Cited by 1,491Colorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsMelanoma and MAPK Pathways

Encorafenib, Binimetinib, and Cetuximab in BRAF V600E–Mutated Colorectal Cancer

Open access
Kopetz, Scott, Grothey, Axel, Yaeger, Rona, Van Cutsem, Eric, Desai, Jayesh, Yoshino, Takayuki, Wasan, Harpreet, Ciardiello, Fortunato +27 more·2019·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: V600E mutation have a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival of 4 to 6 months after failure of initial therapy. Inhibition of BRAF alone has limited activity because of pathway reactivation through epidermal growth factor receptor signaling. METHODS: V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer who had had disease progression after one or two previous regimens. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab (triplet-therapy group); encorafenib and cetuximab (doublet-therapy group); or the investigators' choice of either cetuximab and irinotecan or cetuximab and FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) (control group). The primary end points were overall survival and objective response rate in the triplet-therapy group as compared with the control group. A secondary end point was overall survival in the doublet-therapy group as compared with the control group. We report here the results of a prespecified interim analysis. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 9.0 months in the triplet-therapy group and 5.4 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.70; P<0.001). The confirmed response rate was 26% (95% CI, 18 to 35) in the triplet-therapy group and 2% (95% CI, 0 to 7) in the control group (P<0.001). The median overall survival in the doublet-therapy group was 8.4 months (hazard ratio for death vs. control, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.79; P<0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 58% of patients in the triplet-therapy group, in 50% in the doublet-therapy group, and in 61% in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: V600E mutation. (Funded by Array BioPharma and others; BEACON CRC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02928224; EudraCT number, 2015-005805-35.).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa1908075

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In 665 patients with metastatic BRAF V600E colorectal cancer, combined BRAF and EGFR inhibition improved activity over BRAF inhibitor monotherapy.

    “The potential improvement in activity observed for the combination is consistent with outcomes reported in 665 patients who had metastatic colorectal cancer with a BRAF V600E mutation, in which combined BRAF and EGFR inhibition led to improved activity over BRAF inhibitor monotherapy.33”

    From Adagrasib with or without Cetuximab in Colorectal Cancer with Mutated <i>KRAS</i> G12C (2023) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Results report that 665 patients were randomized, and the Discussion reports improved survival and response with BRAF–EGFR combination therapy. But the trial compared those combinations with cetuximab plus irinotecan-based chemotherapy, not BRAF inhibitor monotherapy. The latter comparison appears only as background, not as an outcome demonstrated in the 665-patient trial. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the Phase III BEACON trial, triple therapy with encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab showed no significant changes compared with encorafenib plus cetuximab in BRAFV600E colorectal cancer.

    “This recommendation is based on the Phase III BEACON trial, which evaluated dual and triple therapy for BRAFV600E CRC using encorafenib, binimetinib (MEK inhibitor), and cetuximab and showed no significant changes between the triple therapy and encorafenib plus cetuximab [5].”

    From Inhibition of fatty acid synthase enhances therapeutic efficacy and delays acquired resistance to BRAF-targeted therapy in colorectal cancer (2026) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Trial Design section identifies BEACON as a phase 3 trial comparing these regimens in BRAF V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. The Discussion reports that the triplet-versus-doublet overall-survival estimate favored the triplet, but its 95% confidence interval included no difference. The Statistical Analysis section says the trial was not powered for a formal comparison between those groups, so the broader claim of no significant changes between them is not established. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Only 22% of BRAFV600E colorectal cancer patients who received one previous line of therapy respond to encorafenib plus cetuximab, and resistance ultimately develops in the majority of patients.

    “Despite the significant benefit of FDA-approved encorafenib plus cetuximab therapy, only 22% of patients who received one previous line of therapy respond to this approach, and resistance ultimately develops in the majority of patients [5,6].”

    From Inhibition of fatty acid synthase enhances therapeutic efficacy and delays acquired resistance to BRAF-targeted therapy in colorectal cancer (2026) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Efficacy section reports a 22% response rate to encorafenib plus cetuximab among patients with only one previous line of therapy. The Discussion says resistance ultimately develops in many patients, but refers to the triplet regimen and does not establish that it develops in a majority receiving the doublet. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Adding EGFR inhibitors to BRAF-targeted therapy improves efficacy in BRAFV600E colorectal cancer.

