Investigating the feasibility of tumour molecular profiling in gastrointestinal malignancies in routine clinical practice.

Background: Targeted capture sequencing can potentially facilitate precision medicine, but the feasibility of this approach in gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies is unknown. Patients and methods: The FOrMAT (Feasibility of a Molecular Characterisation Approach to Treatment) study was a feasibility study enrolling patients with advanced GI malignancies from February 2014 to November 2015. Targeted capture sequencing (mainly using archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded diagnostic/resection samples) was carried out to detect mutations, copy number variations and translocations in up to 46 genes which had prognostic/predictive significance or were targets in current/upcoming clinical trials. Results: Of the 222 patients recruited, 215 patients (96.8%) had available tissue samples, 125 patients (56.3%) had ≥16 genes successfully sequenced and 136 patients (61.2%) had ≥1 genes successfully sequenced. Sample characteristics influenced the proportion of successfully sequenced samples, e.g. tumour type (colorectal 70.9%, biliary 52.6%, oesophagogastric 50.7%, pancreas 27.3%, P = 0.002), tumour cellularity (high versus low: 78.3% versus 13.3%, P ≤ 0.001), tumour content (high versus low: 78.6% versus 27.3%, P = 0.001) and type of sample (resection versus biopsy: 82.4% versus 47.6%, P ≤ 0.001). Currently, actionable alterations were detected in 90 (40.5%) of the 222 patients recruited (66% of the 136 patients sequenced) and 2 patients subsequently received a targeted therapy. The most frequently detected currently actionable alterations were mutations in KRAS, BRAF, TP53 and PIK3CA. For the 205 patients with archival samples, the median time to obtain sequencing results was 18.9 weeks, including a median of 4.9 weeks for sample retrieval and 5.1 weeks for sequencing. Conclusions: Targeted sequencing detected actionable alterations in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples, but tissue characteristics are of critical importance in determining sequencing success. Routine molecular profiling of GI tumours outside of clinical trials is not an effective use of healthcare resources unless more targeted drugs become available. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02112357.

Negative hyper-selection of metastatic colorectal cancer patients for anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies: the PRESSING case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Refining the selection of metastatic colorectal cancer patients candidates for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies beyond RAS and BRAF testing is a challenge of precision oncology. Several uncommon genomic mechanisms of primary resistance, leading to activation of tyrosine kinase receptors other than EGFR or downstream signalling pathways, have been suggested by preclinical and retrospective studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted this multicentre, prospective, case-control study to demonstrate the negative predictive impact of a panel of rare genomic alterations [PRESSING (PRimary rESiStance IN RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with anti-eGfr monoclonal antibodies) panel], including HER2/MET amplifications, ALK/ROS1/NTRK1-3/RET fusions and PIK3CA mutations. Hypothesizing a prevalence of candidate alterations of 15% and 0% in resistant and sensitive RAS and BRAF wild-type patients, respectively, with two-sided α and ß errors of 0.05 and 0.20, 47 patients per group were needed. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients per group were included. PRESSING panel alterations were significantly more frequent in resistant (24 out of 47, 51.1%) than in sensitive (1 out of 47, 2.1%) patients (P < 0.001) and in right- (12 out of 29, 41.4%) than left-sided (13 out of 65, 20.0%) tumours (P = 0.03). The predictive accuracy of PRESSING panel and sidedness was 75.3% and 70.2%, respectively. Among hyper-selected patients, right-sidedness was still associated with resistance (P = 0.002). The predictive accuracy of the combined evaluation of PRESSING panel and sidedness was 80.4%. As a secondary analysis, 8 (17.0%) resistant and 0 sensitive patients showed microsatellite instability (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The investigated panel of genomic alterations allows refining the selection of RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients candidates for anti-EGFRs, partially explaining and further corroborating the predictive ability of primary tumour sidedness.

The prognostic role of baseline CEA and CA 19-9 values and their time-dependent variations in advanced colorectal cancer patients submitted to first-line therapy.

