Efficacy of olaparib in advanced cancers with germline or somatic mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2 and ATM, a Belgian Precision tumor-agnostic phase II study.

BACKGROUND: The Belgian Precision initiative aims to maximize the implementation of tumor-agnostic next-generation sequencing in patients with advanced cancer and enhance access to molecularly guided treatment options. Academic tumor-agnostic basket phase II studies are part of this initiative. The current investigator-driven trial aimed to investigate the efficacy of olaparib in advanced cancers with a (likely) pathogenic mutation (germline or somatic) in a gene that plays a role in homologous recombination (HR). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label, multi-cohort, phase II study examines the efficacy of olaparib in patients with an HR gene mutation in their tumor and disease progression on standard of care. Patients with a somatic or germline mutation in the same gene define a cohort. For each cohort, a Simon minimax two-stage design was used. If a response was observed in the first 13 patients, 14 additional patients were included. Here, we report the results on four completed cohorts: patients with a BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2 or ATM mutation. RESULTS: The overall objective response rate across different tumor types was 11% in the BRCA1-mutated (n = 27) and 21% in the BRCA2-mutated (n = 27) cohorts. Partial responses were seen in pancreatic cancer, gallbladder cancer, endocrine carcinoma of the pancreas and parathyroid cancer. One patient with a BRCA2 germline-mutated colon cancer has an ongoing complete response with 19+ months on treatment. Median progression-free survival in responding patients was 14+ months (5-34+ months). The clinical benefit rate was 63% in the BRCA1-mutated and 46% in the BRCA2-mutated cohorts. No clinical activity was observed in the ATM (n = 13) and CHEK2 (n = 14) cohorts. CONCLUSION: Olaparib showed efficacy in different cancer types harboring somatic or germline mutations in the BRCA1/2 genes but not in ATM and CHEK2. Patients with any cancer type harboring BRCA1/2 mutations should have access to olaparib.

PRECISION: the Belgian molecular profiling program of metastatic cancer for clinical decision and treatment assignment.

PRECISION is an initiative from the Belgian Society of Medical Oncology (BSMO) in collaboration with several stakeholders, encompassing four programs that aim to boost genomic and clinical knowledge with the ultimate goal to offer patients with metastatic solid tumors molecularly guided treatments. The PRECISION 1 study has led to the creation of a clinico-genomic database. The Belgian Approach for Local Laboratory Extensive Tumor Testing (BALLETT) and GeNeo studies will increase the number of patients with advanced cancer that have comprehensive genotyping of their cancer. The PRECISION 2 project consists of investigator-initiated phase II studies aiming to provide access to a targeted drug for patients whose tumors harbor actionable mutations in case the matched drug is not available through reimbursement or clinical trials in Belgium.

Prevalence of microsatellite instable and Epstein-Barr Virus-driven gastroesophageal cancer in a large Belgian cohort.

Introduction: Patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEC) with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or Epstein Barr Virus positivity (EBV+) might be good candidates for immunotherapy. Incidences of about 10% have been reported for both features, but are dependent on geographical region and disease stage. Aim: The aim is to study the prevalence of MSI-H and EBV+ in a Belgian single center cohort of patients with GEC. Methods: We retrospectively assessed the files of all patients with a newly diagnosed GEC between August, 1st 2018 and February, 29th 2020 at the University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium. Microsatellite instability (MSI) status was determined using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and polymerase chain reaction (PCR). EBV+ was assessed using in situ hybridization (ISH). A case report is provided to illustrate the importance of testing for MSI in GEC. Results: 247 gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas were included in this analysis. 62 (56% stage IV) of those were tested for EBV, but only 1 turned out to be EBV positive (1.6%). 116 patients (44.0% stage IV) were tested for MSI, of which 11 were MSI-H (9.5%). Half of the MSI-H tumors identified were at the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). A patient with MSI-H metastatic GEC obtained a complete response with nivolumab, which persisted after discontinuation of treatment. Conclusion: While we confirm that about 10% of GECs are MSI-H, the incidence of EBV+ in our cohort (1.6%) is clearly lower than expected. Given the important prognostic and predictive implications, every gastroesophageal cancer should be tested for MSI.

