FCGR polymorphisms and cetuximab efficacy in chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer: an international consortium study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to better clarify the role of germline variants of the FCG2 receptor, FCGR2A-H131R and FCGR3A-V158F, on the therapeutic efficacy of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). A large cohort with sufficient statistical power was assembled. DESIGN: To show a HR advantage of 0.6 in progression-free survival (PFS) for FCGR2A-HH versus the rest and FCGR3A-VV versus the rest, with an 80% power, 80 Kirsten Rat Sarcoma Viral Oncogene Homolog (KRAS) wild-type (KRAS-WT) and 52 KRAS-WT patients are required, respectively. This leads to a total sample size of 952 and 619 patients, respectively. Samples were collected from 1123 mCRC patients from 15 European centres treated with cetuximab alone or in combination with chemotherapy. Fc gamma receptor (FCGR) status was centrally genotyped. Two additional externally genotyped series were included. RESULTS: Incidences of FCGR2A-HH and FCGR3A-VV in KRAS-WT patients were 220/660 (33%) and 109/676 (16.1%) respectively. There was no difference in median PFS (mPFS) for KRAS-WT patients with FCGR2A-HH (22.0 weeks; 95% CI18.8 to 25.2) versus non-HH (22.0 weeks; 95% CI 19.4 to 24.6) or for FCGR3A-VV (16.4 weeks; 95% CI 13.0 to 19.8) versus non-VV (23 weeks; 95% CI 21.1 to 24.9) (p=0.06). Median overall survival, response rate and disease control rate assessments showed no benefit for either HH or VV. CONCLUSIONS: No differences in mPFS were found between the FCGR polymorphisms HH and the others and VV versus the others in KRAS-WT mCRC patients refractory to irinotecan, oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil treated with cetuximab. We cannot confirm the effects of other IgG1 antibodies, which may be weaker than previously suggested. Other markers may be needed to study the actual host antibody response to cetuximab.

A let-7 microRNA-binding site polymorphism in KRAS predicts improved outcome in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with salvage cetuximab/panitumumab monotherapy.

PURPOSE: An inherited mutation in KRAS (LCS6-variant or rs61764370) results in altered control of the KRAS oncogene. We studied this biomarker's correlation to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy response in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: LCS6-variant and KRAS/BRAF mutational status was determined in 512 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with salvage anti-EGFR mAb therapy, and findings correlated with outcome. Reporters were tested in colon cancer cell lines to evaluate the differential response of the LCS6-variant allele to therapy exposure. RESULTS: In this study, 21.2% (109 of 512) of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer had the LCS6-variant (TG/GG), which was found twice as frequently in the BRAF-mutated versus the wild-type (WT) group (P=0.03). LCS6-variant patients had significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) with anti-EGFR mAb monotherapy treatment in the whole cohort (16.85 vs. 7.85 weeks; P=0.019) and in the double WT (KRAS and BRAF) patient population (18 vs. 10.4 weeks; P=0.039). Combination therapy (mAbs plus chemotherapy) led to improved PFS and overall survival (OS) for nonvariant patients, and brought their outcome to levels comparable with LCS6-variant patients receiving anti-EGFR mAb monotherapy. Combination therapy did not lead to improved PFS or OS for LCS6-variant patients. Cell line studies confirmed a unique response of the LCS6-variant allele to both anti-EGFR mAb monotherapy and chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: LCS6-variant patients with metastatic colorectal cancer have an excellent response to anti-EGFR mAb monotherapy, without any benefit from the addition of chemotherapy. These findings further confirm the importance of this mutation as a biomarker of anti-EGFR mAb response in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, and warrant further prospective confirmation.

Effects of KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations on the efficacy of cetuximab plus chemotherapy in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective consortium analysis.