Serum marker evaluation is an easily available prognostic indicator that may help clinicians to discriminate patients with an aggressive disease; there are few and small-sized studies exploring the prognostic role of baseline carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) values and their variations during first-line therapy, and even fewer data are available for carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9). Our aim was to analyze the role of those prognostic markers to exploit them in daily clinical practice. Data of 892 patients with marker determination before and 3 and/or 6 months during therapy were extracted from two institutional databases. Patients were grouped according to single marker variation as always negative (G0), decreasing (G1), stable (G2), or increasing (G3). We evaluated the progression-free survival (PFS) and the overall survival (OS) of all the patents and correlated them with CEA and CA 19-9 values. A concordance between response to therapy and marker decrease was evident in 50.2% and in 34.4% of the patients for CEA and CA 19-9. Patients with low CEA or CA 19-9 baseline values had a longer PFS (15.1 vs. 10.5; 13.6 vs. 10.2 months) and OS (32.0 vs. 22.3; 30.5 vs. 20.1 months). The same results of PFS and OS were obtained by analyzing the data of the four different groups. Multivariate analyses confirmed the independent prognostic role of CEA and CA 19-9. Baseline CEA and CA 19-9 levels and their kinetics demonstrated to be independent prognostic factors. CA 19-9 dosage is not recommended; a possible role of CA 19-9 in patients with negative CEA could be worth further evaluation.

Grey areas and evidence gaps in the management of rectal cancer as revealed by comparing recommendations from clinical guidelines.

BACKGROUND: While the management of nonmetastatic and oligometastatic rectal cancer has rapidly evolved over the last few decades, many grey areas and highly debated topics remain that foster significant variation in clinical practice. We aimed to identify controversial points and evidence gaps in this disease setting by systematically comparing recommendations from national and international clinical guidelines. METHODS: Twenty-six clinical questions reflecting practical challenges in the routine management of nonmetastatic and oligometastatic rectal cancer patients were selected. Recommendations from the ESMO, NCCN, JSCCR, Australian and Ontario guidelines were extrapolated and compared using a 4-tier classification system (i.e., identical/very similar, similar, slightly different, different). Overall agreement between guidelines (i.e., substantial/complete disagreement, partial disagreement, partial agreement, substantial/complete agreement) was assessed for each clinical question and compared against the highest level of available evidence by using the χ2 statistic test. RESULTS: Guidelines were in substantial/complete agreement, partial agreement, partial disagreement, and substantial/complete disagreement for 8 (30.8%), 2 (7.7%), 7 (26.9%), and 9 (34.6%) clinical questions, respectively. High level of evidence supported clinical recommendations in 3/10 cases (30%) where guidelines were in agreement and in 10/16 cases (62.5%) where guidelines were in disagreement (χ2 = 2.6, p = 0.106). Agreement was frequently reached for questions regarding diagnosis, staging, and radiology/pathology pro-forma reporting, while disagreement characterised most of the treatment-related topics. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation exists across clinical guidelines in the recommendations for the management of nonmetastatic and oligometastatic rectal cancer. This variation is only partly explained by the lack of supporting, high-level evidence.

Circannual variation of efficacy outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer and treated with first-line chemotherapy.

Seasonal variation of baseline diagnosis (or clinical suspect) of stage I-III colorectal cancer patients has been repeatedly reported as an independent variable influencing overall survival. However, data are conflicting and no information is available about such a rhythm in advanced stage patients. To test whether a circannual rhythm of efficacy outcomes can be detected in this setting, we collected data about response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) to first-line chemotherapy of 1610 newly diagnosed metastatic patients treated at four independent centers. Responses to first-line chemotherapy were available for 1495 patients. A strong circannual rhythm in RR was evident, with the higher proportion of responding patients in the subgroup diagnosed in January (acrophase). At the time of data cutoff, 1322 patients progressed and 986 died, with median PFS and OS of 11 and 25.6 months, respectively. A circannual rhythmicity of the proportion of patients progressing at 6 months and surviving at 1 year was demonstrated, with acrophases located both in winter (February and January, respectively), similar to what reported for RR. Several interpretations about the genesis of this cyclic variation could be claimed: the rhythm in sunlight exposure and, as a consequence, of vitamin D serum levels and folate degradation, the variability in toxic effect intensity of chemotherapy, and the rhythm in the biological behavior of tumor cells. This observation is worth of further investigation both in preclinical and in clinical settings in order to better elucidate the underlying mechanisms.