Monocyte-driven atypical cytokine storm and aberrant neutrophil activation as key mediators of COVID-19 disease severity.

Epidemiological and clinical reports indicate that SARS-CoV-2 virulence hinges upon the triggering of an aberrant host immune response, more so than on direct virus-induced cellular damage. To elucidate the immunopathology underlying COVID-19 severity, we perform cytokine and multiplex immune profiling in COVID-19 patients. We show that hypercytokinemia in COVID-19 differs from the interferon-gamma-driven cytokine storm in macrophage activation syndrome, and is more pronounced in critical versus mild-moderate COVID-19. Systems modelling of cytokine levels paired with deep-immune profiling shows that classical monocytes drive this hyper-inflammatory phenotype and that a reduction in T-lymphocytes correlates with disease severity, with CD8+ cells being disproportionately affected. Antigen presenting machinery expression is also reduced in critical disease. Furthermore, we report that neutrophils contribute to disease severity and local tissue damage by amplification of hypercytokinemia and the formation of neutrophil extracellular traps. Together our findings suggest a myeloid-driven immunopathology, in which hyperactivated neutrophils and an ineffective adaptive immune system act as mediators of COVID-19 disease severity.

Clinical and molecular characteristics and treatment outcomes of advanced right-colon, left-colon and rectal cancers: data from 1180 patients in a phase III trial of panitumumab with an extended biomarker panel.

BACKGROUND: Primary tumour location (PTL) is being adopted by clinicians to guide treatment decisions in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Here we test PTL as a predictive marker for panitumumab efficacy, and examine its relationship with an extended biomarker profile. We also examine rectal tumours as a separate location. PATIENTS AND METHODS: mCRC patients from the second-line PICCOLO trial of irinotecan versus irinotecan/panitumumab (IrPan). PTL was classified as right-PTL, left-PTL or rectal-PTL. PTL was assessed as a predictive biomarker for IrPan effect in RAS-wild-type (RAS-wt) patients (compared with irinotecan alone), then tested for independence alongside an extended biomarker profile (BRAF, epiregulin/amphiregulin (EREG/AREG) and HER3 mRNA expression). RESULTS: PTL data were available for 1180 patients (98.5%), of whom 558 were RAS-wt. High HER3 expression was independently predictive of panitumumab overall survival improvement, but PTL and EREG/AREG were not. IrPan progression-free survival (PFS) improvement compared with irinotecan was seen in left-PTL [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.61, P = 0.002) but not right-PTL (HR = 0.98, P = 0.90) (interaction P = 0.05; RAS/BRAF-wt interaction P = 0.10), or in rectal-PTL (HR = 0.82, P = 0.20) (interaction P = 0.14 compared with left-PTL; RAS/BRAF-wt interaction P = 0.04). Patients with right-PTL and high EREG/AREG or HER3 expression, had IrPan PFS improvement (high EREG/AREG HR = 0.20, P = 0.04; high HER3 HR = 0.33, P = 0.10) compared with irinotecan. Similar effect was seen for rectal-PTL patients (high EREG/AREG HR = 0.44, P = 0.03; high HER3 HR = 0.34, P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: RAS-wt patients with left-PTL are more likely to have panitumumab PFS advantage than those with right-PTL or rectal-PTL. However, an extended biomarker panel demonstrated significant heterogeneity in panitumumab PFS effect within a tumour location. AREG/EREG and HER3 mRNA expression identifies patients with right-PTL or rectal-PTL who achieve similar PFS effect with panitumumab as left-colon patients. Testing could provide a more reliable basis for clinical decision making. Further validation and development of these biomarkers is required to optimise routine patient care. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN identifier: ISRCTN93248876.

Consensus molecular subgroups (CMS) of colorectal cancer (CRC) and first-line efficacy of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab in the FIRE3 (AIO KRK-0306) trial.

