Atypical (non-V600E) BRAF mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer in population and real-world cohorts.

BRAF-V600E mutation (mt) is a strong negative prognostic and predictive biomarker in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Non-V600Emt, designated atypical BRAFmt (aBRAFmt) are rare, and little is known about their frequency, co-mutations and prognostic and predictive role. These were compared between mutational groups of mCRC patients collected from three Nordic population-based or real-world cohorts. Pathology of aBRAFmt was studied. The study included 1449 mCRC patients with 51 (3%) aBRAFmt, 182 (13%) BRAF-V600Emt, 456 (31%) RAS&BRAF wild-type (wt) and 760 (52%) RASmt tumours. aBRAFmt were seen in 2% of real-world and 4% of population-based cohorts. Twenty-six different aBRAFmt were detected, 11 (22%) class 2 (serrated adenocarcinoma in 2/9 tested), 32 (64%) class 3 (serrated in 15/25) and 4 (8%) unclassified. aBRAFmt patients were predominantly male, had more rectal primaries, less peritoneal metastases, deficient mismatch repair in one (2%), and better survival after metastasectomy (89% 5-year overall survival [OS]-rate) compared with BRAF-V600Emt. aBRAFmt and BRAF-V600Emt had poorer performance status and received fewer treatment lines than RAS&BRAFwt and RASmt. OS among aBRAFmt (median 14.4 months) was longer than for BRAF-V600Emt (11.2 months), but shorter than for RAS&BRAFwt (30.5 months) and RASmt (23.4 months). Addition of bevacizumab trended for better OS for the aBRAFmt. Nine patients with aBRAFmt received cetuximab/panitumumab without response. aBRAFmt represents a distinct subgroup differing from other RAS/BRAF groups, with serrated adenocarcinoma in only half. OS for patients with aBRAFmt tumours was slightly better than for BRAF-V600Emt, but worse than for RASmt and RAS&BRAFwt. aBRAFmt should not be a contraindication for metastasectomy.

Resectability, conversion, metastasectomy and outcome according to RAS and BRAF status for metastatic colorectal cancer in the prospective RAXO study.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes after metastasectomy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) vary with RAS and BRAF mutational status, but their effects on resectability and conversion rates have not been extensively studied. METHODS: This substudy of the prospective RAXO trial included 906 patients recruited between 2011 and 2018. We evaluated repeated centralised resectability assessment, conversion/resection rates and overall survival (OS), according to RAS and BRAF status. RESULTS: Patients included 289 with RAS and BRAF wild-type (RAS and BRAFwt), 529 with RAS mutated (RASmt) and 88 with BRAF mutated (BRAFmt) mCRC. Metastatic prevalence varied between the RAS and BRAFwt/RASmt/BRAFmt groups, for liver (78%/74%/61%), lung (24%/35%/28%) and peritoneal (15%/15%/32%) metastases, respectively. Upfront resectability (32%/29%/15%), conversion (16%/13%/7%) and resection/local ablative therapy (LAT) rates (45%/37%/17%) varied for RASa and BRAFwt/RASmt/BRAFmt, respectively. Median OS for patients treated with resection/LAT (n = 342) was 83/69/30 months, with 5-year OS-rates of 67%/60%/24%, while systemic therapy-only patients (n = 564) had OS of 29/21/15 months with 5-year OS-rates of 11%/6%/2% in RAS and BRAFwt/RASmt/BRAFmt, respectively. Resection/LAT was associated with improved OS in all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences in resectability, conversion and resection/LAT rates according to RAS and BRAF status. OS was also significantly longer for RAS and BRAFwt versus either mutant. Patients only receiving systemic therapy had poorer long-term survival, with variation according to molecular status. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01531621/EudraCT2011-003158-24.

