Abstract 2618: Staged analysis of standard of care tumor molecular testing among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in the community health system setting

Personalized treatment vs. standard of care is much debated, especially in clinical practice. Here we investigated whether overall survival differences in metastatic colorectal cancer patients are explained by tumor mutation profiles or by treatment differences in real clinical practice. Our retrospective study of metastatic colorectal cancer patients of confirmed European ancestry comprised 54 Americans and 54 gender-matched Germans. The Americans received standard of care, and on treatment failure, 35 patients received individualized treatments. The German patients received standard of care only. Tumor mutations, tumor mutation burden and microsatellite status were identified by using the FoundationOne assay or the IDT Pan-Cancer assay. High-risk patients were identified according to the mutational classification by Schell and colleagues. Results: Kaplan–Meier estimates show the high-risk patients to survive 16 months longer under individualized treatments than those under only standard of care, in the median (p < 0.001). Tumor mutation profiles stratify patients by risk groups but not by country. Conclusions: High-risk patients appear to survive significantly longer (p < 0.001) if they receive individualized treatments after the exhaustion of standard of care treatments. Secondly, the tumor mutation landscape in Americans and Germans is congruent and thus warrants the transatlantic exchange of successful treatment protocols and the harmonization of guidelines.

Download Full-text

Randomized trial of irinotecan and cetuximab with or without vemurafenib in BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (SWOG S1406).

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.3505 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 3505-3505 ◽

Cited By ~ 27

Author(s):

Scott Kopetz ◽

Shannon L McDonough ◽

Heinz-Josef Lenz ◽

Anthony Martin Magliocco ◽

Chloe Evelyn Atreya ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽

Braf Inhibitor ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Skin Toxicity ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Type 1 Error ◽

Clinical Benefits ◽

Poor Outcomes ◽

Ecog Ps

3505 Background: Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients (pts) with BRAFV600 mutations have poor outcomes with standard of care chemotherapy and rarely respond to the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib. In preclinical models, blockade of BRAFV600 by vemurafenib (V) causes feedback upregulation of EGFR, whose signaling activities can be impeded by cetuximab (C) with anti-tumor activity augmented by irinotecan (I). Methods: Pts with BRAFV600 mutated and extended RAS wild-type mCRC were randomized to irinotecan (180 mg/m2 IV every 14 days) and cetuximab (500 mg/m2 IV every 14 days) with or without vemurafenib (960 mg PO twice daily). Eligible pts had ECOG PS ≤1, and had received 1 or 2 prior regimens with no prior anti-EGFR agents. Randomization was stratified for prior irinotecan. Crossover from the control arm (IC) to the experimental arm (VIC) was allowed after documented progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS, investigator assessed), with 90% power to detect a HR of 0.5, with two-sided type 1 error of 5%. Results: 106 pts were enrolled (99 eligible, 49 in the experimental arm) from 12/2014 to 4/2016, with median age 62 years, 59% female, and 39% with prior irinotecan therapy. PFS was improved with the addition of vemurafenib (HR 0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26 to 0.66, P < 0.001) with median PFS of 4.4 (95% CI 3.6 – 5.7) mos vs 2.0 (95% CI 1.8 – 2.1) months. Response rate was 16% vs 4% (P = 0.08), with disease control rate of 67% vs 22%. In pts with no prior irinotecan, median PFS was 5.7 (95% CI 3.0-6.1) months in the VIC arm vs 1.9 (95% CI 1.7 – 2.1) months in the IC arm. Grade 3/4 adverse events higher in the VIC arm included neutropenia (28% vs 7%), anemia (13% vs 0%), and nausea (15% vs 0%). There was no increase in skin toxicity or fatigue. 23 pts (46%) in the IC arm crossed over at the time of progression, with median PFS from crossover of 6.0 months (95% CI 3.7 – 7.4). Overall survival (OS) data will be mature for ASCO 2017. Conclusions: These results demonstrate the clinical benefits of the VIC triplet (vemurafenib, cetuximab, and irinotecan) in pts with treatment-refractory BRAFV600 mutated mCRC, and support VIC as a potential new treatment option in this molecular subset. Clinical trial information: NCT02164916.