BACKGROUND: FIRE-3 compared first-line therapy with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab in 592 KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. The consensus molecular subgroups (CMS) are grouping CRC samples according to their gene-signature in four different subtypes. Relevance of CMS for the treatment of mCRC has yet to be defined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this exploratory analysis, patients were grouped according to the previously published tumor CRC-CMSs. Objective response rates (ORR) were compared using chi-square test. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) times were compared using Kaplan-Meier estimation, log-rank tests. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated according to the Cox proportional hazard method. RESULTS: CMS classification could be determined in 438 out of 514 specimens available from the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (n = 592). Frequencies for the remaining 438 samples were as follows: CMS1 (14%), CMS2 (37%), CMS3 (15%), CMS4 (34%). For the 315 RAS wild-type tumors, frequencies were as follows: CMS1 (12%), CMS2 (41%), CMS3 (11%), CMS4 (34%). CMS distribution in right- versus (vs) left-sided primary tumors was as follows: CMS1 (27% versus 11%), CMS2 (28% versus 45%), CMS3 (10% versus 12%), CMS4 (35% versus 32%). Independent of the treatment, CMS was a strong prognostic factor for ORR (P = 0.051), PFS (P < 0.001), and OS (P < 0.001). Within the RAS wild-type population, OS observed in CMS4 significantly favored FOLFIRI cetuximab over FOLFIRI bevacizumab. In CMS3, OS showed a trend in favor of the cetuximab arm, while OS was comparable in CMS1 and CMS2, independent of targeted therapy. CONCLUSIONS: CMS classification is prognostic for mCRC. Prolonged OS induced by FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the FIRE-3 study appears to be driven by CMS3 and CMS4. CMS classification provides deeper insights into the biology to CRC, but at present time has no direct impact on clinical decision-making.The FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306) study had been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00433927.

The prognostic impact of consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) and its predictive effects for bevacizumab benefit in metastatic colorectal cancer: molecular analysis of the AGITG MAX clinical trial.

Background: The consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) is a transcriptome-based classification of colorectal cancer (CRC) initially described in early-stage cohorts, but the associations of CMS with treatment outcomes in the metastatic setting are yet to be established. This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of CMS classification and its predictive effects for bevacizumab benefit in metastatic CRC by correlative analysis of the AGITG MAX trial. Patients and methods: The MAX trial previously reported improved progression-free survival (PFS) for the addition of bevacizumab (B) to chemotherapy [capecitabine (C)±mitomycin (M)]. Archival primary tumours from 237 patients (50% of trial population) underwent gene expression profiling and classification into CMS groups. CMS groups were correlated to PFS and overall survival (OS). The interaction of CMS with treatment was assessed by proportional hazards model. Results: The distribution of CMS in MAX were CMS1 18%, CMS2 47%, CMS3 12%, CMS4 23%. CMS1 was the predominant subtype in right-sided primary tumours, while CMS2 was the predominant subtype in left-sided. CMS was prognostic of OS (P = 0.008), with CMS2 associated with the best outcome and CMS1 the worst. CMS remained an independent prognostic factor in a multivariate analysis. There was a significant interaction between CMS and treatment (P-interaction = 0.03), for PFS, with hazard ratios (95% CI) for CB+CBM versus C arms in CMS1, 2, 3 and 4: 0.83 (0.43-1.62), 0.50 (0.33-0.76), 0.31 (0.13-0.75) and 1.24 (0.68-2.25), respectively. Conclusions: This exploratory study found that CMS stratified OS outcomes in metastatic CRC regardless of first-line treatment, with prognostic effects of CMS groups distinct from those previously reported in early-stage cohorts. In CMS associations with treatment, CMS2 and possibly CMS3 tumours may preferentially benefit from the addition of bevacizumab to first-line capecitabine-based chemotherapy, compared with other CMS groups. Validation of these findings in additional cohorts is warranted. Clinical trial number: This is a molecular sub-study of MAX clinical trial (NCT00294359).

A transatlantic perspective on the integration of immuno-oncology prognostic and predictive biomarkers in innovative clinical trial design.

Immuno-therapeutics aim to activate the body's own immune system against cancer and are one of the most promising cancer treatment strategies, but currently limited by a variable response rate. Biomarkers may help to distinguish those patients most likely to respond to therapy; they may also help guide clinical decision making for combination therapies, dosing schedules, and determining progression versus relapse. However, there is a need to confirm such biomarkers in preferably prospective clinical trials before they can be used in practice. Accordingly, it is essential that clinical trials for immuno-therapeutics incorporate biomarkers. Here, focusing on the specific setting of immune therapies, we discuss both the scientific and logistical hurdles to identifying potential biomarkers and testing them in clinical trials.

