Quality of life in patients with K-RAS wild-type colorectal cancer: the CO.20 phase 3 randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The CO.20 trial randomized patients with K-RAS wild-type, chemotherapy-refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer to receive cetuximab (CET) plus brivanib alaninate (BRIV) or CET plus placebo (CET/placebo). METHODS: Quality of life (QoL) was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 at baseline and at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, and 24 weeks until disease progression. Predefined coprimary QoL endpoints were time to deterioration (first worsening from baseline of ≥ 10 points) on the Physical Function (PF) and Global (GHS) scales. RESULTS: Of 750 randomized patients, 721 (358 of whom received CET/BRIV) were assessable for QoL. QoL compliance and baseline PF and GHS scores did not differ by treatment arm. The median time to deterioration was 1.6 months versus 1.1 months for GHS (P =.02) and 5.6 months versus 1.7 months for PF (P <.0001) favoring CET/placebo. Secondary analysis favored CET/placebo for QOL response on the PF, Cognitive Function, Fatigue, Nausea, Appetite, and Diarrhea scales. A greater percentage of patients on the CET/BRIV arm had PF worsening at 6 weeks (31% vs 17%). Clinical adverse events of ≥ grade 3 were more common with CET/BRIV than with CET/placebo, including fatigue (25% vs 11%), hypertension, rash, diarrhea, abdominal pain, dehydration, and anorexia. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CET/placebo, the combination of CET/BRIV worsened time to QoL deterioration for patients with K-RAS wild-type, chemotherapy-refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer on the PF and GHS scales of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30. This result may be due to higher rates of fatigue and gastrointestinal adverse events.

The association of health-care contact days with physical function and survival in CCTG/AGITG CO.17.

INTRODUCTION: Although contact days-days with health-care contact outside home-are increasingly adopted as a measure of time toxicity and treatment burden, they could also serve as a surrogate of treatment-related harm. We sought to assess the association between contact days and patient-reported outcomes and the prognostic ability of contact days. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of CO.17 that evaluated cetuximab vs supportive care in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. CO.17 collected European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 instrument data. We assessed the association between number of contact days in a window and changes in physical function and global health status and the association between number of contact days in the first 4 weeks with overall survival. RESULTS: There was a negative association between the number of contact days and change in physical function (per each additional contact day: at 4 weeks, 1.50-point decrease; 8 weeks, 1.06-point decrease; P < .0001 for both) but not with global health status. This negative association was seen in patients receiving cetuximab but not supportive care. More contact days in the first 4 weeks was associated with worse overall survival for all participants and patients receiving cetuximab (per each additional contact day: all participants, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05 to 1.10; and cetuximab, adjusted HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.11; P < .0001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis of a clinical trial, more contact days early in the course were associated with declines in physical function and worse survival in all participants and in participants receiving cancer-directed treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00079066.

Evaluating the Time Toxicity of Cancer Treatment in the CCTG CO.17 Trial.

PURPOSE: The time spent in pursuing treatments for advanced cancer can be substantial. We have previously proposed a pragmatic and patient-centered metric of these time costs-which we term time toxicity-as any day with physical health care system contact. This includes outpatient visits (eg, bloodwork, scans, etc), emergency department visits, and overnight stays in a health care facility. Herein, we sought to assess time toxicity in a completed randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of the Canadian Cancer Trials Group CO.17 RCT that evaluated weekly cetuximab infusions versus supportive care alone in 572 patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Initial results reported a 6-week improvement in median overall survival (OS) with cetuximab (6.1 v 4.6 months). Subsequent analyses reported that benefit was restricted to patients with K-ras wild-type tumors. We calculated patient-level time toxicity by analyzing trial forms. We considered days without health care contact as home days. We compared medians of time measures across arms and stratified results by K-ras status. RESULTS: In the overall population, median time toxic days were higher in the cetuximab arm (28 v 10, P < .001) although median home days were not statistically different between arms (140 v 121, P = .09). In patients with K-ras-mutated tumors, cetuximab was associated with almost numerically equal home days (114 days v 112 days, P = .571) and higher time toxicity (23 days v 11 days, P < .001). In patients with K-ras wild-type tumors, cetuximab was associated with more home days (186 v 132, P < .001). CONCLUSION: This proof-of-concept feasibility study demonstrates that measures of time toxicity can be extracted through secondary analyses of RCTs. In CO.17, despite an overall OS benefit with cetuximab, home days were statistically similar across arms. Such data can supplement traditional survival end points in RCTs. Further work should refine and validate the measure prospectively.[Media: see text].

