Prospective Biomarker Study in Advanced RAS Wild-Type Colorectal Cancer: POSIBA Trial (GEMCAD 10-02).

BACKGROUND: RAS testing is used to select patients with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapies sensitivity in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, other biomarkers such as BRAF, PIK3CA/PTEN, and p-IGF-1R+/MMP7+ (double positive [DP] phenotype) have not been prospectively assessed to predict anti-EGFR resistance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a multicenter prospective trial (NCT01276379) to evaluate whether the biomarkers BRAF mutation, PIK3CA mutation/PTEN loss, and DP phenotype can improve the prediction for 12-months progression-free survival (PFS) over the use of clinical variables exclusively in patients with RAS wild-type (WT) mCRC treated with standard chemotherapy plus biweekly cetuximab as first-line therapy. The planned sample size was 170 RAS WT patients to detect a 20% difference in 12-month PFS based on the analysis of clinical and selected biomarkers (α = .05, ß = .2). The discriminatory capacity of the biomarkers was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: We included 181 RAS WT patients. The biomarker distribution was as follows: BRAF mutant, 20 patients (11%); PIK3CA mutated/PTEN loss, 98 patients (58%); DP, 23 patients (12.7%). The clinical variables in the clinical score were progression status >0, left-sided tumor, and resectable liver metastasis as the only metastatic site. The area under the curve (AUC) of the score containing the clinical variables was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.75). The AUC of the score with clinical variables and BRAF mutational status was 0.68 (0.61-0.75, p = .37). The AUC of the score with clinical variables and PI3KCA mutation/PTEN status was 0.69 (0.61-0.76, p = .32). The AUC of the score with clinical variables and DP phenotype was 0.66 (0.58-0.73, p = .09). CONCLUSION: The addition of BRAF, PIK3CA/PTEN, and DP to a clinical score does not improve the discrimination of 12-month PFS. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This prospective biomarker design study has important clinical implications because many prospective clinical trials are designed with the hypothesis that BRAF mutation per se and MEK and PIK3CA downstream pathways are critical for colorectal tumor survival. The results lead to the question of whether these pathways should be considered as passengers instead of drivers.

Factors related with symptom duration until diagnosis and treatment of symptomatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) survival depends mostly on stage at the time of diagnosis. However, symptom duration at diagnosis or treatment have also been considered as predictors of stage and survival. This study was designed to: 1) establish the distinct time-symptom duration intervals; 2) identify factors associated with symptom duration until diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of all incident cases of symptomatic CRC during 2006-2009 (795 incident cases) in 5 Spanish regions. Data were obtained from patients' interviews and reviews of primary care and hospital clinical records. MEASUREMENTS: CRC symptoms, symptom perception, trust in the general practitioner (GP), primary care and hospital examinations/visits before diagnosis, type of referral and tumor characteristics at diagnosis. Symptom Diagnosis Interval (SDI) was calculated as time from first CRC symptoms to date of diagnosis. Symptom Treatment Interval (STI) was defined as time from first CRC symptoms until start of treatment. Nonparametric tests were used to compare SDI and STI according to different variables. RESULTS: Symptom to diagnosis interval for CRC was 128 days and symptom treatment interval was 155. No statistically significant differences were observed between colon and rectum cancers. Women experienced longer intervals than men. Symptom presentation such as vomiting or abdominal pain and the presence of obstruction led to shorter diagnostic or treatment intervals. Time elapsed was also shorter in those patients that perceived their first symptom/s as serious, disclosed it to their acquaintances, contacted emergencies services or had trust in their GPs. Primary care and hospital doctor examinations and investigations appeared to be related to time elapsed to diagnosis or treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Results show that gender, symptom perception and help-seeking behaviour are the main patient factors related to interval duration. Health service performance also has a very important role in symptom to diagnosis and treatment interval. If time to diagnosis is to be reduced, interventions and guidelines must be developed to ensure appropriate examination and diagnosis during both primary and hospital care.