Prediction of overall survival in stage II and III colon cancer beyond TNM system: a retrospective, pooled biomarker study.

Background: TNM staging alone does not accurately predict outcome in colon cancer (CC) patients who may be eligible for adjuvant chemotherapy. It is unknown to what extent the molecular markers microsatellite instability (MSI) and mutations in BRAF or KRAS improve prognostic estimation in multivariable models that include detailed clinicopathological annotation. Patients and methods: After imputation of missing at random data, a subset of patients accrued in phase 3 trials with adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 3016)-N0147 (NCT00079274) and PETACC3 (NCT00026273)-was aggregated to construct multivariable Cox models for 5-year overall survival that were subsequently validated internally in the remaining clinical trial samples (n = 1499), and also externally in different population cohorts of chemotherapy-treated (n = 949) or -untreated (n = 1080) CC patients, and an additional series without treatment annotation (n = 782). Results: TNM staging, MSI and BRAFV600E mutation status remained independent prognostic factors in multivariable models across clinical trials cohorts and observational studies. Concordance indices increased from 0.61-0.68 in the TNM alone model to 0.63-0.71 in models with added molecular markers, 0.65-0.73 with clinicopathological features and 0.66-0.74 with all covariates. In validation cohorts with complete annotation, the integrated time-dependent AUC rose from 0.64 for the TNM alone model to 0.67 for models that included clinicopathological features, with or without molecular markers. In patient cohorts that received adjuvant chemotherapy, the relative proportion of variance explained (R2) by TNM, clinicopathological features and molecular markers was on an average 65%, 25% and 10%, respectively. Conclusions: Incorporation of MSI, BRAFV600E and KRAS mutation status to overall survival models with TNM staging improves the ability to precisely prognosticate in stage II and III CC patients, but only modestly increases prediction accuracy in multivariable models that include clinicopathological features, particularly in chemotherapy-treated patients.

ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in Western countries. Over the last 20 years, and the last decade in particular, the clinical outcome for patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has improved greatly due not only to an increase in the number of patients being referred for and undergoing surgical resection of their localised metastatic disease but also to a more strategic approach to the delivery of systemic therapy and an expansion in the use of ablative techniques. This reflects the increase in the number of patients that are being managed within a multidisciplinary team environment and specialist cancer centres, and the emergence over the same time period not only of improved imaging techniques but also prognostic and predictive molecular markers. Treatment decisions for patients with mCRC must be evidence-based. Thus, these ESMO consensus guidelines have been developed based on the current available evidence to provide a series of evidence-based recommendations to assist in the treatment and management of patients with mCRC in this rapidly evolving treatment setting.

KRAS, NRAS, BRAF mutation comparison of endoscopic and surgically removed primary CRC paired samples: is endoscopy biopsy material adequate for molecular evaluation?

BACKGROUND: An everyday clinical practice dilemma in the 20-30% of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) patients that have not been operated on their primary tumour, is, under which specific histopathology and molecular circumstances, an endoscopic biopsy could be considered adequate to provide a representative RAS/BRAF molecular status to guide treatment. METHODS: A consecutive series of 193 paired biopsy and primary CRC tumour samples between August 2008 and 2010 available in the Department of Pathology archives, University Hospitals, KU Leuven were retrieved. For a pair to be included, in the endoscopic biopsy, 20% of invasive adenocarcinoma cells should be present and enough slides to yield an extracted DNA concentration of ⩾5 ng µl(-1), and no <2 ng µl(-1) should be available for cutting. Exons 2-4 KRAS/NRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA molecular evaluation was performed with RT-PCR and Sequenom. RESULTS: From 165 deemed adequate by the pathologist pairs, 85 (51.5%) were concordantly mutated in at least one of the tested genes, 70 (42.5%) were wt and 10 (6%) were discordant, harbouring a mutation in the primary and not in the endoscopic biopsy. In the re-evaluation, when more slides were cut per discordant pair, mutational status changed in two of the six discordantly KRAS-mutated pairs. A strong strength of agreement for both runs was observed (Cohen's kappa, k=0.877, P<0.001 and k=0.901, P<0.001, respectively) between the surgically acquired and the endoscopic biopsy specimens' evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results, an endoscopic biopsy could provide an accurate mutational profile and become a justified alternative to a surgically removed primary tumour specimen, as long as specific histopathology criteria are met.