Clinical and metabolomic characterization of Brivanib-Induced hypertension in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Trials of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have not demonstrated dramatic benefits in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), and this may be a function of poor patient selection. TKI-induced hypertension is reportedly a surrogate marker for treatment benefit for some tumor types. Our objective was to determine whether hypertension was associated with benefit in the context of CRC treatment, and also to gain insight on the pathogenesis of TKI-induced hypertension by monitoring associated changes in the circulating metabolome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical data were acquired from clinical trial patients with metastatic CRC randomized to cetuximab ± the TKI brivanib (N = 750). Outcomes were evaluated as a function of treatment-induced hypertension. For metabolomic studies, plasma samples were taken at baseline, as well as at 1, 4, and 12 weeks after treatment initiation. Samples were submitted to gas chromatography-mass spectrometry to identify treatment-related metabolomic changes associated with TKI-induced hypertension, compared to pre-treatment baseline. A model based on changes in metabolite concentrations was generated using orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA). RESULTS: In the brivanib treated group, 95 patients had treatment-related hypertension within 12 weeks of initiating treatment. TKI-induced hypertension was not associated with a significantly higher response rate, nor was it associated with improved progression-free or overall survival. In metabolomic studies, 386 metabolites were identified. There were 29 metabolites that changed with treatment and distinguished patients with and without TKI-induced hypertension. The OPLS-DA model for brivanib-induced hypertension was significant and robust (R2 Y score = 0.89, Q2 Y score = 0.70, CV-ANOVA = 2.01 e-7). Notable metabolomic features previously reported in pre-eclampsia and associated with vasoconstriction were found. CONCLUSION: TKI-induced hypertension was not associated with clinical benefit in metastatic CRC. We have identified changes in the metabolome that are associated with the development of worsening brivanib-induced hypertension that may be useful in future efforts of characterizing this toxicity.

Plasma Cetuximab Concentrations Correlate With Survival in Patients With Advanced KRAS Wild Type Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab is a standard of care therapy for patients with RAS wild-type (WT) advanced colorectal cancer. Limited data suggest a wide variation in cetuximab plasma concentrations after standard dosing regimens. We correlated cetuximab plasma concentrations with survival and toxicity. METHODS: The CO. 20 study randomized patients with RAS WT advanced colorectal cancer in a 1:1 ratio to cetuximab 400 mg/m2 intravenously followed by weekly maintenance of 250 mg/m2, plus brivanib 800 mg orally daily or placebo. Blood samples obtained at week 5 precetuximab treatment were analyzed by ELISA. Patients were grouped into tertiles based on plasma cetuximab concentrations. Cetuximab concentration tertiles were correlated with survival outcomes and toxicity. Patient demographic and biochemical parameters were evaluated as co-variables. RESULTS: Week 5 plasma cetuximab concentrations were available for 591 patients (78.8%). The median overall survival (OS) was 11.4 months and 7.8 months for patients in the highest (T3) and lowest tertiles (T1) respectively. On multivariable analysis, plasma cetuximab concentration was associated with OS (HR 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53-0.83, P < .001, T3 vs. T1), and a trend towards progression-free survival (HR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.66-1.02, P = .07, T3 vs. T1). There was no association between cetuximab concentration and skin toxicity or diarrhea. CONCLUSION: The standard cetuximab dosing regimen may not be optimal for all patients. Further pharmacokinetic studies are needed to optimize cetuximab dosing given the potential improvement in OS.