BACKGROUND: Following the discovery that mutant KRAS is associated with resistance to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies, the tumours of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer are now profiled for seven KRAS mutations before receiving cetuximab or panitumumab. However, most patients with KRAS wild-type tumours still do not respond. We studied the effect of other downstream mutations on the efficacy of cetuximab in, to our knowledge, the largest cohort to date of patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab plus chemotherapy in the pre-KRAS selection era. METHODS: 1022 tumour DNA samples (73 from fresh-frozen and 949 from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue) from patients treated with cetuximab between 2001 and 2008 were gathered from 11 centres in seven European countries. 773 primary tumour samples had sufficient quality DNA and were included in mutation frequency analyses; mass spectrometry genotyping of tumour samples for KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA was done centrally. We analysed objective response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival in molecularly defined subgroups of the 649 chemotherapy-refractory patients treated with cetuximab plus chemotherapy. FINDINGS: 40.0% (299/747) of the tumours harboured a KRAS mutation, 14.5% (108/743) harboured a PIK3CA mutation (of which 68.5% [74/108] were located in exon 9 and 20.4% [22/108] in exon 20), 4.7% (36/761) harboured a BRAF mutation, and 2.6% (17/644) harboured an NRAS mutation. KRAS mutants did not derive benefit compared with wild types, with a response rate of 6.7% (17/253) versus 35.8% (126/352; odds ratio [OR] 0.13, 95% CI 0.07-0.22; p<0.0001), a median PFS of 12 weeks versus 24 weeks (hazard ratio [HR] 1.98, 1.66-2.36; p<0.0001), and a median overall survival of 32 weeks versus 50 weeks (1.75, 1.47-2.09; p<0.0001). In KRAS wild types, carriers of BRAF and NRAS mutations had a significantly lower response rate than did BRAF and NRAS wild types, with a response rate of 8.3% (2/24) in carriers of BRAF mutations versus 38.0% in BRAF wild types (124/326; OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02-0.51; p=0.0012); and 7.7% (1/13) in carriers of NRAS mutations versus 38.1% in NRAS wild types (110/289; OR 0.14, 0.007-0.70; p=0.013). PIK3CA exon 9 mutations had no effect, whereas exon 20 mutations were associated with a worse outcome compared with wild types, with a response rate of 0.0% (0/9) versus 36.8% (121/329; OR 0.00, 0.00-0.89; p=0.029), a median PFS of 11.5 weeks versus 24 weeks (HR 2.52, 1.33-4.78; p=0.013), and a median overall survival of 34 weeks versus 51 weeks (3.29, 1.60-6.74; p=0.0057). Multivariate analysis and conditional inference trees confirmed that, if KRAS is not mutated, assessing BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA exon 20 mutations (in that order) gives additional information about outcome. Objective response rates in our series were 24.4% in the unselected population, 36.3% in the KRAS wild-type selected population, and 41.2% in the KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA exon 20 wild-type population. INTERPRETATION: While confirming the negative effect of KRAS mutations on outcome after cetuximab, we show that BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA exon 20 mutations are significantly associated with a low response rate. Objective response rates could be improved by additional genotyping of BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA exon 20 mutations in a KRAS wild-type population. FUNDING: Belgian Federation against Cancer (Stichting tegen Kanker).

Putative contribution of CD56 positive cells in cetuximab treatment efficacy in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Activity of cetuximab, a chimeric monoclonal antibody targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor, is largely attributed to its direct antiproliferative and proapoptotic effects. Antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) could be another possible mechanism of cetuximab antitumor effects and its specific contribution on the clinical activity of cetuximab is unknown. METHODS: We assessed immune cells infiltrate (CD56, CD68, CD3, CD4, CD8, Foxp3) in the primary tumor of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with a first-line cetuximab-based chemotherapy in the framework of prospective trials (treatment group) and in a matched group of mCRC patients who received the same chemotherapy regimen without cetuximab (control group). The relationship between intra-tumoral immune effector cells, the K-ras status and the efficacy of the treatment were investigated. We also evaluated in vitro, the ADCC activity in healthy donors and chemonaive mCRC patients and the specific contribution of CD56+ cells. RESULTS: ADCC activity against DLD1 CRC cell line is maintained in cancer patients and significantly declined after CD56+ cells depletion. In multivariate analysis, K-ras wild-type (HR: 4.7 (95% CI 1.8-12.3), p = 0.001) and tumor infiltrating CD56+ cells (HR: 2.6, (95%CI:1.14-6.0), p = 0.019) were independent favourable prognostic factors for PFS and response only in the cetuximab treatment group. By contrast CD56+ cells failed to predict PFS and response in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: CD56+ cells, mainly NK cells, may be the major effector of ADCC related-cetuximab activity. Assessment of CD56+ cells infiltrate in primary colorectal adenocarcinoma may provide additional information to K-ras status in predicting response and PFS in mCRC patients treated with first-line cetuximab-based chemotherapy.

Amphiregulin and epiregulin mRNA expression in primary tumors predicts outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab.

