phase III trial – INTACT 2. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(5):785–794. [PubMed]
98. Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R, et al. Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(21):2129–2139. [PubMed]
99. Mukohara T, Engelman JA, Hanna NH, et al. Differential effects of gefitinib and cetuximab on non-small-cell lung cancers bearing epidermal growth factor receptor mutations. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(16):1185–1194. [PubMed]
100. Van CE, Kohne CH, Hitre E, et al. Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1408–1417. [PubMed]
101. Tol J, Koopman M, Cats A, et al. Chemotherapy, bevacizumab, and cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(6):563–572. [PubMed]
102. Lurje G, Lenz HJ. EGFR signaling and drug discovery. Oncology. 2009;77(6):400–410. [PubMed]
103. Govindan R. Cetuximab in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(12 Pt 2):4241s–4244s. [PubMed]
104. Pennell NA, Lynch TJ., Jr Combined inhibition of the VEGFR and EGFR signaling pathways in the treatment of NSCLC. Oncologist. 2009;14(4):399–411. [PubMed]
105. Kruser TJ, Wheeler DL. Mechanisms of resistance to HER family targeting antibodies. Exp Cell Res. 2010;316(7):1083–1100. [PubMed]
106. Rossi A, Bria E, Maione P, Palazzolo G, Falanga M, Gridelli C. The role of cetuximab and other epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2008;3(3):217–227. [PubMed]
107. Capdevila J, Elez E, Macarulla T, Ramos FJ, Ruiz-Echarri M, Tabernero J. Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibodies in cancer treatment. Cancer Treat Rev. 2009;35(4):354–363. [PubMed]
108. Ciardiello F, De VF, Orditura M, Tortora G. The role of EGFR inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer. Curr Opin Onco. 2004;16(2):130–135. [PubMed]
109. Brand TM, Iida M, Li C, Wheeler DL. The nuclear epidermal growth factor receptor signaling network and its role in cancer. Discov Med. 2011;12(66):419–432. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Articles from Biologics : Targets & Therapy are provided here courtesy of Dove Press