Survival outcome in HER2-amplified metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 642-642
Author(s):  
Kentaro Sawada ◽  
Wataru Okamoto ◽  
Yoshiaki Nakamura ◽  
Takeharu Yamanaka ◽  
Satoshi Yuki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Primary Tumor ◽  
Survival Outcome ◽  
Braf V600e ◽  
Her2 Status ◽  
Her2 Amplification ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Signal Ratio ◽  
Group B

642 Background: HER2 amplifications have been observed in approximately 3% of patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Early clinical trials with combined HER2-targeted therapies showed promising activities. However, it remains unclear whether HER2 amplification in mCRC is as prognostic as RAS or BRAF V600E mutant (mt). We aimed to evaluate survival outcome for mCRC pts with HER2 amplification compared to those with RAS or BRAF mt. Methods: mCRC pts who received a palliative resection of the primary tumor with metastatic diseases at presentation, or recurred after curative resection of the primary tumor between 2005 and 2015, were analyzed. HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed using formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) sections obtained from the primary tumor, and HER2 amplification was confirmed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in case of IHC 2+ or 3+. Criteria for HER2 amplification were a HER2- to CEP17- signal ratio of 2.0 or higher. RAS / BRAF status was centrally assessed by a PCR-based method. The pts were classified into four subgroups based on RAS, BRAF and HER2 status: Group R , RAS mt; Group B, BRAF V600E mt; Group H, HER2 amplification with RAS / BRAF wild-type (wt); and Group W, RAS / BRAF wt. Results: Among 370 pts, 359 pts (97%) were successfully analyzed. A total of 15 pts (4%) had HER2 amplifications, out of which four pts had overlapped RAS mt (subclassified as Group R). RAS or BRAF mutations are mutually exclusive. The number in Group R, B, H and W was 204 (57%), 13 (4%), 11 (3%) and 131 (36%), respectively. There was no remarkable difference in baseline characteristics among groups. With a median follow-up time of 63 months (mos), the median overall survival of the 359 pts was 27 mos (95%CI 24 - 29 mos); Group R, 24 mos; Group B, 14 mos; Group H, 20 mos; and Group W, 39 mos. The HR of R vs. H is 0.83 (95%CI 0.41-1.70, p= 0.618), B vs. H is 1.16 (95%CI 0.47-2.84, p= 0.748), and W vs. H is 0.52 (95%CI 0.25-1.08, p= 0.080), respectively. Conclusions: This study suggests that the prognosis of mCRC pts with HER2 amplification tends to be worse as compared to those with RAS / BRAF wt, similar to those with RAS mt, and better than those with BRAF mt, although these comparisons were not statistical significant.

scholarly journals KRAS and BRAF Mutations as Prognostic and Predictive Biomarkers for Standard Chemotherapy Response in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Single Institutional Study

Cells ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuria Garcia-Carbonero ◽  
Javier Martinez-Useros ◽  
Weiyao Li ◽  
Alberto Orta ◽  
Nuria Perez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Predictive Biomarkers ◽  
Braf V600e ◽  
Chemotherapy Response ◽  
First Line ◽  
Standard Chemotherapy ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Kras Mutations ◽  
Line Standard

KRAS mutation is a confirmed predictive biomarker for anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy response for metastatic colorectal cancer. However, its prognosis impact and the predictive potential for first-line standard chemotherapy remains unclear. On the other hand, V600E mutation is the most frequent and studied mutation in the BRAF gene, and it has been associated with a poor outcome of patients and a low response to anti-EGFR treatment. Thus, the aim of this study is to evaluate the role of KRAS and BRAF mutations as prognosis factors and predictive biomarkers for 1st line standard chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. KRAS mutations and BRAF V600E mutations exhibited a poor outcome (p = 0.021 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Cox multivariate analysis showed that the presence of liver metastasis (HR = 1.595; 95% CI: 1.086–2.343; p = 0.017), KRAS mutation (HR = 1.643; 95% CI: 1.110–2.431; p = 0.013) and BRAF V600E mutation (HR = 5.861; 95% CI: 2.531–13.570; p < 0.0001) were statistically significant co-variables for progression-free survival. Interestingly, patients with KRAS mutations were associated with a poor response to first line standard chemotherapy (p = 0.008). In contrast, the BRAF V600E mutation did not have any impact on the first line standard chemotherapy response (p = 0.540). Therefore, in the present study, we provide new insight on the role of KRAS and BRAF, not only as prognosis biomarkers, but also as first line standard chemotherapy response biomarkers in metastatic colorectal cancer.

