Ame conclusion is found in cetuximab subgroup o significant benefit in OS (HR = 1.02, 95 CI [0.89, 1.18], P = 0.75) and PFS (HR = 0.87, 95 CI [0.65, 1.17], P = 0.36). The OS was set as the primary end point for several reasons. First, OS is a chief goal in the setting of incurable diseases such as mCRC. Second, OS is an objective endpoint and could be measured precisely without the influence by assessment. However,Figure 5. Randomized effect model on HR of OS in Cetuximab subgroup. The ML-281 chemical information pooled HR of OS in cetuximab subgroup is symbolized by a solid diamond at the bottom of the forest plot and the width of which represents the 95 CI. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050925.gAntiEGFR MAbs and Oxaliplatin in Colorectal CancerFigure 6. Randomized effect model on HR of PFS in Cetuximab subgroup. The pooled HR of PFS in cetuximab subgroup is symbolized by a solid diamond at the bottom of the forest plot and the width of which represents the 95 CI. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050925.gOS may be affected by crossover therapy and sequential therapy. The US Food and Drug Administration consider OS a universally accepted direct measure of treatment benefit and the end point of regular approval of drugs. PFS is not statistically validated as a surrogate endpoint for survival in all settings [17]. In our study, the reason why anti-EGFR antibodies combined with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy did not show clinical benefit in wild type KRAS m-CRC remains unknown, while one plausible explanation is the nature and interaction of drugs used in combination. Src-family Kinases serve as a kind of non-receptor tyrosine kinases, having mutual interaction with EGFR required for proliferation, migration, survival and EGFR endocytosis. Some pre-clinical studies demonstrated that Src Kinase is activated after oxaliplatin administration through a ROS-dependent mechanism [18]. A high level of Src activates the downstream of the signal pathway of EGFR without combining ligand. In vitro study, cetuximab-resistant CRC cells showed a remarkable decrease in the level of EGFR and an enhanced role of Src kinase in collaboration with EGFR for supporting cell growth and survival [19], therefore oxaliplatin might decrease the activity of EGFR MAb. Besides the oxaliplatin, different fluoropyrimidine regimens may also affect the efficacy of EGFR-targeted therapy differently. In the MRC COIN study [13], the predictive factor analysis shows the additional cetuximab improved the efficacy significantly in fluorouracil-based therapy while capecitabine-based subgroup has a negative result. The FOLFOX4 regimen plus panitumumab could improve PFS in the PRIME study [15,16]. In NORDIC VII trial [14], the combination of cetuximab and FLOX regimen doesn’t prolong the OS and PFS. The FOLFOX and XELOX regimen are standard therapies in the first-line treatment ofmCRC and the FLOX regimen is Sudan I web employed as a standard firstline regimen in the Nordic countries [14]. The efficacy of each regimen doesn’t differ significantly. It 1379592 is not clear why anti-EGFR MAbs have different effects when combined with different fluoropyrimidine regimens. A possible explanation is that the addition of cetuximab resulted in reduced dose intensity (in MRC COIN study, for fluorouracil-based therapy: median 78 in the control group [Interquartile range (IQR) 70?7] vs 73 [IQR 66?82] in the cetuximab group, p = 0?031; for capecitabine-based therapy: 85 [IQR 74?2] vs 79 [IQR 67?8], p = 0?0021 [13]). It might be hypothesized that t.Ame conclusion is found in cetuximab subgroup o significant benefit in OS (HR = 1.02, 95 CI [0.89, 1.18], P = 0.75) and PFS (HR = 0.87, 95 CI [0.65, 1.17], P = 0.36). The OS was set as the primary end point for several reasons. First, OS is a chief goal in the setting of incurable diseases such as mCRC. Second, OS is an objective endpoint and could be measured precisely without the influence by assessment. However,Figure 5. Randomized effect model on HR of OS in Cetuximab subgroup. The pooled HR of OS in cetuximab subgroup is symbolized by a solid diamond at the bottom of the forest plot and the width of which represents the 95 CI. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050925.gAntiEGFR MAbs and Oxaliplatin in Colorectal CancerFigure 6. Randomized effect model on HR of PFS in Cetuximab subgroup. The pooled HR of PFS in cetuximab subgroup is symbolized by a solid diamond at the bottom of the forest plot and the width of which represents the 95 CI. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050925.gOS may be affected by crossover therapy and sequential therapy. The US Food and Drug Administration consider OS a universally accepted direct measure of treatment benefit and the end point of regular approval of drugs. PFS is not statistically validated as a surrogate endpoint for survival in all settings [17]. In our study, the reason why anti-EGFR antibodies combined with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy did not show clinical benefit in wild type KRAS m-CRC remains unknown, while one plausible explanation is the nature and interaction of drugs used in combination. Src-family Kinases serve as a kind of non-receptor tyrosine kinases, having mutual interaction with EGFR required for proliferation, migration, survival and EGFR endocytosis. Some pre-clinical studies demonstrated that Src Kinase is activated after oxaliplatin administration through a ROS-dependent mechanism [18]. A high level of Src activates the downstream of the signal pathway of EGFR without combining ligand. In vitro study, cetuximab-resistant CRC cells showed a remarkable decrease in the level of EGFR and an enhanced role of Src kinase in collaboration with EGFR for supporting cell growth and survival [19], therefore oxaliplatin might decrease the activity of EGFR MAb. Besides the oxaliplatin, different fluoropyrimidine regimens may also affect the efficacy of EGFR-targeted therapy differently. In the MRC COIN study [13], the predictive factor analysis shows the additional cetuximab improved the efficacy significantly in fluorouracil-based therapy while capecitabine-based subgroup has a negative result. The FOLFOX4 regimen plus panitumumab could improve PFS in the PRIME study [15,16]. In NORDIC VII trial [14], the combination of cetuximab and FLOX regimen doesn’t prolong the OS and PFS. The FOLFOX and XELOX regimen are standard therapies in the first-line treatment ofmCRC and the FLOX regimen is employed as a standard firstline regimen in the Nordic countries [14]. The efficacy of each regimen doesn’t differ significantly. It 1379592 is not clear why anti-EGFR MAbs have different effects when combined with different fluoropyrimidine regimens. A possible explanation is that the addition of cetuximab resulted in reduced dose intensity (in MRC COIN study, for fluorouracil-based therapy: median 78 in the control group [Interquartile range (IQR) 70?7] vs 73 [IQR 66?82] in the cetuximab group, p = 0?031; for capecitabine-based therapy: 85 [IQR 74?2] vs 79 [IQR 67?8], p = 0?0021 [13]). It might be hypothesized that t.