Early detection of treatment futility in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy options for treating CRC have rapidly expanded in recent years, and few have predictive biomarkers. Oncologists are challenged with evidence-based selection of treatments, and response is evaluated retrospectively based on serial imaging beginning after 2-3 months. As a result, cumulative toxicities may appear in patients who will not benefit. Early recognition of non-benefit would reduce cumulative toxicities. Our objective was to determine treatment-related changes in the circulating metabolome corresponding to treatment futility. METHODS: Metabolomic studies were performed on serial plasma samples from patients with CRC in a randomized controlled trial of cetuximab vs. cetuximab + brivanib (N = 188). GC-MS quantified named 94 metabolites and concentrations were evaluated at baseline, Weeks 1, 4 and 12 after treatment initiation. In a discovery cohort (N = 68), a model distinguishing changes in metabolites associated with radiographic disease progression and response was generated using OPLS-DA. A cohort of 120 patients was used for validation of the model. RESULTS: By one week after treatment, a stable model of 21 metabolites could distinguish between progression and partial response (R2Y = 0.859; Q2Y = 0.605; P = 5e-4). In the validation cohort, patients with the biomarker had a significantly shorter OS (P < 0.0001). In a separate cohort of patients with HCC on axitinib, appearance of the biomarker also signified a shorter PFS (1.7 months vs. 9.2 months, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: We have identified changes in the metabolome that appear within 1 week of starting treatment associated with treatment futility. The novel approach described is applicable to future efforts in developing a biomarker for early assessment of treatment efficacy.

K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody directed against the epidermal growth factor receptor, improves overall and progression-free survival and preserves the quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer that has not responded to chemotherapy. The mutation status of the K-ras gene in the tumor may affect the response to cetuximab and have treatment-independent prognostic value. METHODS: We analyzed tumor samples, obtained from 394 of 572 patients (68.9%) with colorectal cancer who were randomly assigned to receive cetuximab plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone, to look for activating mutations in exon 2 of the K-ras gene. We assessed whether the mutation status of the K-ras gene was associated with survival in the cetuximab and supportive-care groups. RESULTS: Of the tumors evaluated for K-ras mutations, 42.3% had at least one mutation in exon 2 of the gene. The effectiveness of cetuximab was significantly associated with K-ras mutation status (P=0.01 and P<0.001 for the interaction of K-ras mutation status with overall survival and progression-free survival, respectively). In patients with wild-type K-ras tumors, treatment with cetuximab as compared with supportive care alone significantly improved overall survival (median, 9.5 vs. 4.8 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.74; P<0.001) and progression-free survival (median, 3.7 months vs. 1.9 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.54; P<0.001). Among patients with mutated K-ras tumors, there was no significant difference between those who were treated with cetuximab and those who received supportive care alone with respect to overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.98; P=0.89) or progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.99; P=0.96). In the group of patients receiving best supportive care alone, the mutation status of the K-ras gene was not significantly associated with overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 1.01; P=0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a colorectal tumor bearing mutated K-ras did not benefit from cetuximab, whereas patients with a tumor bearing wild-type K-ras did benefit from cetuximab. The mutation status of the K-ras gene had no influence on survival among patients treated with best supportive care alone. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00079066.)

Personalized Medicine-Current and Emerging Predictive and Prognostic Biomarkers in Colorectal Cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer diagnosed worldwide and is heterogeneous both morphologically and molecularly. In an era of personalized medicine, the greatest challenge is to predict individual response to therapy and distinguish patients likely to be cured with surgical resection of tumors and systemic therapy from those resistant or non-responsive to treatment. Patients would avoid futile treatments, including clinical trial regimes and ultimately this would prevent under- and over-treatment and reduce unnecessary adverse side effects. In this review, the potential of specific biomarkers will be explored to address two key questions-1) Can the prognosis of patients that will fare well or poorly be determined beyond currently recognized prognostic indicators? and 2) Can an individual patient's response to therapy be predicted and those who will most likely benefit from treatment/s be identified? Identifying and validating key prognostic and predictive biomarkers and an understanding of the underlying mechanisms of drug resistance and toxicity in CRC are important steps in order to personalize treatment. This review addresses recent data on biological prognostic and predictive biomarkers in CRC. In addition, patient cohorts most likely to benefit from currently available systemic treatments and/or targeted therapies are discussed in this review.

Update on optimal treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer from the AGITG expert meeting: ESMO congress 2019.

Introduction: Outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer are improving, due to the tailoring of therapy enabled by better understanding of clinical behavior according to molecular subtype.Areas covered: A review of the literature and recent conference presentations was undertaken on the topic of systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. This review summarizes expert discussion of the current evidence for therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on molecular subgrouping.Expert opinion: EGFR-targeted and VEGF-targeted antibodies are now routinely incorporated into treatment strategies for mCRC. EGFR-targeted antibodies are restricted to patients with extended RAS wild-type profiles, with evidence that they should be further restricted to patients with left-sided tumors. Clinically distinct treatment pathways based on tumor RAS, BRAF, HER2 and MMR status, are now clinically applicable. Evidence suggests therapy for additional subgroups will soon be defined; the most advanced being for patients with KRAS G12 C mutation and gene TRK fusion defects.