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.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3542-3542 ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Current and emerging biomarkers in metastatic colorectal cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M.K.C. Lee ◽  
J. M. Loree
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Her2 Amplification ◽  
Liquid Biopsies ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Pik3ca Mutations ◽  
Improved Outcomes ◽  
Therapeutic Choice ◽  
Novel Biomarkers ◽  
Deficient Mismatch Repair

Background The incorporation of novel biomarkers into therapy selection for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mcrc) has significantly improved outcomes. Optimal treatment planning now takes into account diverse characteristics of patients and their tumours to create personalized therapeutic plans.Discussion This review is split into two sections. In the first section, we review the prognostic and predictive significance of expanded RAS mutation testing, BRAF mutations, ERBB2 (her2) amplification, microsatellite instability (msi) and deficient mismatch repair (dmmr) protein, NTRK fusions, PIK3CA mutations, and met amplifications. The therapeutic implication of each of those biomarkers for personalizing therapies for each patient with mcrc is discussed. In the second section, we touch on testing methods and considerations of relevance to clinicians when they interpret companion diagnostics meant to guide therapy selection. The advantages and pitfalls of various methods are evaluated, and we also look at the potential of liquid biopsies and circulating tumour dna (ctdna) to change the landscape of therapeutic choice and biologic understanding of the disease.Summary Routine testing for extended RAS, BRAF, dmmr or high msi, and NTRK fusions is necessary to determine the best sequencing of chemotherapy and biologic agents for patients with mcrc. Although next generation sequencing and ctdna are increasingly being adopted, other techniques such as immunohistochemistry retain their relevance in detection of her2 amplification, NTRK fusions, and dmmr.

The importance of maintenance chemotherapy in the first and second lines of treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15583-e15583
Author(s):  
Danila Gridnev ◽  
Anatoly Popov ◽  
Dina Islamova ◽  
Vladislav Makarov ◽  
Edouard Vozny ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Primary Tumor ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Long Term Results ◽  
Maintenance Chemotherapy ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B ◽  
The Right

e15583 Background: The first and second lines of CT is decisive in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Choosing the right one allows you to increase PFS and improve long-term results. Surgical treatment and maintenance chemotherapy (MT) increase PFS and OS, as they can be prescribed at any stage of treatment. Methods: The analysis included 192 patients diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who received treatment between 2014 and 2019. The average age of the patients was 62 years. At the beginning of treatment, the overall condition of all patients was ECOG1. Primary mCRC had 129 (67%) patients. In 63 (33%) patients, locally advanced disease was first diagnosed, which were included in the study after progression. PFS and OS for all patients were calculated from the start of the 1st line. Localization of the primary tumor in 42 (22%) patients was on the right side of the colon and on the left side in 149 (78%) and 1 patient did not show primary tumor. Among the patients with primary metastatic disease, 100 (52%) had isolated metastases, while the remaining 92 (48%) had 2 or more localizations. Different types of surgical treatment of metastases in the liver occurred in 41 (21%) patients. 119 patients never received MT (with any number of lines) and made a comparison group(A). 73 patients received MT in at least one of the CT lines (B). 12 patients received MT in the 1st and 2nd CT (C). These groups were homogeneous in terms of gender, age, ECOG, accessibility of surgical treatment of distant metastasis, mutational status of the tumor, and accessibility of biotherapy. Evaluation of the effect was performed using RECIST criteria, at intervals of 3 months or the appearance of clinical symptoms of progression. The treatment was carried out before the progression. At the time of analysis, 94 patients are alive and continue to receive treatment. Results: We compared in all three groups: In group A: OS - 12.9 months, PFS 1-line CT - 9.5 months, PFS 2-line CT - 4.5 months In group B: OS - 27.6 months, PFS 1-line CT - 13.6 months, PFS 2-line CT - 9.1 months In group C: OS - 38.3 months, PFS 1-line CT - 14.2 months, PFS 2-line CT - 9.1 months. “Five-year” survival (In those patients who were observed from the start of the study for all 5 years) in group A was 5,8 %, in group B 15 %, and in group C 16 %. Conclusions: Increase of PFS and OS in patients who received MT at least at one of the stages of treatment, and continues to increase in patients receiving MT in the first two lines CT. Thus, MT is a necessary component of the treatment of mCRC.

scholarly journals BRAF, MEK and EGFR inhibition as treatment strategies in BRAF V600E metastatic colorectal cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175883592199297
Author(s):  
Javier Ros ◽  
Iosune Baraibar ◽  
Emilia Sardo ◽  
Nuria Mulet ◽  
Francesc Salvà ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Therapeutic Strategies ◽  
Braf V600e ◽  
Driver Mutations ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Egfr Inhibition ◽  
Braf Inhibition

Introduction: BRAF driver mutations are found in up to 15% of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and lead to constitutive activation of BRAF kinase and sustained RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway signaling. BRAF mutations define a sub-population characterized by a poor prognosis and dismal median survival. Following successful outcomes with BRAF inhibition in BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma, this approach was evaluated in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The development and combination of targeted therapies against multiple signaling pathways has proved particularly successful, with improved survival and response rates. Areas covered: This review addresses the development of therapeutic strategies with inhibitors targeting MAPK/ERK and EGFR signaling in BRAF V600E mutated mCRC, focusing on encorafenib, binimetinib and cetuximab. A pharmacological and clinical review of these drugs and the therapeutic approaches behind their optimization are presented. Expert opinion: Exploiting knowledge of the mechanisms of resistance to BRAF inhibitors has been crucial to developing effective therapeutic strategies in BRAF-V600E mutant mCRC. The BEACON trial is a successful example of this approach, using encorafenib and cetuximab with or without binimetinib in patients with previously treated BRAF V600E mutant mCRC, showing an impressive improvement in clinical outcomes and tolerable toxicity compared with chemotherapy, establishing a new standard of care in this setting.