Download Full-text

cfDNA for accurate determination of RAS and BRAF mutations using OncoBEAM liquid biopsy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: Results of the real-world multicentric ColoBEAM study.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.3542 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 3542-3542 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Alexandre Harle ◽

Celine Gavoille ◽

Olivier Bouche ◽

Meher Ben Abdelghani ◽

Jérôme Edouard Plaza ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Liver Metastasis ◽

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽

Liquid Biopsy ◽

Accurate Determination ◽

Braf V600e ◽

Molecular Testing ◽

Braf Mutations ◽

Blood Samples

3542 Background: Determination of KRAS, NRAS ( RAS) and BRAF mutations is a standard of care for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). RAS mutations are well characterized resistance biomarkers to anti-EGFR antibodies and BRAF V600 mutations indicate poor prognosis. Tissue biopsy has traditionally been used to determine RAS and BRAF status, but liquid biopsy analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has demonstrated utility as a less invasive tool to expedite molecular testing results to the clinic. The ColoBEAM study reports the performance of plasma mutation testing in a real-life prospective series of 278 patients across 8 centers. Methods: Plasma derived ctDNA was prepared from 20mL blood samples prospectively collected from mCRC patients who had not received chemotherapy in the prior 15 days. ctDNA was centrally assessed using OncoBEAM and results compared to those obtained by routine analysis of tissue. Both tissue and blood samples with discrepant RAS results were blindly reassessed with OncoBEAM. Results: Of 278 patients enrolled, 202 blood samples were available for OncoBEAM testing. RAS and BRAF V600E mutations were detected in tissue in 132/202 (65.4%) and 4/198 (2.0%) patients, respectively. Analysis of the first ctDNA sample as compared to tissue DNA resulted in a kappa coefficient (κ) of 0.52 [0.41 – 0.63] and accuracy of 75.2% (65.1% sensitivity; 94.3% specificity). OncoBEAM testing of a second sample resulted (κ) of 0.66 [0.56 - 0.76] and accuracy of 83.2% (77.3% sensitivity; 94.3% specificity). Of the 4 samples with a BRAF V600E mutation in tumor tissue 2 were detected in blood. In the subgroup of patients with liver metastasis (n=136), accuracy was 88.2% (87.4% sensitivity; 90.2% specificity) for RAS and BRAF status with (κ) of 0.73 [0.61 – 0.86]. In a subgroup of chemotherapy naïve patients with liver metastasis (n=49), accuracy was 91.8% (93.3% sensitivity; 89.5% specificity) for RAS and BRAF status with (κ) of 0.83 [0.67 – 0.99]. Conclusions: The results of the ColoBEAM study confirm plasma ctDNA as a credible surrogate marker to tissue DNA for RAS and BRAF status assessment and may be incorporated as a first-line theragnostic assessment. New testing on a second sample for wild-type status demonstrated 91.8% concordance between blood and tissue. Clinical trial information: NCT02751177.

Download Full-text

Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: The phase 3 KEYNOTE-177 Study.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2020.38.18_suppl.lba4 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 38 (18_suppl) ◽

pp. LBA4-LBA4 ◽

Cited By ~ 42

Author(s):

Thierry Andre ◽

Kai-Keen Shiu ◽

Tae Won Kim ◽

Benny Vittrup Jensen ◽

Lars Henrik Jensen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Microsatellite Instability ◽