Diagnosis delay and follow-up strategies in colorectal cancer. Prognosis implications: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists with regard to the impact that the different components of diagnosis delay may have on the degree of invasion and prognosis in patients with colorectal cancer. The follow-up strategies after treatment also vary considerably. The aims of this study are: a) to determine if the symptoms-to-diagnosis interval and the treatment delay modify the survival of patients with colorectal cancer, and b) to determine if different follow-up strategies are associated with a higher survival rate. METHODS/DESIGN: Multi-centre study with prospective follow-up in five regions in Spain (Galicia, Balearic Islands, Catalonia, Aragón and Valencia) during the period 2010-2012. Incident cases are included with anatomopathological confirmation of colorectal cancer (International Classification of Diseases 9th revision codes 153-154) that formed a part of a previous study (n = 953).At the time of diagnosis, each patient was given a structured interview. Their clinical records will be reviewed during the follow-up period in order to obtain information on the explorations and tests carried out after treatment, and the progress of these patients.Symptoms-to-diagnosis interval is defined as the time calculated from the diagnosis of cancer and the first symptoms attributed to cancer. Treatment delay is defined as the time elapsed between diagnosis and treatment. In non-metastatic patients treated with curative intention, information will be obtained during the follow-up period on consultations performed in the digestive, surgery and oncology departments, as well as the endoscopies, tumour markers and imaging procedures carried out.Local recurrence, development of metastases in the follow-up, appearance of a new tumour and mortality will be included as outcome variables.Actuarial survival analysis with Kaplan-Meier curves, Cox regression and competitive risk survival analysis will be performed. DISCUSSION: This study will make it possible to verify if the different components of delay have an impact on survival rate in colon cancer and rectal cancer. In consequence, this multi-centre study will be able to detect the variability present in the follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer, and if this variability modifies the prognosis. Ideally, this study could determine which follow-up strategies are associated with a better prognosis in colorectal cancer.

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. First Line Therapy for Unresectable Disease.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a commonly diagnosed malignancy. The prognosis of patients with unresectable, metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is dismal and medical treatment is mainly palliative in nature. Although chemotherapy remains the backbone of treatment, the landscape is changing with the understanding of its heterogeneity and molecular biology. First-line therapy relies on a combination of chemotherapy and targeted therapies, according to clinical patient characteristics and tumor molecular profile. Here we review current evidence from randomized clinical trials for using chemotherapy doublets or triplets, and for the addition of bevacizumab or anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents. Novel therapies developed for small, selected populations are also discussed.

Clinical Impact of Circulating Tumor RAS and BRAF Mutation Dynamics in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With First-Line Chemotherapy Plus Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Therapy.

PURPOSE: RAS and BRAF mutations can be detected as a mechanism of acquired resistance in circulating tumor (ct) DNA in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy. METHODS: RAS and BRAF mutational status was assessed in ctDNA in a baseline plasma sample and a serum sample collected at the time of the last available determination (named secondary extraction) from patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated in two first-line prospective biomarker-designed clinical trials (PULSE, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01288339; and POSIBA, ClincialTrials.gov identifier: NCT01276379). RESULTS: Analysis of extended RAS and BRAF in tissue and plasma from 178 patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer showed a sensitivity of 64.1% and a specificity of 90%. The median overall survival (OS) of baseline patients with RAS and BRAF mutations in ctDNA was 22.3 months (95% CI, 15.6 to 29 months) and 8.9 months (95% CI, 6.3 to 11.4 months), respectively, which was significantly inferior to the median OS of 40.4 months (95% CI, 35.9 to 44.9 months) in two patients with wild-type disease (P < .001). Acquisition of RAS/BRAF mutations occurred in nine of 63 patients (14%) with progressive disease (PD; ie, blood draw within 1 month before PD or after PD) compared with six of 73 patients (8%) with no PD or blood extraction for ctDNA analysis before 1 month of PD (P = .47). Median OS in patients with RAS/BRAF acquisition was 23.9 months (95% CI, 19.7 to 27.9 months) compared with 40.6 months (95% CI, not reached to not reached) in patients who remained free of mutations (P = .016). CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that baseline RAS and BRAF testing in ctDNA discriminates survival. The emergence of RAS/BRAF mutations has limited relevance for the time to progression to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy.

Coexpression of p-IGF-1R and MMP-7 Modulates Panitumumab and Cetuximab Efficacy in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients.

INTRODUCTION: The coexpression of pIGF-1R and MMP-7 (double-positive phenotype, DP) correlates with poor overall survival (OS) in KRAS wild-type (WT) (exon 2) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients treated with irinotecan-cetuximab in second/third line. METHODS: We analyzed two prospective biomarker design trials of newly diagnosed RAS-WT mCRC patients treated with panitumumab-FOLFOX6 (PULSE trial; NCT01288339) or cetuximab plus either FOLFOX6/FOLFIRI (POSIBA trial; NCT01276379). The main exposure was DP phenotype (DP/non-DP), as assessed by two independent pathologists. DP cases were defined by immunohistochemistry as >70% expression of moderate or strong intensity for both MMP-7 and pIGF-1R. Primary endpoint: progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints: OS and response rate. PFS and OS were adjusted by baseline characteristics using multivariate Cox models. RESULTS: We analyzed 67 patients (30 non-DP, 37 DP) in the PULSE trial and 181 patients in the POSIBA trial (158 non-DP, 23 DP). Response rates and PFS were similar between groups in both studies. DP was associated with prolonged OS in PULSE (adjusted HR: 0.23; 95%CI: 0.11-0.52; P=.0004) and with shorter OS in POSIBA (adjusted HR: 1.67; 95%CI: 0.96-2.90; P=.07). CONCLUSION: A differential effect of anti-EGFRs on survival by DP phenotype was observed. Panitumumab might be more beneficial for RAS-WT mCRC patients with DP phenotype, whereas cetuximab might improve OS in non-DP.