    “the phase III BEACON trial led to the approval of encorafenib (BRAFi) and cetuximab (EGRFi) for the treatment of pretreated metastatic BRAFV600E CRC patients, as it demonstrated a significant survival improvement over the standard-of-care (irinotecan-based chemotherapy and EGFRi) (9.3 vs 5.9 months, HR 0.61, P < 0.001) [17, 18].”

    From Co-targeting SRC overcomes resistance to BRAF inhibitors in colorectal cancer (2025) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Efficacy section reports that encorafenib plus cetuximab significantly improved overall survival over the irinotecan-based control regimen in previously treated patients with BRAF V600E–mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. But the cited paper reports 8.4 versus 5.4 months and a hazard ratio of 0.60 for that doublet, not the citing sentence’s 9.3 versus 5.9 months and 0.61. The paper also does not document regulatory approval. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Combined EGFR and BRAF blockade proved synthetic lethality in preclinical models of BRAFV600E CRC and modestly improves survival of patients with advanced disease.

    “Combined EGFR and BRAF blockade proved synthetic lethality in preclinical models of BRAFV600E CRC and modestly improves survival of patients with advanced disease [7, 8, 15–17].”

    From Co-targeting SRC overcomes resistance to BRAF inhibitors in colorectal cancer (2025) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Efficacy section reports that combined BRAF and EGFR blockade improved median overall survival in patients with BRAF V600E–mutated metastatic colorectal cancer: 8.4 months with the doublet versus 5.4 months with control therapy. The introductory passage describes preclinical EGFR feedback after BRAF inhibition, but does not say that combined blockade proved synthetic lethality in those models. The copy provides no page number for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [22]22. Hong DS, Morris VK, El Osta B, et al. Phase IB study of vemurafenib in combi- nation with irinotecan and cetuximab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with BRAFV600E mutation. Cancer Dis- cov 2016; 6: 1352-65.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kopetz, S., Grothey, A., Yaeger, R., Van Cutsem, E., Desai, J., Yoshino, T., Wasan, H., Ciardiello, F., Loupakis, F., Hong, Y. S., Steeghs, N., Guren, T. K., Arkenau, H.-T., Garcia-Alfonso, P., Pfeiffer, P., Orlov, S., Lonardi, S., Elez, E., Kim, T.-W., Schellens, J. H. M., Guo, C., Krishnan, A., Dekervel, J., Morris, V., Calvo Ferrandiz, A., Tarpgaard, L. S., Braun, M., Gollerkeri, A., Keir, C., Maharry, K., Pickard, M., Christy-Bittel, J., Anderson, L., Sandor, V., & Tabernero, J.
Affiliations
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • From the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston (S.K., V.M.); West Cancer Center and Research Institute, OneOncology, Germantown, TN (A. Grothey); Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York (R.Y., A.K.); University Hospital Gasthuisberg and University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium (E.V.C., J. Dekervel); the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia (J. Desai, C.G.); National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan (T.Y.); Hammersmith Hospital, Division of...
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2019-10-24
Volume
381
Issue
17
Pages
1632-1643
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2977895282
Cited by
1,491
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 154 · 2025: 184 · 2024: 245 · 2023: 184 · 2022: 230 · 2021: 275 · 2020: 204 · 2019: 13
FWCI
75.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Hispana (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RIUVic (UVic-UCC) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca - Università degli Studi della Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" (submittedVersion)
Funders
Array BioPharma
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Melanoma and MAPK Pathways
Keywords
BRAF V600E mutation, metastatic colorectal cancer, encorafenib, binimetinib, cetuximab, BRAF inhibitor combination therapy, EGFR signaling, overall survival, objective response rate, irinotecan, FOLFIRI, adverse events, targeted therapy
MeSH terms
Cetuximab, Electrocorticography, Irinotecan, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Benzimidazoles, Carbamates, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Mutation, Sulfonamides, Colorectal Neoplasms, Survival Analysis, Disease Progression, Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Intention to Treat Analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review