scholarly journals Wild-Type BRAF Is Required for Response to Panitumumab or Cetuximab in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (35) ◽  
pp. 5705-5712 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federica Di Nicolantonio ◽  
Miriam Martini ◽  
Francesca Molinari ◽  
Andrea Sartore-Bianchi ◽  
Sabrina Arena ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Braf Inhibitor ◽  
Braf V600e Mutation ◽  
Braf V600e ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Kras Mutations ◽  
Cellular Models ◽  
Mutational Status

Purpose Cetuximab or panitumumab are effective in 10% to 20% unselected metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. KRAS mutations account for approximately 30% to 40% patients who are not responsive. The serine-threonine kinase BRAF is the principal effector of KRAS. We hypothesized that, in KRAS wild-type patients, BRAF mutations could have a predictive/prognostic value. Patients and Methods We retrospectively analyzed objective tumor responses, time to progression, overall survival (OS), and the mutational status of KRAS and BRAF in 113 tumors from cetuximab- or panitumumab-treated metastatic CRC patients. The effect of the BRAF V600E mutation on cetuximab or panitumumab response was also assessed using cellular models of CRC. Results KRAS mutations were present in 30% of the patients and were associated with resistance to cetuximab or panitumumab (P = .011). The BRAF V600E mutation was detected in 11 of 79 patients who had wild-type KRAS. None of the BRAF-mutated patients responded to treatment, whereas none of the responders carried BRAF mutations (P = .029). BRAF-mutated patients had significantly shorter progression-free survival (P = .011) and OS (P < .0001) than wild-type patients. In CRC cells, the introduction of BRAF V600E allele impaired the therapeutic effect of cetuximab or panitumumab. Treatment with the BRAF inhibitor sorafenib restored sensitivity to panitumumab or cetuximab of CRC cells carrying the V600E allele. Conclusion BRAF wild-type is required for response to panitumumab or cetuximab and could be used to select patients who are eligible for the treatment. Double-hit therapies aimed at simultaneous inhibition of epidermal growth factor receptor and BRAF warrant exploration in CRC patients carrying the V600E oncogenic mutation.

A Critical Review of Second-generation anti-EGFR Monoclonal Antibodies in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Sur ◽  
Andrei Havasi ◽  
Alecsandra Gorzo ◽  
Claudia Burz
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Drug Resistance ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Monoclonal Antibodies ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Current Data ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Durable Response ◽  
Ongoing Research

Background: Anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have become a relevant solution for the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Current anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies face a series of problems, including resistance and non-durable response, and RAS and BRAF mutations serve as exclusion criteria for treatment with anti-EGFR mAbs. Advances in molecular tumor profiling and information on subsequent pathways responsible for disease progression and drug resistance helped develop a new generation of anti-EGFR mAbs. These second-generation mAbs have been developed to overcome existing resistance mechanisms and to limit common side effects. For the moment, existing literature suggests that these novel anti-EGFR mAbs are far from finding their way to clinical practice soon. Objective: In this review, we summarize and evaluate current data regarding ongoing research and completed clinical trials for different second-generation anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies. Conclusion: Anti-EGFR mAbs exhibit efficacy in advanced colorectal cancer, but second-generation mAbs failed to prove their benefit in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Understanding the biological basis of primary and acquired drug resistance could allow scientists to design better clinical trials and develop improved second-generation mAbs.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Second-Line Treatment in RAS Wild-Type/Mutated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the Precision Medicine Era

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (14) ◽  
pp. 7717
Author(s):  
Guido Giordano ◽  
Pietro Parcesepe ◽  
Giuseppina Bruno ◽  
Annamaria Piscazzi ◽  
Vincenzo Lizzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Mutational Status ◽  
First Line Treatment

Target-oriented agents improve metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) survival in combination with chemotherapy. However, the majority of patients experience disease progression after first-line treatment and are eligible for second-line approaches. In such a context, antiangiogenic and anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) agents as well as immune checkpoint inhibitors have been approved as second-line options, and RAS and BRAF mutations and microsatellite status represent the molecular drivers that guide therapeutic choices. Patients harboring K- and N-RAS mutations are not eligible for anti-EGFR treatments, and bevacizumab is the only antiangiogenic agent that improves survival in combination with chemotherapy in first-line, regardless of RAS mutational status. Thus, the choice of an appropriate therapy after the progression to a bevacizumab or an EGFR-based first-line treatment should be evaluated according to the patient and disease characteristics and treatment aims. The continuation of bevacizumab beyond progression or its substitution with another anti-angiogenic agents has been shown to increase survival, whereas anti-EGFR monoclonals represent an option in RAS wild-type patients. In addition, specific molecular subgroups, such as BRAF-mutated and Microsatellite Instability-High (MSI-H) mCRCs represent aggressive malignancies that are poorly responsive to standard therapies and deserve targeted approaches. This review provides a critical overview about the state of the art in mCRC second-line treatment and discusses sequential strategies according to key molecular biomarkers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document