Clonal hematopoiesis mutations in plasma cfDNA RAS/BRAF genotyping of metastatic colorectal cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15083-e15083
Author(s):  
Beili Wang ◽  
Fei Huang ◽  
Minna Shen ◽  
Shengchao Wu ◽  
Qian Yu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Somatic Mutations ◽  
Digital Pcr ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Kras Mutations ◽  
Clonal Hematopoiesis ◽  
Tumor Tissues ◽  
Next Generation Sequencing Ngs ◽  
Tumor Somatic Mutations

e15083 Background: Clonal hematopoiesis (CH) leads to blood-derived somatic mutations in KRAS, NRAS and BRAF. Our aim is to identify the prevalence of CH-derived mutations in these three genes in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients and reveal the practical clinical implication of these mutations on plasma genotyping. Methods: We analyzed KRAS, NRAS and BRAF genotypes in plasma and matched tumor tissues of 236 mCRC patients through next-generation sequencing (NGS) and polymerase chain reaction. Suspected CH mutations were defined as those only detected in plasma with variant allelic frequencies (AFs) of <5% and were confirmed by paired peripheral blood cells (PBCs) using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). The hemopoietic lineage harboring a CH-derived mutation was analyzed through flow cytometry. Results: We identified suspected CH mutations in twenty patients (8.4%, 20/236). Three of these patients (1.27%, 3/236) had a CH-derived KRAS mutation, which was confirmed present in paired PBCs. Two of them had a KRAS G12X and the third had a KRAS Q61H. We did not detect CH-derived NRAS or BRAF mutations in our cohort. All three patients harboring a CH-derived mutation previously received chemotherapy treatment. In a selected CH-derived KRAS G12X case, the mutation was enriched in lymphocytes and persisted in plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) over the course of 4 months of therapy. Conclusions: In summary, we confirmed the existence of CH-derived KRAS mutations in a small proportion of mCRC patients. This should be noted to prevent misclassification as tumor somatic mutations when performing cfDNA sequencing in the absence of genotyping matched PBCs.

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.

Phase III Trial of Cetuximab With Continuous or Intermittent Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin (Nordic FLOX) Versus FLOX Alone in First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The NORDIC-VII Study

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15) ◽  
pp. 1755-1762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kjell Magne Tveit ◽  
Tormod Guren ◽  
Bengt Glimelius ◽  
Per Pfeiffer ◽  
Halfdan Sorbye ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
First Line ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Kras Mutations ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
First Line Treatment

Purpose The NORDIC-VII multicenter phase III trial investigated the efficacy of cetuximab when added to bolus fluorouracil/folinic acid and oxaliplatin (Nordic FLOX), administered continuously or intermittently, in previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The influence of KRAS mutation status on treatment outcome was also investigated. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to receive either standard Nordic FLOX (arm A), cetuximab and FLOX (arm B), or cetuximab combined with intermittent FLOX (arm C). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Overall survival (OS), response rate, R0 resection rate, and safety were secondary end points. Results Of the 571 patients randomly assigned, 566 were evaluable in intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses. KRAS and BRAF mutation analyses were obtained in 498 (88%) and 457 patients (81%), respectively. KRAS mutations were present in 39% of the tumors; 12% of tumors had BRAF mutations. The presence of BRAF mutations was a strong negative prognostic factor. In the ITT population, median PFS was 7.9, 8.3, and 7.3 months for the three arms, respectively (not significantly different). OS was almost identical for the three groups (20.4, 19.7, 20.3 months, respectively), and confirmed response rates were 41%, 49%, and 47%, respectively. In patients with KRAS wild-type tumors, cetuximab did not provide any additional benefit compared with FLOX alone. In patients with KRAS mutations, no significant difference was detected, although a trend toward improved PFS was observed in arm B. The regimens were well tolerated. Conclusion Cetuximab did not add significant benefit to the Nordic FLOX regimen in first-line treatment of mCRC.