KRAS-G12C Mutation in One Real-Life and Three Population-Based Nordic Cohorts of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: KRAS mutations, present in over 40% of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), are negative predictive factors for anti-EGFR therapy. Mutations in KRAS-G12C have a cysteine residue for which drugs have been developed. Published data on this specific mutation are conflicting; thus, we studied the frequency and clinical characteristics in a real-world and population-based setting. METHODS: Patients from three Nordic population-based cohorts and the real-life RAXO-study were combined. RAS and BRAF tests were performed in routine healthcare, except for one cohort. The dataset consisted of 2,559 patients, of which 1,871 could be accurately classified as KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF-V600E. Demographics, treatments, and outcomes were compared using logistic regression. Overall survival (OS) was estimated with Kaplan-Meier, and differences were compared using Cox regression, adjusted for baseline factors. RESULTS: The KRAS-G12C frequency was 2%-4% of all tested in the seven cohorts (mean 3%) and 4%-8% of KRAS mutated tumors in the cohorts (mean 7%). Metastasectomies and ablations were performed more often (38% vs. 28%, p = 0.040), and bevacizumab was added more often (any line 74% vs. 59%, p = 0.007) for patients with KRAS-G12C- vs. other KRAS-mutated tumors, whereas chemotherapy was given to similar proportions. OS did not differ according to KRAS mutation, neither overall (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.03; 95% CI 0.74-1.42, reference KRAS-G12C) nor within treatment groups defined as "systemic chemotherapy, alone or with biologics", "metastasectomy and/or ablations", or "best supportive care", RAS and BRAF wild-type tumors (n = 548) differed similarly to KRAS-G12C, as to other KRAS- or NRAS-mutated (n = 66) tumors. CONCLUSIONS: In these real-life and population-based cohorts, there were no significant differences in patient characteristics and outcomes between patients with KRAS-G12C tumors and those with other KRAS mutations. This contrasts with the results of most previous studies claiming differences in many aspects, often with worse outcomes for those with a KRAS-G12C mutation, although not consistent. When specific drugs are developed, as for this mutation, differences in outcome will hopefully emerge.

Report of an international survey of molecular genetic testing laboratories.

OBJECTIVE: To collect data on the practices of molecular genetic testing (MGT) laboratories for the development of national and international policies for quality assurance (QA). METHODS: A web-based survey of MGT laboratory directors (n = 827; response rate 63%) in 18 countries on 3 continents. QA and reporting indices were developed and calculated for each responding laboratory. RESULTS: Laboratory setting varied among and within countries, as did qualifications of the directors. Respondents in every country indicated that their laboratory receives specimens from outside their national borders (64%, n = 529). Pair-wise comparisons of the QA index revealed a significant association with the director having formal training in molecular genetics (p < 0.005), affiliation with a genetics unit (p = 0.003), accreditation of the laboratory (p < 0.005) and participation in proficiency testing (p < 0.005). Research labs had a lower mean report score compared to all other settings (p < 0.05) as did laboratories accessioning <150 samples per year. CONCLUSION: MGT is provided under widely varying conditions and regulatory frameworks. The data provided here may be a useful guide for policy action at both governmental and professional levels.

A quality assessment survey of SNP genotyping laboratories.

To survey the quality of SNP genotyping, a joint Nordic quality assessment (QA) round was organized between 11 laboratories in the Nordic and Baltic countries. The QA round involved blinded genotyping of 47 DNA samples for 18 or six randomly selected SNPs. The methods used by the participating laboratories included all major platforms for small- to medium-size SNP genotyping. The laboratories used their standard procedures for SNP assay design, genotyping, and quality control. Based on the joint results from all laboratories, a consensus genotype for each DNA sample and SNP was determined by the coordinator of the survey, and the results from each laboratory were compared to this genotype. The overall genotyping accuracy achieved in the survey was excellent. Six laboratories delivered genotype data that were in full agreement with the consensus genotype. The average accuracy per SNP varied from 99.1 to 100% between the laboratories, and it was frequently 100% for the majority of the assays for which SNP genotypes were reported. Lessons from the survey are that special attention should be given to the quality of the DNA samples prior to genotyping, and that a conservative approach for calling the genotypes should be used to achieve a high accuracy.