The nationwide genomic screening project for gastrointestinal cancer in Japan (GI-SCREEN): Simultaneous identification of KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutation in advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC) (GI-SCREEN 2013-01).

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 578-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kohei Shitara ◽  
Satoshi Fujii ◽  
Tadamichi Denda ◽  
Takeshi Kajiwara ◽  
Satoshi Yuki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Targeted Therapies ◽  
Gastrointestinal Cancer ◽  
Braf Mutation ◽  
Advanced Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Pik3ca Mutation ◽  
Exon 2 ◽  
Genomic Screening ◽  
The Impact

578 Background: Recent studies confirmed that minor KRAS or NRAS mutations are associated with the resistance to anti-EGFR therapy for advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC). Although the impact of BRAF or PIK3CA mutation on efficacy of anti-EGFR therapy is still controversial, targeting agents for these mutations are under developing. Efficient screening systems for these relatively minor mutations with short turnaround time are necessary for the successful development of targeted therapies. Methods: This study was initiated in February 2014 as one of new nationwide genomic screening projects for advanced gastrointestinal cancer patients in Japan. Patients with aCRC who are planned to receive systemic chemotherapy were eligible. A total of 36 mutations of KRAS codon 61, 146, NRAS codon 12, 13, 61, BRAF codon 600, PIK3CA codon 542, 545, 546 and 1047 in genomic DNA of cancer cells were simultaneously analyzed at a quality-controlled central laboratory using Luminex (xMAP) technology in a single reaction using 50 ng of DNA. Results: As of August 31, 2014, this study is ongoing with the participation of 16 major cancer centers in Japan. A total of 437 aCRC patients were enrolled to this study and 361 tumor samples has been analyzed with success rate for genomic analysis of 100%. Among the 237 patients with KRAS exon 2 wild type, 28 patients (11.8%) had other RAS mutations and 15 patients (6.3%) had BRAF mutation. Twenty-seven of 437 patients had PIK3CA mutations (6.2%). One patient with BRAF mutation was enrolled in early clinical trials of BRAF inhibitors in combination with anti-EGFR antibody and most of other patients are still treated with standard chemotherapies, which may become future candidates for early clinical trials. Conclusions: From our preliminary results, this nationwide screening system enabled to detect rare mutations using limited amounts of samples from aCRC, which may facilitate the enrollment of patients in IND registration trials for targeted therapies as well as optimal individualized treatment.

KRASandBRAFMutations in Advanced Colorectal Cancer Are Associated With Poor Prognosis but Do Not Preclude Benefit From Oxaliplatin or Irinotecan: Results From the MRC FOCUS Trial

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (35) ◽  
pp. 5931-5937 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan D. Richman ◽  
Matthew T. Seymour ◽  
Philip Chambers ◽  
Faye Elliott ◽  
Catherine L. Daly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Prognostic Factor ◽  
Braf Mutation ◽  
Poor Prognosis ◽  
Advanced Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Predictive Biomarker ◽  
Poor Prognostic Factor ◽  
Minimal Impact ◽  
The Impact

PurposeActivating mutation of the KRAS oncogene is an established predictive biomarker for resistance to anti–epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) therapies in advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC). We wanted to determine whether KRAS and/or BRAF mutation is also a predictive biomarker for other aCRC therapies.Patients and MethodsThe Medical Research Council Fluorouracil, Oxaliplatin and Irinotecan: Use and Sequencing (MRC FOCUS) trial compared treatment sequences including first-line fluorouracil (FU), FU/irinotecan or FU/oxaliplatin in aCRC. Tumor blocks were obtained from 711 consenting patients. DNA was extracted and KRAS codons 12, 13, and 61 and BRAF codon 600 were assessed by pyrosequencing. Mutation (mut) status was assessed first as a prognostic factor and then as a predictive biomarker for the benefit of adding irinotecan or oxaliplatin to FU. The association of BRAF-mut with loss of MLH1 was assessed by immunohistochemistry.ResultsThree hundred eight (43.3%) of 711 patients had KRAS-mut and 56 (7.9%) of 711 had BRAF-mut. Mutation of KRAS, BRAF, or both was present in 360 (50.6%) of 711 patients. Mutation in either KRAS or BRAF was a poor prognostic factor for overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR], 1.40; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.65; P < .0001) but had minimal impact on progression-free survival (PFS; HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.36; P = .05). Mutation status did not affect the impact of irinotecan or oxaliplatin on PFS or OS. BRAF-mut was weakly associated with loss of MLH1 staining (P = .012).ConclusionKRAS/BRAF mutation is associated with poor prognosis but is not a predictive biomarker for irinotecan or oxaliplatin. There is no evidence that patients with KRAS/BRAF mutated tumors are less likely to benefit from these standard chemotherapy agents.