PURPOSE: To study the power of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) epiregulin (EREG) and amphiregulin (AREG) ligands' expression in primary tumors to predict the outcome in patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (cmCRC) treated with the combination of cetuximab and irinotecan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Gene expression measurements and KRAS mutation analysis were performed on archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded primary tumors of 220 cmCRC patients. Response was measured using RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) criteria. The relation between ligand expression levels and outcome was evaluated using logistic regression for response and Cox regression for survival data. Receiver operating characteristics analysis was performed for response and survival data. CIs for the performance indices were obtained with a nonparametric bootstrap procedure. Findings were externally validated on a series of 67 samples treated in a similar setting. RESULTS: In KRAS wild type (WT) patients, there was a significant association between log-transformed ligand expression and response for EREG (odds ratio for objective response, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.27 to 2.83; P = .0005; concordance index [c-index], 0.681) and for AREG (odds ratio for objective response, 1.862; 95% CI, 1.22 to 2.72; P = .0017; c-index, 0.673). In a Cox regression model, dichotomized ligand expression was significantly associated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). EREG PFS hazard ratio (HR) was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.274 to 0.609; P < .001; time-dependent c-index [Ctau index], 0.640), and AREG PFS HR was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.29 to 0.64; P < .001; Ctau index, 0.627). EREG OS HR was 0.42 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.63; P < .0001; Ctau index, 0.639), and AREG OS HR was 0.40 (95% CI, 0.27 to 0.64; P < .0001; Ctau index, 0.625). There was no predictive power of ligand expression in patients with KRAS mutation. CONCLUSION: Expression of EGFR ligands in primary tumors significantly predicts outcome in KRAS WT cmCRC treated with cetuximab and irinotecan.

Clinical biomarkers in oncology: focus on colorectal cancer.

Rapidly growing insight into the molecular biology of colorectal cancer has led to high hopes for the identification of molecular markers to be used in optimized and tailored treatment regimens. However, many of the published data on gene-specific biomarkers are contradictory in their findings, and no tests are currently used in clinical practice, with the exception of microsatellite instability (MSI) and guanylyl cyclase C (GCC) testing in the adjuvant setting, and in Europe KRAS mutation testing is used in the setting of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted therapy for metastatic disease. There are many reasons for the failure of the initial marker hypothesis-driven approach. Although supported by a good biologic rationale, single markers such as tumor protein p53 (TP53) gene mutations, when applied to a complex tumor type containing many synchronous alterations, do not perform well in predicting outcome. Many markers also suffer from technical shortcomings, resulting from the lack of quantitative techniques to capture the impact of the molecular alteration. The impact of markers obtained from microarray expression profiling needs to be further investigated in studies based on much larger cohorts, and cross-validation studies will be essential. Recently, mutations in the KRAS gene were shown to be strong negative predictors of response to EGFR inhibitors in metastatic disease. It has also been suggested that BRAF gene mutations may be predictive of EGFR inhibitor resistance, and there are some conflicting data regarding the role of the PIK3CA gene. Further studies are needed to help integrate the latest findings into clinically useful tools for personalized medicine.

PIK3CA mutations are not a major determinant of resistance to the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: It has been reported that activating KRAS mutations negatively affect response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancer. The mutation status of signaling molecules downstream of the EGFR target is thus crucial to predict clinical benefit to EGFR-targeted therapies. Other mechanisms of resistance to EGFR inhibitors could involve activating mutations of the other main EGFR effector pathway, i.e., the PI3K/PTEN/AKT pathway. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We analyzed the PIK3CA and KRAS mutation status in a large group (n = 200) of chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancers treated with cetuximab (Erbitux) in monotherapy or in combination with irinotecan, and correlated the mutation status with outcome. RESULTS: Twenty-three (12%) of the 200 samples carried 1 of the PIK3CA mutations included in our assay. We found no correlation between the presence of a PIK3CA mutation and impaired response to cetuximab. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings do not provide any evidence for a strong role of PIK3CA mutations as a single marker in determining response to cetuximab in chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer.

Clinical usefulness of EGFR gene copy number as a predictive marker in colorectal cancer patients treated with cetuximab: a fluorescent in situ hybridization study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the usefulness and the pitfalls inherent to the assessment of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene copy number (GCN) by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for outcome prediction to cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. The value of testing KRAS mutation status, in addition to EGFR GCN, was also explored. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: FISH analysis of 87 metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with cetuximab was done, recording individual GCN per cell and using different samples per tumor. Performances of published cutoff points and different summaries of EGFR GCN distribution were assessed for response prediction. RESULTS: In our data set, two published cutoff points performed less well than in their training set, yielding positive predictive values and negative predictive values between 40.0% and 48.3% and between 81.0% and 86.5%, respectively. Among summaries of GCN distribution explored, mean and right-tailed distribution of GCN yielded the highest performances. A mean EGFR GCN > or = 2.83 provided an area under the curve of 0.71. Important heterogeneity of repeated measures of mean EGFR GCN was observed within tumors (intraclass correlation, 0.61; within-class SD, 0.40), leading to potential misclassifications of FISH status in 7 of 18 (38.8%) patients if a cutoff point were used. In multivariable analysis, EGFR GCN testing provided significant information independent of the KRAS status to predict response (P = 0.016) and overall survival (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: We confirm the association between increased EGFR GCN and outcome after cetuximab. However, because of reproducibility concerns, any decision making based on published cutoff points is not warranted.