Randomised study of tegafur and oral leucovorin versus intravenous 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

This randomised, open-label trial compared oral tegafur (FT)/leucovorin (LV) with the intravenous bolus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/LV as first-line chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Patients were randomised to receive oral FT 750 mg/m2/day for 21 days and LV 15 mg/m2 every 8 h in cycles repeated every 28 days (n=114), or intravenous LV 20 mg/m2 followed by 5-FU 425 mg/m2 daily for 5 days every 4 weeks for 2 cycles, and later every 5 weeks (n=123). Response rate was significantly higher in the FT/LV arm (27%, 95% CI 19-35) than in the 5-FU/LV arm (13%, 95% CI 7-19) (p<0.004). The median time to progression was 5.9 months (95% CI, 5.3-6.5; FT/LV arm) and 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.4-6.9; 5-FU/LV arm). Median overall survival was 12.4 months (95% CI, 10.3-14.5 months; FT/LV arm) and 12.2 months (95% CI, 8.9-15.7 months; 5-FU/LV arm) (p=n.s.; hazard ratio FT/LV:5-FU/LV=1.02). 5-FU/LV showed a higher incidence of grade 3/4 neutropenia (4.1 vs. 0%). Non-hematological toxicities showed similar incidences in the two treatment arms. Oral FT/LV was more active than IV 5-FU/LV in terms of objective response rate with similar overall survival, and with a favorable toxicity profile. This makes FT/LV a valid alternative to the IV 5-FU schedule in CRC patients.

Phase I trial of oxaliplatin in combination with cisplatin, protacted-infusion fluorouracil, and radiotherapy in advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To define the maximum-tolerated dose of oxaliplatin given with cisplatin, protacted 96-h infusion of fluorouracil, and radiotherapy for patients with advanced esophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventeen patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer and 2 patients with local recurrence were treated. Escalating doses of oxaliplatin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil were administered on Days 1 and 29 of radiotherapy. Radiotherapy was delivered in 1.8 Gy daily fractions to a total dose of 50.4 Gy. Dose-limiting toxicity was defined as a Grade 4 hematologic or Grade 3-4 nonhematologic toxicity. RESULTS: Dose-limiting toxicity caused by diarrhea and asthenia was observed at the IV level. The recommended dose was 85 mg/m- oxaliplatin, 55 mg/m2 cisplatin, and 3000 mg/m2 96-h fluorouracil infusion. Two pathologic complete responses were observed in 12 patients selected for surgery (16%). CONCLUSIONS: Oxaliplatin, cisplatin, fluouracil, and radiotherapy can be administered together with acceptable toxicity. A Phase II trial is ongoing with resectable esophageal and gastric carcinoma.

Phase II study of irinotecan (CPT-11) administered every 2 weeks as treatment for patients with colorectal cancer resistant to previous treatment with 5-fluorouracil-based therapies: comparison of two different dose schedules (250 and 200 mg/m2) according to toxicity prognostic factors.

Our objective was to assess the antitumoral activity and toxicity of irinotecan (CPT-11) 60-min i.v. infusion every 2 weeks as second-line monotherapy of advanced colorectal cancer. Two doses were studied (250 and 200 mg/m) according to the risk of developing toxicity. Two groups of patients were studied: high-risk group (HR, 200 mg/m, n = 45; Karnofsky score 60-80% and/or the record of prior pelvic irradiation) and low-risk-group (LR, 250 mg/m, n = 51; Karnofsky score >80% and without prior pelvic irradiation). The mean number of cycles per patient was 7: 6.6 (HR group) and 8.3 (LR group). Median RDI was 0.96. The overall response rate was 8.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.5-21.2%; HR group] and 15.7% (95% CI 7.0-28.5%; LR group), respectively. The LR group showed two complete responses and a higher percentage of stable disease (56.9 versus 33.3% in HR group). The median survival was 7.1 months (95% CI 5.2-8.9 months, HR group) and 11.7 months (95% CI 8.4-15.1 months, LR group). The median time to disease progression was 3.2 months (95% CI 1.0-5.4 months, HR group) and 5.3 months (95% CI 3.8-6.7 months, LR group). Both CPT-11 treatments were well tolerated. Grade 3/4 toxicity incidence was low, e.g. granulocytopenia (7% of patients in HR group and 9% in LR group) and delayed diarrhea (18% of patients in HR group and 14% in LR group). We conclude that the treatment of patients with the adjusted dose of CPT-11 according to prognostic factors for toxicity resulted in the improved toxicity profile, but showed poorer efficacy outcome. Therefore, the dose reduction in patients with low performance and treated with radiotherapy needs further investigation to provide some new insights on the benefit:risk ratio of such treatment.