Impact of BRAF mutations on prognosis and immunotherapy response in microsatellite instability/mismatch repair deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3557-3557
Author(s):  
Robin Park ◽  
Laércio Lopes da Silva ◽  
Sunggon Lee ◽  
Anwaar Saeed
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Braf Mutation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Stage I ◽  
Prognostic Impact ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Mutation Status ◽  
The Impact

3557 Background: Mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability high (dMMR/MSI-H) colorectal cancer (CRC) defines a molecular subtype with distinct clinicopathologic characteristics including an excellent response to immunotherapy. Although BRAF mutations are established as a negative prognostic marker in CRC, whether they retain their negative prognostic impact in or alter the response to immunotherapy in dMMR/MSI-H CRC remains unknown. Herein, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of BRAF mutations on the overall survival (OS) and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) response in dMMR/MSI-H CRC. Methods: Studies published from inception to 26 January 2021 were searched in PubMed, Embase, and major conference proceedings (AACR, ASCO, and ESMO). Eligible studies included the following: 1) observational studies reporting outcomes based on BRAF mutation status in dMMR/MSI-H CRC patients and 2) experimental studies of ICI reporting outcomes based on BRAF mutation status in dMMR/MSI-H CRC patients. A summary hazard ratio (HR) was calculated for OS in BRAF mutated ( BRAFmut) vs. BRAF wild type ( BRAFwt) patients (pts) with the random effects meta-analysis (REM). A summary odds ratio (OR) was calculated for objective response rate (ORR) in BRAFmut vs. BRAFwt pts treated with ICI with the REM. Results: Database search conducted according to PRISMA guidelines found 4221 studies in total. Initial screening identified 30 studies and after full-text review, 9 studies (N = 4158 pts) were included for the meta-analysis of prognosis (analysis A) and 3 studies (N = 178 pts) were included for the meta-analysis of ICI response (analysis B). The outcome measures are summarized in the table below. Analysis A showed that in stage I-IV dMMR/MSI-H CRC pts, BRAFmut was associated with worse OS than BRAFwt (HR 1.57, 1.23-1.99). The heterogeneity was low (I2 = 21%). Subgroup analysis showed no significant difference in the prognostic impact of BRAF mutation status between stage IV only and stage I-IV CRC pts. Analysis B showed no difference in ORR (OR 1.04, 0.48-2.25) between BRAFmut vs. BRAFwt dMMR/MSI-H pts who received ICI. The heterogeneity was low (I2 = 0%). Conclusions: BRAF mutations retain their negative prognostic impact in dMMR/MSI-H stage I-IV and stage IV CRC but are not associated with differential ICI response. Limitations include the following: analysis A was based on retrospective studies; also, the impact of BRAF status on the survival outcome of ICI could not be assessed due to limited number of studies.[Table: see text]

Impact of rapid multigene assays with short turnaround time (TAT) on the development of precision medicine for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9094-9094
Author(s):  
Shingo Matsumoto ◽  
Takaya Ikeda ◽  
Kiyotaka Yoh ◽  
Akira Sugimoto ◽  
Terufumi Kato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Precision Medicine ◽  
Targeted Therapies ◽  
Advanced Nsclc ◽  
Genetic Alterations ◽  
Braf V600e ◽  
Gene Testing ◽  
Genomic Screening ◽  
Nsclc Patients

9094 Background: A variety of oncogene drivers have been identified in NSCLC and molecularly-stratified precision medicine has led to improved survival in advanced NSCLC. Next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based testing is utilized to detect actionable gene alterations; however, the TAT of NGS is often too long to translate into clinical decision making. Thus, rapid multi-gene testing alternatives are needed. Methods: A lung cancer genomic screening project (LC-SCRUM-Asia) capturing clinical outcome was established in 2013 to identify patients with oncogene drivers and to support the development of novel targeted therapies. Since February 2013 to May 2019 (LC-SCRUM-Asia 1st-phase), single gene testing and/or a targeted NGS assay, Oncomine Comprehensive Assay (OCA), were used for the genomic screening. Since June 2019 to December 2020 (2nd-phase), a multi-gene PCR assay (Amoy 9-in-1 test) and a rapid NGS assay (Genexus/Oncomine Precision Assay [OPA]) were also implemented as rapid multi-gene testing. Results: A total of 10667 Japanese NSCLC patients, including 6826 in the 1st-phase and 3841 in the 2nd-phase, were enrolled in the LC-SCRUM-Asia. Success rate for OCA: 93%, for 9-in-1 test: 98%, for Genexus/OPA: 96%. Median TAT for OCA: 21 days, for 9-in-1 test: 3 days, for Genexus/OPA: 4 days. The frequencies of genetic alterations detected in the 1st-/2nd-phase were EGFR: 17/24%, KRAS: 15/16%, HER2 ex20ins: 4/3%, ALK fusions: 3/3%, RET fusions: 3/2%, ROS1 fusions: 3/2%, MET ex14skip: 2/2%, BRAF V600E: 1/1%, NRG1 fusions: 0/0.2% and NTRK3 fusions: 0.05/0.04%. Overall percent agreement of 9-in-1 test compared with OCA for EGFR/KRAS/HER2/BRAF/MET/ALK/ROS1/RET/NTRK3 alterations was 98%, and that of OPA compared with OCA was 95%. The rate of patients who received targeted therapies as 1st-line treatment was significantly elevated in the 2nd-phase compared with the 1st-phase (510/3841 [13%] vs. 567/6826 [8%], p < 0.001). Through the genomic screening, 1410 (37%) and 1269 (18%) candidate patients for clinical trials of KRAS, HER2, BRAF, MET, ALK, ROS1, RET or TRK-targeted drugs were identified in the 2nd-phase and in the 1st-phase, respectively. The rate of patients who were actually enrolled into the genotype-matched clinical trials were also significantly higher in the 2nd-phase than in the 1st-phase (222 [6%] vs. 186 [3%], p < 0.001). In 1st-line treatments for advanced NSCLC patients, the median progression-free survival was 8.5 months (95% CI, 7.7−9.4) in the 2nd-phase (n = 1839) versus 6.1 months (95% CI, 5.9−6.3) in the 1st-phase (n = 4262) (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Both the 9-in-1 test and Genexus/OPA had short TATs (3−4 days), high success rates (96−98%) and good concordance (95−98%) compared with another NGS assay (OCA). These rapid multi-gene assays highly contributed to enabling precision medicine and the development of targeted therapies for advanced NSCLC.

