Utility of public knowledge bases for the interpretation of comprehensive tumor molecular profiling results.

With the growing use of comprehensive tumor molecular profiling (CTMP), the therapeutic landscape of cancer is rapidly evolving. NGS produces large amounts of genomic data requiring complex analysis and subsequent interpretation. We sought to determine the utility of publicly available knowledge bases (KB) for the interpretation of the cancer mutational profile in clinical practice. Analysis was performed across patients who previously underwent CTMP. Independent interpretation of the CTMP was performed manually, and then, the recommendations were compared to ones present in KBs (OncoKB, CIViC, CGI, CGA, VICC, MolecularMatch). A total of 222 CTMP reports from 222 patients with 932 genomic alterations (GA) were identified. For 368 targetable GA identified in 171 (77%) of the patients, 1381 therapy recommendations were compiled. Except for CGA, therapy ESCAT LOE I, II, IIIA and IIIB therapy options were equally represented in the majority of KB. Personalized treatment options with ESCAT LOE I-II were provided for 35 patients (16%); MolecularMatch/CIViC allowed to collect ESCAT I-II treatment options for 34 of them (97%), OncoKB/CGI-for 33 of them (94%). Employing VICC and CGA 6 (17%) and 20 (57%) of patients were left without ESCAT I or II treatment options. For 88 patients with ESCAT level III-B therapy recommendations: only 2 (2%), 3 (3%), 4 (5%) and 6 (7%) of patients were left without options with CIViC, MolecularMatch, CGI and OncoKB, and with VICC-12 (14%). Highest overlap ratio was observed for IIIA (0.81) biomarkers, with the comparable results for LOE I-II. Meanwhile, overlap ratio for ESCAT LOE IV was 0.22. Public KBs provide substantial information on ESCAT-I/R1 biomarkers, but the information on ESCAT II-IV and resistance biomarkers is underrepresented. Manual curation should be considered the gold standard for the CTMP interpretation.

Lack of Response to Vemurafenib in Melanoma Carrying BRAF K601E Mutation.

Vemurafenib has been developed to target common BRAF mutation V600E. It also exerts activity towards some but not all rare BRAF substitutions. Proper cataloguing of drug-sensitive and -insensitive rare mutations remains a challenge, due to low occurrence of these events and inability of commercial PCR-based diagnostic kits to detect the full spectrum of BRAF gene lesions. We considered the results of BRAF exon 15 testing in 1872 consecutive melanoma patients. BRAF mutation was identified in 1,090 (58.2%) cases. While drug-sensitive codon 600 substitutions constituted the majority of BRAF gene lesions (V600E: 962 [51.4%]; V600K: 86 [4.6%]; V600R: 17 [0.9%]), the fourth common BRAF allele was K601E accounting for 9 (0.5%) melanoma cases. The data on BRAF inhibitor sensitivity of tumors with K601E substitution are scarce. We administered single-agent vemurafenib to a melanoma patient carrying BRAF K601E mutation as the first-line treatment. Unfortunately, this therapy did not result in a tumor response. Taken together with already published data, this report indicates lack of benefit from conventional BRAF inhibitors in patients with BRAF K601E mutated melanoma.

First-Line Cetuximab Monotherapy in KRAS/NRAS/BRAF Mutation-Negative Colorectal Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal carcinomas (CRCs) are sensitive to treatment by anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies only if they do not carry activating mutations in down-stream EGFR targets (KRAS/NRAS/BRAF). Most clinical trials for chemo-naive CRC patients involved combination of targeted agents and chemotherapy, while single-agent cetuximab or panitumumab studies included either heavily pretreated patients or subjects who were not selected on the basis of molecular tests. We hypothesized that anti-EGFR therapy would have significant efficacy in chemo-naive patients with KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutation-negative CRC. METHODS: Nineteen patients were prospectively included in the study. RESULTS: Two (11%) patients experienced partial response (PR) and 11 (58%) subjects showed stable disease (SD). Median time to progression approached 6.1 months (range 1.6-15.0 months). Cetuximab efficacy did not correlate with RNA expression of EGFR and insulin-like growth factor 2 (IGF2). Only one tumor carried PIK3CA mutation, and this CRC responded to cetuximab. Exome analysis of patients with progressive disease (PD) revealed 1 CRC with high-level microsatellite instability and 1 instance of HER2 oncogene amplification; 3 of 4 remaining patients with PD had allergic reactions to cetuximab, while none of the subjects with PR or SD had this complication. Comparison with 19 retrospective KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutation-negative patients receiving first-line fluoropyrimidines revealed no advantages or disadvantages of cetuximab therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Cetuximab demonstrates only modest efficacy when given as a first-line monotherapy to KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutation-negative CRC patients. It is of question, why meticulous patient selection, which was undertaken in the current study, did not result in the improvement of outcomes of single-agent cetuximab treatment.