Intratumoral Transcriptome Heterogeneity Is Associated With Patient Prognosis and Sidedness in Patients With Colorectal Cancer Treated With Anti-EGFR Therapy From the CO.20 Trial.

PURPOSE: Metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRCs) assigned to the transit-amplifying (TA) CRCAssigner subtype are more sensitive to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy. We evaluated the association between the intratumoral presence of TA signature (TA-high/TA-low, dubbed as TA-ness classification) and outcomes in CRCs treated with anti-EGFR therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The TA-ness classes were defined in a discovery cohort (n = 84) and independently validated in a clinical trial (CO.20; cetuximab monotherapy arm; n = 121) and other samples using an established NanoString-based gene expression assay. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and disease control rate (DCR) according to TA-ness classification were assessed by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The TA-ness was measured in 772 samples from 712 patients. Patients (treated with anti-EGFR therapy) with TA-high tumors had significantly longer PFS (discovery hazard ratio [HR], 0.40; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.64; P < .001; validation HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.93; P = .018), longer OS (discovery HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.78; P = .003; validation HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.98; P = .04), and higher DCR (discovery odds ratio [OR]; 14.8; 95% CI, 4.30 to 59.54; P < .001; validation OR, 4.35; 95% CI, 2.00 to 9.09; P < .001). TA-ness classification and its association with anti-EGFR therapy outcomes were further confirmed using publicly available data (n = 80) from metastatic samples (PFS P < .001) and patient-derived xenografts (P = .042). In an exploratory analysis of 55 patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type and left-sided tumors, TA-high class was significantly associated with longer PFS and trend toward higher response rate (PFS HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.00; P = .049; OR, 5.88; 95% CI, 0.71 to 4.55; P = .09; response rate 33% in TA-high and 7.7% in TA-low). CONCLUSION: TA-ness classification is associated with prognosis in patients with mCRC treated with anti-EGFR therapy and may further help understanding the value of sidedness in patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type tumors.

Non-BRCA DNA Damage Repair Gene Alterations and Response to the PARP Inhibitor Rucaparib in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Analysis From the Phase II TRITON2 Study.

PURPOSE: Genomic alterations in DNA damage repair (DDR) genes other than BRCA may confer synthetic lethality with PARP inhibition in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). To test this hypothesis, the phase II TRITON2 study of rucaparib included patients with mCRPC and deleterious non-BRCA DDR gene alterations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: TRITON2 enrolled patients who had progressed on one or two lines of next-generation androgen receptor-directed therapy and one taxane-based chemotherapy for mCRPC. Key endpoints were investigator-assessed radiographic response per modified RECIST/PCWG3 and PSA response (≥50% decrease from baseline). RESULTS: TRITON2 enrolled 78 patients with a non-BRCA DDR gene alteration [ATM (n = 49), CDK12 (n = 15), CHEK2 (n = 12), and other DDR genes (n = 14)]. Among patients evaluable for each endpoint, radiographic and PSA responses were observed in a limited number of patients with an alteration in ATM [2/19 (10.5%) and 2/49 (4.1%), respectively], CDK12 [0/10 (0%) and 1/15 (6.7%), respectively], or CHEK2 [1/9 (11.1%) and 2/12 (16.7%), respectively], including no radiographic or PSA responses in 11 patients with confirmed biallelic ATM loss or 11 patients with ATM germline mutations. Responses were observed in patients with alterations in the DDR genes PALB2, FANCA, BRIP1, and RAD51B. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective, genomics-driven study of rucaparib in mCRPC, we found limited radiographic/PSA responses to PARP inhibition in men with alterations in ATM, CDK12, or CHEK2. However, patients with alterations in other DDR-associated genes (e.g., PALB2) may benefit from PARP inhibition.See related commentary by Sokolova et al., p. 2439.

