TFAP2E-DKK4 and chemoresistance in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer leads to improved survival; however, predictors of response to systemic treatment are not available. Genomic and epigenetic alterations of the gene encoding transcription factor AP-2 epsilon (TFAP2E) are common in human cancers. The gene encoding dickkopf homolog 4 protein (DKK4) is a potential downstream target of TFAP2E and has been implicated in chemotherapy resistance. We aimed to further evaluate the role of TFAP2E and DKK4 as predictors of the response of colorectal cancer to chemotherapy. METHODS: We analyzed the expression, methylation, and function of TFAP2E in colorectal-cancer cell lines in vitro and in patients with colorectal cancer. We examined an initial cohort of 74 patients, followed by four cohorts of patients (total, 220) undergoing chemotherapy or chemoradiation. RESULTS: TFAP2E was hypermethylated in 38 of 74 patients (51%) in the initial cohort. Hypermethylation was associated with decreased expression of TFAP2E in primary and metastatic colorectal-cancer specimens and cell lines. Colorectal-cancer cell lines overexpressing DKK4 showed increased chemoresistance to fluorouracil but not irinotecan or oxaliplatin. In the four other patient cohorts, TFAP2E hypermethylation was significantly associated with nonresponse to chemotherapy (P<0.001). Conversely, the probability of response among patients with hypomethylation was approximately six times that in the entire population (overall estimated risk ratio, 5.74; 95% confidence interval, 3.36 to 9.79). Epigenetic alterations of TFAP2E were independent of mutations in key regulatory cancer genes, microsatellite instability, and other genes that affect fluorouracil metabolism. CONCLUSIONS: TFAP2E hypermethylation is associated with clinical nonresponsiveness to chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. Functional assays confirm that TFAP2E-dependent resistance is mediated through DKK4. In patients who have colorectal cancer with TFAP2E hypermethylation, targeting of DKK4 may be an option to overcome TFAP2E-mediated drug resistance. (Funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and others.).

Cisplatin and fluorouracil with or without panitumumab in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SPECTRUM): an open-label phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have shown that anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies can improve clinical outcomes of patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN). We assessed the efficacy and safety of panitumumab combined with cisplatin and fluorouracil as first-line treatment for these patients. METHODS: This open-label phase 3 randomised trial was done at 126 sites in 26 countries. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years; had histologically or cytologically confirmed SCCHN; had distant metastatic or locoregionally recurrent disease, or both, that was deemed to be incurable by surgery or radiotherapy; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less; and had adequate haematological, renal, hepatic, and cardiac function. Patients were randomly assigned according to a computer-generated randomisation sequence (1:1; stratified by previous treatment, primary tumour site, and performance status) to one of two groups. Patients in both groups received up to six 3-week cycles of intravenous cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) on day 1 of each cycle) and fluorouracil (1000 mg/m(2) on days 1-4 of each cycle); those in the experimental group also received intravenous panitumumab (9 mg/kg on day 1 of each cycle). Patients in the experimental group could choose to continue maintenance panitumumab every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival and was analysed by intention to treat. In a prospectively defined retrospective analysis, we assessed tumour human papillomavirus (HPV) status as a potential predictive biomarker of outcomes with a validated p16-INK4A (henceforth, p16) immunohistochemical assay. Patients and investigators were aware of group assignment; study statisticians were masked until primary analysis; and the central laboratory assessing p16 status was masked to identification of patients and treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00460265. FINDINGS: Between May 15, 2007, and March 10, 2009, we randomly assigned 657 patients: 327 to the panitumumab group and 330 to the control group. Median overall survival was 11·1 months (95% CI 9·8-12·2) in the panitumumab group and 9·0 months (8·1-11·2) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·873, 95% CI 0·729-1·046; p=0·1403). Median progression-free survival was 5·8 months (95% CI 5·6-6·6) in the panitumumab group and 4·6 months (4·1-5·4) in the control group (HR 0·780, 95% CI 0·659-0·922; p=0·0036). Several grade 3 or 4 adverse events were more frequent in the panitumumab group than in the control group: skin or eye toxicity (62 [19%] of 325 included in safety analyses vs six [2%] of 325), diarrhoea (15 [5%] vs four [1%]), hypomagnesaemia (40 [12%] vs 12 [4%]), hypokalaemia (33 [10%] vs 23 [7%]), and dehydration (16 [5%] vs seven [2%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in 14 patients (4%) in the panitumumab group and eight (2%) in the control group. Five (2%) of the fatal adverse events in the panitumumab group were attributed to the experimental agent. We had appropriate samples to assess p16 status for 443 (67%) patients, of whom 99 (22%) were p16 positive. Median overall survival in patients with p16-negative tumours was longer in the panitumumab group than in the control group (11·7 months [95% CI 9·7-13·7] vs 8·6 months [6·9-11·1]; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58-0·93]; p=0·0115), but this difference was not shown for p16-positive patients (11·0 months [7·3-12·9] vs 12·6 months [7·7-17·4]; 1·00 [0·62-1·61]; p=0·998). In the control group, p16-positive patients had numerically, but not statistically, longer overall survival than did p16-negative patients (HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·47-1·04]). INTERPRETATION: Although the addition of panitumumab to chemotherapy did not improve overall survival in an unselected population of patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN, it improved progression-free survival and had an acceptable toxicity profile. p16 status could be a prognostic and predictive marker in patients treated with panitumumab and chemotherapy. Prospective assessment will be necessary to validate our biomarker findings. FUNDING: Amgen Inc.

First-line therapy of mutated non-small cell lung cancer: an update.

Currently, many treatment options and new targets for cancer therapies for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are being evaluated. This article discusses in detail the significance of first-line and second-line epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) and inhibitors of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and EML4-ALK. Furthermore, the article summarizes the implications and future prospects of using molecular testing in the field of NSCLC with focus on EGFR mutations, KRAS mutation, EML4-ALK fusion gene detection, and EGFR expression.

Efficacy of the irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-pretreated non-small-cell lung cancer patients with brain metastases or leptomeningeal disease.

INTRODUCTION: Afatinib is an effective first-line treatment in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and has shown activity in patients progressing on EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). First-line afatinib is also effective in patients with central nervous system (CNS) metastasis. Here we report on outcomes of pretreated NSCLC patients with CNS metastasis who received afatinib within a compassionate use program. METHODS: Patients with NSCLC progressing after at least one line of chemotherapy and one line of EGFR-TKI treatment received afatinib. Medical history, patient demographics, EGFR mutational status, and adverse events including tumor progression were documented. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2013, 573 patients were enrolled and 541 treated with afatinib. One hundred patients (66% female; median age, 60 years) had brain metastases and/or leptomeningeal disease with 74% having documented EGFR mutation. Median time to treatment failure for patients with CNS metastasis was 3.6 months, and did not differ from a matched group of 100 patients without CNS metastasis. Thirty-five percent (11 of 31) of evaluable patients had a cerebral response, five (16%) responded exclusively in brain. Response duration (range) was 120 (21-395) days. Sixty-six percent (21 of 32) of patients had cerebral disease control on afatinib. Data from one patient with an impressive response showed an afatinib concentration in the cerebrospinal fluid of nearly 1 nMol. CONCLUSION: Afatinib appears to penetrate into the CNS with concentrations high enough to have clinical effect on CNS metastases. Afatinib may therefore be an effective treatment for heavily pretreated patients with EGFR-mutated or EGFR-TKI-sensitive NSCLC and CNS metastasis.