The impact of data errors on the outcome of randomized clinical trials

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 499-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Buyse ◽  
Pierre Squifflet ◽  
Elisabeth Coart ◽  
Emmanuel Quinaux ◽  
Cornelis JA Punt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Systematic Errors ◽  
Age Related Macular Degeneration ◽  
Random Errors ◽  
Significant Treatment ◽  
Age Related ◽  
The Impact

Background/aims Considerable human and financial resources are typically spent to ensure that data collected for clinical trials are free from errors. We investigated the impact of random and systematic errors on the outcome of randomized clinical trials. Methods We used individual patient data relating to response endpoints of interest in two published randomized clinical trials, one in ophthalmology and one in oncology. These randomized clinical trials enrolled 1186 patients with age-related macular degeneration and 736 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. The ophthalmology trial tested the benefit of pegaptanib for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration and identified a statistically significant treatment benefit, whereas the oncology trial assessed the benefit of adding cetuximab to a regimen of capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer and failed to identify a statistically significant treatment difference. We simulated trial results by adding errors that were independent of the treatment group (random errors) and errors that favored one of the treatment groups (systematic errors). We added such errors to the data for the response endpoint of interest for increasing proportions of randomly selected patients. Results Random errors added to up to 50% of the cases produced only slightly inflated variance in the estimated treatment effect of both trials, with no qualitative change in the p-value. In contrast, systematic errors produced bias even for very small proportions of patients with added errors. Conclusion A substantial amount of random errors is required before appreciable effects on the outcome of randomized clinical trials are noted. In contrast, even a small amount of systematic errors can severely bias the estimated treatment effects. Therefore, resources devoted to randomized clinical trials should be spent primarily on minimizing sources of systematic errors which can bias the analyses, rather than on random errors which result only in a small loss in power.

Impact of Psychotherapeutic Support for Patients With Gastrointestinal Cancer Undergoing Surgery: 10-Year Survival Results of a Randomized Trial

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (19) ◽  
pp. 2702-2708 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Küchler ◽  
Beate Bestmann ◽  
Stefanie Rappat ◽  
Doris Henne-Bruns ◽  
Sharon Wood-Dauphinee
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Gastrointestinal Cancer ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Medical Psychology ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Formal Program ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Experimental Group

Purpose The impact of psychotherapeutic support on survival for patients with gastrointestinal cancer undergoing surgery was studied. Patients and Methods A randomized controlled trial was conducted in cooperation with the Departments of General Surgery and Medical Psychology, University Hospital of Hamburg, Germany, from January 1991 to January 1993. Consenting patients (N = 271) with a preliminary diagnosis of cancer of the esophagus, stomach, liver/gallbladder, pancreas, or colon/rectum were stratified by sex and randomly assigned to a control group that received standard care as provided on the surgical wards, or to an experimental group that received formal psychotherapeutic support in addition to routine care during the hospital stay. From June 2003 to December 2003, the 10-year follow-up was conducted. Survival status for all patients was determined from our own records and from three external sources: the Hamburg cancer registry, family doctors, and the general citizen registration offices. Results Kaplan-Meier survival curves demonstrated better survival for the experimental group than the control group. The unadjusted significance level for group differences was P = .0006 for survival to 10 years. Cox regression models that took TNM staging or the residual tumor classification and tumor site into account also found significant differences at 10 years. Secondary analyses found that differences in favor of the experimental group occurred in patients with stomach, pancreatic, primary liver, or colorectal cancer. Conclusion The results of this study indicate that patients with gastrointestinal cancer, who undergo surgery for stomach, pancreatic, primary liver, or colorectal cancer, benefit from a formal program of psychotherapeutic support during the inpatient hospital stay in terms of long-term survival.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document