Outcomes of Older Patients (≥ 70 Years) Treated With Targeted Therapy in Metastatic Chemorefractory Colorectal Cancer: Retrospective Analysis of NCIC CTG CO.17 and CO.20.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of targeted therapy in older patients (≥ 70 years) with metastatic colorectal cancer is not well evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Outcomes of older patients (including overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS], toxicity, and quality of life [QoL]) were compared to young patients using data from 2 large previously reported clinical trials, CO.17 (cetuximab vs. best supportive care) and CO.20 (cetuximab plus placebo vs. cetuximab plus brivanib). Only patients with wild-type KRAS tumors were included. RESULTS: A total of 251 (26.3%) of 955 patients were ≥ 70 years old. No significant differences in OS, PFS, or grade 3/4 adverse events were observed between older and younger patients treated with cetuximab (or cetuximab with placebo) in either trial. Younger patients trended toward superior OS in both CO.17 (hazard ratio = 1.80; P = .16) and CO.20 (hazard ratio = 1.34; P = .07). QoL maintenance favored younger patients in CO.17 (3.6 vs. 5.7 months; P = .046) but no difference of QoL maintenance was observed in the larger CO.20 trial (1.7 vs. 1.8 months; P = .64). Combination therapy of cetuximab and brivanib was significantly more toxic in older adults (87% vs. 77%; P = .03). CONCLUSION: OS, PFS, and toxicities were similar between older and younger patients with wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer when treated with cetuximab. Both age groups likely experience similar QoL maintenance with cetuximab. Dual targeted therapy was significantly more toxic in older patients.

Quality and impact of eviQ Cancer Treatments Online (www.eviq.org.au): the medical oncologist's perspective.

INTRODUCTION: eviQ Cancer Treatments Online is a free, web-based resource providing access to over 600 evidence-based treatment protocols in medical oncology, radiation oncology, hematology and cancer genetics. With over 60 000 registrants from 148 countries, eviQ is widely used by cancer clinicians globally. The aim of this study was to examine the perceived quality of eviQ by Australian medical oncologists, the impact it had on their knowledge and practice, and the effect it had on their patients. METHODS: A web-based survey was administered to members of the Medical Oncology Group of Australia by email. Two reminders emails were sent to encourage participation. RESULTS: Of the 97 respondents (15%), all but one, were practicing in Australia, with varying years of oncology experience (<2 years: 25%, 2-10 years: 36%, >10 years: 39%). eviQ was most frequently used as a source for providing patient information sheets on chemotherapy side effects, with 57% of respondents using eviQ for this purpose. Other uses included accessing side effect information (27%), checking drug doses (26%) and guiding dose adjustments (22%). The majority of respondents rated eviQ as current, accurate and relevant with over 90% agreeing that eviQ was of a high quality. Most of the respondents reported that they provided better care with enhanced patient experiences as a result of using eviQ. CONCLUSIONS: eviQ was highly regarded by Australian medical oncologists who responded to our survey. The results suggested that usage of eviQ had a positive impact on individual knowledge, practice and promoted better patient-centered care.

Cetuximab Alone or With Irinotecan for Resistant KRAS-, NRAS-, BRAF- and PIK3CA-wild-type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The AGITG Randomized Phase II ICECREAM Study.

BACKGROUND: The Irinotecan Cetuximab Evaluation and Cetuximab Response Evaluation (ICECREAM) study assessed the efficacy of cetuximab monotherapy compared with cetuximab combined with chemotherapy for quadruple wild-type (KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, or P13KCA exon 20) metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were enrolled in an open-label, multicenter, phase II trial and randomly assigned to cetuximab 400 mg/m2, then 250 mg/m2 cetuximab weekly, with or without irinotecan 180 mg/m2 every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival; secondary endpoints were response rate, overall survival, toxicity, and quality of life. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2016, 48 patients were recruited. Two were ineligible, and 2 were not evaluable for response. Characteristics were balanced, except gender (male, 62% vs. 72%) and primary sidedness (left, 95% vs. 68%). For cetuximab compared with cetuximab-irinotecan, progression-free survival was 14% versus 41% (hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.78; P = .008); response rate was 10% (2 partial responses) versus 38% (1 complete, 8 partial); P = .04. Grade 3 to 4 toxicities were less with cetuximab monotherapy (23% vs. 50%); global and specific quality of life scores did not differ. CONCLUSION: In comparison with cetuximab alone, cetuximab plus irinotecan increases the response rate and delays progression in irinotecan-resistant RAS wild-type colorectal cancer. This echoes data from molecularly unselected patients.