Difference in appearance of KRAS mutated circulating tumor DNA in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer during treatments.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e23025-e23025
Author(s):  
Yuji Takayama ◽  
Koichi Suzuki ◽  
Kosuke Ichida ◽  
Taro Fukui ◽  
Fumiaki Watanabe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Kras Mutation ◽  
Treatment Resistance ◽  
Digital Pcr ◽  
Circulating Tumor Dna ◽  
Oil Droplets ◽  
Tumor Tissues ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Tumor Dna

e23025 Background: Emergence of KRAS mutation in blood is observed in colorectal cancer patients who undergo chemotherapy, but its clinical significance is not well known. In this study, we focused on the difference in appearance of KRAS mutated circulating tumor DNA (MctDNA) and elucidated its association with treatments. Methods: Four hundred and fifty-one plasma samples were collected prospectively from 85 patients (pts) who underwent chemotherapy due to metastatic colorectal cancer in 2014 - 2016. Seven types of KRAS mutation in MctDNA were detected by droplet digital PCR creating oil droplets. To exclude false positive detection, mutation was validated. MctDNA amplified in oil droplets was selectively sorted by On-chip sorting system and mutation was determined by Sanger sequencing. Results: KRAS assessment in tumor tissues showed 29 pts with KRAS mutation (MT), 56 pts without KRAS mutation (WT). Among 29 pts with MT, KRAS assessment in plasma displayed 23 pts with MctDNA and 6 pts without MctDNA. The type of mutation in MctDNA was consistent with that detected in tumor tissues, indicating mutual exclusivity in KRAS mutation was confirmed. In 56 pts with WT, 28 pts showed MctDNA during treatments. Difference in appearance of MctDNA was recognized in several treatments. Gradual increase in detection of MctDNA was observed with anti-EGFR antibody, resulted in treatment resistance. Transient spike elevation was frequently seen in TAS-102, which associated with drug response. No specific appearance was recognized during treatments with other drugs including anti-VEGF antibody. MctDNA in oil droplets were successfully sorted even if a few droplets were targeted, and mutation was confirmed. Conclusions: Difference in appearance of MctDNA may associate with treatment response in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer during treatments. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Clinical Practice Use of Liquid Biopsy to Identify RAS/BRAF Mutations in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC): A Single Institution Experience

Cancers ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 1504 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vitiello ◽  
De Falco ◽  
Giunta ◽  
Ciardiello ◽  
Cardone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Liver Metastases ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Liquid Biopsy ◽  
Growth Factor Receptor ◽  
Genetic Alterations ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Kras Mutations ◽  
Treatment Naïve

Tumor heterogeneity represents a possible cause of error in detecting predictive genetic alterations on tumor tissue and can be overcome by testing alterations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) using liquid biopsy. We assessed 72 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) using Idylla™ Biocartis, a fully automated platform that evaluates the most frequent mutations of KRAS, NRAS and BRAF genes. We correlated the results of liquid biopsy and standard tissue-based next generation sequencing (NGS) analyses to patient clinical features. The overall agreement was 81.94%. Concordance was 85.71% and 96.15% in treatment-naïve patients and in the patient subgroup with liver metastases, respectively. In liver metastases positive, treatment-naïve patients, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were 92.31%, 100% and 100%, respectively. Circulating mutational fraction (CMF) was significantly higher in patients with liver metastases and high carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels. In a subgroup of patients pre-treated with anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) agents, emerging KRAS mutations were evidenced in 33% of cases. Testing RAS/BRAF mutations on plasma using the Idylla™ Biocartis platform is feasible and reliable in mCRC patients in clinical practice.

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.

scholarly journals Small EVs-Associated DNA as Complementary Biomarker to Circulating Tumor DNA in Plasma of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 128
Author(s):  
Silvia Galbiati ◽  
Francesco Damin ◽  
Dario Brambilla ◽  
Lucia Ferraro ◽  
Nadia Soriani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Digital Pcr ◽  
Extracellular Vesicle ◽  
Circulating Tumor Dna ◽  
Mutation Status ◽  
Promising Practice ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Patients ◽  
Tumor Dna

It is widely accepted that assessing circular tumor DNA (ctDNA) in the plasma of cancer patients is a promising practice to evaluate somatic mutations from solid tumors noninvasively. Recently, it was reported that isolation of extracellular vesicles improves the detection of mutant DNA from plasma in metastatic patients; however, no consensus on the presence of dsDNA in exosomes has been reached yet. We analyzed small extracellular vesicle (sEV)-associated DNA of eleven metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients and compared the results obtained by microarray and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) to those reported on the ctDNA fraction. We detected the same mutations found in tissue biopsies and ctDNA in all samples but, unexpectedly, in one sample, we found a KRAS mutation that was not identified either in ctDNA or tissue biopsy. Furthermore, to assess the exact location of sEV-associated DNA (outside or inside the vesicle), we treated with DNase I sEVs isolated with three different methodologies. We found that the DNA inside the vesicles is only a small fraction of that surrounding the vesicles. Its amount seems to correlate with the total amount of circulating tumor DNA. The results obtained in our experimental setting suggest that integrating ctDNA and sEV-associated DNA in mCRC patient management could provide a complete real-time assessment of the cancer mutation status.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document