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽

Mismatch Repair ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

First Line ◽

Phase 3 ◽

End Points ◽

First Line Therapy ◽

Line Therapy

LBA4 Background: KEYNOTE-177 (NCT02563002) is a phase 3, randomized open-label study evaluating the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab (pembro) versus standard of care chemotherapy ± bevacizumab or cetuximab (chemo) as first-line therapy for patients (pts) with microsatellite-instability high/mismatch repair deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We present results of the final PFS analysis. Methods: A total of 307 pts with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC as determined locally and ECOG PS 0 or 1 were randomly assigned 1:1 to first-line pembro 200 mg Q3W for up to 2 years or investigator’s choice of mFOLFOX6 or FOLFIRI Q2W ± bevacizumab or cetuximab (chemo chosen prior to randomization). Treatment continued until PD, unacceptable toxicity, pt/investigator decision to withdraw, or completion of 35 cycles (pembro only). Patients receiving chemo could crossover to pembro for up to 35 cycles after confirmed PD. Primary end points were PFS (RECIST v1.1, central review) and OS. Key secondary end points included ORR (RECIST v1.1, central review), and safety. The data cutoff date for this interim analysis was Feb 19, 2020. The study will continue without changes to evaluate OS. Results: At data cutoff, 153 pts were randomized to pembro and 154 to chemo. Median (range) study follow-up was 28.4 mo (0.2-48.3) with pembro vs 27.2 mo (0.8-46.6) with chemo. Pembro was superior to chemo for PFS (median 16.5 mo vs 8.2 mo; HR 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45-0.80; P=0.0002). The 12- and 24-mo PFS rates were 55.3% and 48.3% with pembro vs 37.3% and 18.6% with chemo. Confirmed ORR was 43.8% vs 33.1%; median (range) duration of response was not reached (2.3+ to 41.4+) with pembro vs 10.6 mo (2.8 to 37.5+) with chemo. Grade 3-5 treatment related adverse event (AE) rates were 22% vs 66% for pembro vs chemo. One pt in the chemo arm died due to a treatment-related AE. Conclusions: Pembro provided a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement in PFS versus chemo as first-line therapy for pts with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC, with fewer treatment-related AEs observed and should be the new standard of care for these pts. Clinical trial information: NCT02563002 .

Download Full-text

506TiP Pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib versus standard of care for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Phase III LEAP-017 study

Annals of Oncology ◽

10.1016/j.annonc.2021.08.1025 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 32 ◽

pp. S580

Author(s):

T. Yoshino ◽

R. Fu ◽

N. Hawk ◽

D.E. Adelberg ◽

K.G. Norwood ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Previously Treated

Download Full-text

Practice patterns and outcomes with the use of regorafenib in metastatic colorectal cancer: Results from the Regorafenib in Metastatic colorectal cancer - An Indian exploratory analysis study

South Asian Journal of Cancer ◽

10.4103/sajc.sajc_173_18 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 08 (01) ◽

pp. 22-26 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Anant Ramaswamy ◽

Vikas Ostwal ◽

Nikhil Pande ◽

Atul Sharma ◽

Shekar Patil ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Colorectal Cancer ◽

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽

Practice Patterns ◽

Collaborative Study ◽

Data Entry ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Duration Of Treatment ◽

Tata Memorial Hospital ◽

Data Entry Form

Abstract Background: Regorafenib is considered a standard of care as third-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRCs). Materials and Methods: The study was based on a computerized clinical data form sent to oncologists across the country for entry of anonymized patient data. The data entry form was conceived and generated by the coordinating center's (Tata Memorial Hospital) gastrointestinal medical oncologists and disseminated through personal contacts at academic conferences as well as through E-mail to various oncologists across India. Results: A total of 19 physicians contributed data resulting in 80 patients receiving regorafenib who were available for the evaluation of practice patterns. The median age was 55 years (range: 24–75). Majority had received oxaliplatin-based (97.5%), irinotecan-based (87.5%), and targeted therapy (65%), previously. Patients were primarily started on reduced doses of regorafenib upfront (160 mg – 28.8%, 120 mg – 58.8%, and 80 mg – 12.5%). The median duration of treatment (treatment duration) with regorafenib was 3.1 months (range: 0.5–18), while the median progression free survival was 3.48 months (range: 2.6–4.3). Forty-five percent of patients required dose modifications due to toxicities, and the most common were (all grades) hand-foot syndrome (68.8%), fatigue (46.3%), mucositis (37.6%), and diarrhea (31.3%). Conclusions: Majority of physicians in this collaborative study from India used a lower dose of regorafenib at the outset in patients with mCRC. Despite a lower dose, there was a significant requirement for dose reduction. Duration of treatment with regorafenib as an efficacy end point in this study is similar to available data from other regions as it is the side effect profile.

Download Full-text