Update on optimal treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer from the ACTG/AGITG expert meeting: ECCO 2015.

The treatment of metastatic CRC (mCRC) has evolved over the last 20 years, from fluoropyrimidines alone to combination chemotherapy and new biologic agents. Median overall survival is now over 24 months for RAS mutated (MT) patients and over 30 months for RAS wild-type (WT) patients. However, there are subgroups of patients with BRAF V600E MT CRC who have a significantly poorer outlook. Newer treatment options are also being explored in select subgroups of patients (anti-HER 2 in HER2 positive mCRC and immunotherapy in patients with defective mismatch repair (dMMR)). The best use of these systemic treatment options, as well as surgery in well-selected patients requires careful consideration of predictive biomarkers and importantly, the optimal sequence in which therapies should be given to derive maximal benefit. A group of colorectal subspecialty medical oncologists from Australia, USA, The Netherlands and Germany met during ECCO 2015 in Vienna to review current practice.

Response to Cetuximab With or Without Irinotecan in Patients With Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Harboring the KRAS G13D Mutation: Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group ICECREAM Study.

PURPOSE: RAS mutations predict lack of response to epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but preclinical studies and retrospective clinical data suggest that patients with tumors harboring the exon 2 KRAS G13D mutation may benefit from cetuximab. We aimed to assess cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in patients with molecularly selected (G13D mutation) chemotherapy-refractory mCRC in a randomized phase II trial of this rare molecular subtype. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with chemotherapy-refractory KRAS G13D mutation-positive mCRC who had progressed within 6 months of irinotecan therapy were randomly assigned to cetuximab 400 mg/m(2) loading dose and then 250 mg/m(2) once per week with or without irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) once every 2 weeks. The primary end point was 6-month progression-free survival; secondary end points were response rate, overall survival, quality of life, and toxicity. RESULTS: Fifty-one of 53 patients recruited over 2 years were eligible. The 6-month progression-free survival rate was 10% (95% CI, 2% to 26%) for cetuximab versus 23% (95% CI, 9% to 40%) for cetuximab plus irinotecan with a hazard ratio of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.42 to 1.32). Response and stable disease rates were 0% and 58% for monotherapy versus 9% and 70% for combination treatment, respectively. Overall survival and quality of life were similar; toxicities were higher with combination therapy. CONCLUSION: In patients with G13D-mutated chemotherapy-refractory mCRC, there was no statistically significant improvement in disease control at 6 months with either cetuximab monotherapy or cetuximab plus irinotecan. No responses were seen with single-agent cetuximab. The responses observed with the combination of cetuximab and irinotecan may reflect true drug synergy or persistent irinotecan sensitivity. The ICECREAM (Irinotecan Cetuximab Evaluation and Cetuximab Response Evaluation Among Patients with a G13D Mutation) study demonstrates the need to prospectively evaluate hypotheses that were previously supported by retrospective analyses and exemplifies the value of international collaboration in trials of rare molecular subtypes.

Fc-γ Receptor Polymorphisms, Cetuximab Therapy, and Survival in the NCIC CTG CO.17 Trial of Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Two germline Fc-γ receptor (FCGR) polymorphisms, rs1801274 [FCGR2A;His(H)131Arg(R)] and rs396991 [FCGR3A;Phe(F)158Val(V)] produce altered proteins through amino acid substitutions; both are reported to be associated with cetuximab-related outcomes. We performed a validation of these polymorphisms in NCIC CTG CO.17, a randomized trial of cetuximab monotherapy in refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer expressing EGFR. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: DNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue was genotyped. In addition to log-rank tests, Cox proportional hazard models assessed their relationships with overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), adjusting for clinically important prognostic factors, along with a polymorphism-treatment arm interaction term. RESULTS: Somatic KRAS status was wild-type for exon 2 in 153 (52%) of 293 patients, from whom tumor DNA was available. For FCGR2A H/H, a genotype-treatment interaction for KRAS wild-type patients was observed for OS (P = 0.03). In KRAS wild-type patients carrying FCGR2A H/H, cetuximab (vs. no cetuximab) improved survival substantially, with adjusted HRs (aHR) of 0.36 (OS) and 0.19 (PFS) and absolute benefits of 5.5 months (OS; P = 0.003) and 3.7 months (PFS; P = 0.02). In contrast, patients carrying FCGR2A R alleles (H/R or R/R) had aHRs of only 0.78 (OS; 2.8-month benefit) and 0.53 (PFS; 1.6-month benefit). No relationships were found for rs396991 (FCGR3A). CONCLUSIONS: In the CO.17 trial, cetuximab worked best for patients with KRAS wild-type colorectal cancers carrying FCGR2A H/H genotypes. Significantly lower benefits were observed in patients carrying germline FCGR2A R alleles. Clin Cancer Res; 22(10); 2435-44. ©2016 AACR.

Current opinion on optimal systemic treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: outcome of the ACTG/AGITG expert meeting ECCO 2013.

The treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer has evolved greatly in the last 15 years, involving combined chemotherapy protocols and, in more recent times, new biologic agents. Clinical benefit from the use of targeted therapy with bevacizumab, aflibercept, cetuximab, panitumumab and regorafenib in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer is now well established with median overall survival accepted as over 24 months, and with super selection for extended RAS patients higher again. The optimal timing of treatment options requires careful consideration of predictive biomarkers, and importantly the potential for interactions, to derive the maximal benefit. A group of colorectal subspecialty medical oncologists from Australia, the USA, the Netherlands and Germany met during ECCO 2013 to discuss current practice. Subsequent new data from the American Society of Clinical Oncology were also reviewed. This article reviews the evidence discussed in support of modern treatments for colorectal cancer and the decision-making behind the treatment choices, with their benefits and risks.

PIK3CA, BRAF, and PTEN status and benefit from cetuximab in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer--results from NCIC CTG/AGITG CO.17.

PURPOSE: Cetuximab improves survival in patients with K-ras wild-type advanced colorectal cancer. We examined the predictive and prognostic significance of additional biomarkers in this setting, in particular BRAF, PIK3CA, and PTEN. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Available colorectal tumor samples were analyzed from the CO.17 study. BRAF mutations were identified in tumor-derived DNA by direct sequencing and PIK3CA mutations were identified using a high-resolution melting screen with confirmation by sequencing. PTEN expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed on tissue microarrays. For each biomarker, prognostic and predictive effects were examined using a Cox model with tests for treatment-biomarker interaction. RESULTS: A total of 572 patients with pretreated colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to receive cetuximab or best supportive care (BSC). Of 401 patients assessed for BRAF status, 13 (3.2%) had mutations. Of 407 patients assessed for PIK3CA status, 61 (15%) had mutations. Of 205 patients assessed for PTEN, 148 (72%) were negative for IHC expression. None of BRAF, PIK3CA, or PTEN was prognostic for overall or progression-free survival in the BSC arm. None was predictive of benefit from cetuximab, either in the whole study population or the K-ras wild-type subset. In the K-ras wild-type subgroup, the overall survival adjusted HR according to BRAF mutation status was 1.39 (interaction P = 0.69), PIK3CA mutation status HR = 0.79 (interaction P = 0.63), and PTEN expression HR = 0.75 (interaction P = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: In chemotherapy-refractory colorectal cancer, neither PIK3CA mutation status nor PTEN expression were prognostic, nor were they predictive of benefit from cetuximab. Evaluation of predictive significance of BRAF mutations requires a larger sample size.

Current opinion on optimal treatment for colorectal cancer.

The medical treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) has evolved greatly in the last 10 years, involving complex combined chemotherapy protocols and, in more recent times, new biologic agents. Advances in adjuvant therapy have been limited to the addition of oxaliplatin and the substitution of oral fluoropyrimidine (e.g., capecitabine) for intravenous 5-fluorouracil with no evidence for improved outcome with biological agents. Clinical benefit from the use of the targeted monoclonal antibodies, bevacizumab, cetuximab and panitumumab, in the treatment of metastatic CRC is now well established, but the optimal timing of their use requires careful consideration to derive the maximal benefit. Evidence to date suggests potentially distinct roles for bevacizumab and EGF receptor-targeted biological agents (cetuximab and panitumumab) in the treatment of metastatic CRC. This article reviews the evidence in support of modern treatments for CRC and the decision-making behind the treatment choices, their benefits and toxicities.