Microsatellite instable vs stable colon carcinomas: analysis of tumour heterogeneity, inflammation and angiogenesis.

BACKGROUND: Microsatellite instability (MSI) accounts for 15% of all colorectal tumours. Several specific clinicopathologicals (e.g., preference for the proximal colon over the distal colon, improved prognosis and altered response to chemotherapeutics) are described for this subset of tumours. This study aimed to analyse morphological, inflammatory and angiogenic features of MSI vs microsatellite stable (MSS) tumours. METHODS: Twenty-seven MSS and 29 MSI, TNM stage matched, colorectal tumours were selected from the archive of the Department of Pathology, UZ Leuven. Morphology was analysed on haematoxylin-eosin sections. Immunohistochemistry for CD3, CD4, CD8, CD20 and CD68 was used to map tumour infiltration in both a digital and traditional microscope-based manner for all distinct morphological components of the tumour. CD31 immunostains were performed to assess angiogenesis. RESULTS: Morphological tumour heterogeneity was a marked feature of MSI tumours, occurring in 53% of the cases as compared with 11% of the MSS tumours (P<0.001). Digital immune quantification showed an increased number of tumour-infiltrating cytotoxic T-lymphocytes (CD8+) in MSI compared with MSS tumours for both the tumour (P=0.02) and peritumoural area (P=0.03). Traditional microscope-based quantification confirmed these results (P<0.001 for both) and, in addition, revealed large numbers of CD68+ macrophages in the peritumoural area of MSI cancers (P=0.001). Moreover, traditional microscope-based analysis was able to distinguish between lymphocytes directly infiltrating the tumoural glands (intra-epithelial) and those infiltrating only the neoplastic stroma around the glands (intratumoural). Quantification showed high numbers of intra-epithelial CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, CD20+ and CD68+ cells in MSI compared with MSS cancers (P<0.001, P=0.01, P<0.001, P<0.001 and P=0.006, respectively). Higher microvessel density (MVD) was observed in MSI tumours compared with their MSS counterpart. CONCLUSIONS: Mixed morphology, reflecting tumour heterogeneity, is an important feature of MSI tumours and may have both diagnostic and therapeutic impact. The inflammatory reaction also presented with significant differences in MSI vs MSS colorectal tumours. MSI cancers showed mainly infiltration by cytotoxic T-cells in both the tumour and the close border around the tumour, as well as increased intra-epithelial infiltration in contrast to MSS tumours. The type of immune cell and the compartment it resides in (intratumoural or intra-epithelial) depend both on MSI status and morphology. Finally, MSI tumours showed a higher angiogenic capacity represented by an increased MVD, hinting for possible therapeutic consequences.

Phase I study of FOLFIRI plus pimasertib as second-line treatment for KRAS-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway has been implicated in the molecular pathogenesis of human cancers, including metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This provides a rationale for the development of MAPK-targeted agents such as pimasertib. METHODS: Patients with KRAS mutant mCRC were treated in the second-line setting with FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil/folinic acid/irinotecan) plus pimasertib. The primary objective of the safety run-in phase was to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and the recommended phase II dose of pimasertib combined with FOLFIRI. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were enrolled in the trial. Ten and six patients were treated daily with 45 and 60 mg of pimasertib plus FOLFIRI, respectively. The MTD was considered to be 45 mg per day. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, asthenia and skin/rash event. Of the 15 patients in the efficacy analysis group, two patients had partial response, nine patients had stable disease, three patients had progressive disease as their best overall response and one patient could not be evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Dose escalation of pimasertib in combination with FOLFIRI was limited by toxicity. At the MTD of 45 mg per day, pimasertib was adequately tolerated in patients with mCRC and no unexpected or new safety signals or concerns were identified.

FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The OPUS study demonstrated that addition of cetuximab to 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) significantly improved objective response and progression-free survival (PFS) in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In patients with KRAS exon 2 mutations, a detrimental effect was seen upon addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX4. The current study reports outcomes in subgroups defined by extended RAS testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Samples from OPUS study KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumours were reanalysed for other RAS mutations in four additional KRAS codons (exons 3-4) and six NRAS codons (exons 2-4) using BEAMing. A cutoff of ⩾5% mutant/wild-type sequences was selected to define RAS status; we also report an analysis using a cutoff based on the technical lower limit for mutation identification (0.1%). RESULTS: Other RAS mutations were detected in 31/118 (26%) evaluable patients. In the extended analysis of RAS wild-type tumours (n=87), objective response was significantly improved by addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX4 (58% versus 29%; odds ratio 3.33 [95% confidence interval 1.36-8.17]; P=0.0084); although limited by population size, there also appeared to be trends favouring the cetuximab arm in terms of PFS and overall survival in the RAS wild-type group compared with the RAS evaluable group. There was no evidence that patients with other RAS mutations benefited from cetuximab, but small numbers precluded precise estimations of treatment effects. In the combined population of patients with any RAS mutation (KRAS exon 2 or other RAS), a clear detrimental effect was associated with addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX4. CONCLUSION: Patients with RAS-mutant mCRC, as defined by mutations in KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4, derive no benefit and may be harmed by the addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX4. Restricting cetuximab administration to patients with RAS wild-type tumours will further tailor therapy to maximise benefit.

Prognosis of stage II and III colon cancer treated with adjuvant 5-fluorouracil or FOLFIRI in relation to microsatellite status: results of the PETACC-3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Although colon cancer (CC) with microsatellite instability (MSI) has a more favorable prognosis than microsatellite stable (MSS) CC, the impact varies according to clinicopathological parameters. We studied how MSI status affects prognosis in a trial-based cohort of stage II and III CC patients treated with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin or FOLFIRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tissue specimens of 1254 patients were tested for 10 different loci and were classified as MSI-high (MSI-H) when three or more loci were unstable and MSS otherwise. Study end points were overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). RESULTS: In stage II, RFS and OS were better for patients with MSI-H than with MSS CC [hazard ratio (HR) 0.26, 95% CI 0.10-0.65, P = 0.004 and 0.16, 95% CI 0.04-0.64, P = 0.01). In stage III, RFS was slightly better for patients with MSI-H CC (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.99, P = 0.04), but the difference was not statistically significant for OS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.44-1.09, P = 0.11). Outcomes for patients with MSI-H CC were not different between the two treatment arms. RFS was better for patients with MSI-H than with MSS CC in the right and left colon, whereas for OS this was significant only in the right colon. For patients with KRAS- and BRAF-mutated CC, but not for double wild-type patients, RFS and OS were significantly better when the tumors were also MSI-H. An interaction test was statistically significant for KRAS and MSI status (P = 0.005), but not for BRAF status (P = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that for patients with stage II CC but less so for those with stage III MSI-H is strongly prognostic for RFS and OS. In the presence of 5-FU treatment, stage II patients with MSI-H tumors maintain their survival advantage in comparison with MSS patients and adding irinotecan has no added benefit. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00026273.

Optimising translational oncology in clinical practice: strategies to accelerate progress in drug development.

Despite intense efforts, the socioeconomic burden of cancer remains unacceptably high and treatment advances for many common cancers have been limited, suggesting a need for a new approach to drug development. One issue central to this lack of progress is the heterogeneity and genetic complexity of many tumours. This results in considerable variability in therapeutic response and requires knowledge of the molecular profile of the tumour to guide appropriate treatment selection for individual patients. While recent advances in the molecular characterisation of different cancer types have the potential to transform cancer treatment through precision medicine, such an approach presents a major economic challenge for drug development, since novel targeted agents may only be suitable for a small cohort of patients. Identifying the patients who would benefit from individual therapies and recruiting sufficient numbers of patients with particular cancer subtypes into clinical trials is challenging, and will require collaborative efforts from research groups and industry in order to accelerate progress. A number of molecular screening platforms have already been initiated across Europe, and it is hoped that these networks, along with future collaborations, will benefit not only patients but also society through cost reductions as a result of more efficient use of resources. This review discusses how current developments in translational oncology may be applied in clinical practice in the future, assesses current programmes for the molecular characterisation of cancer and describes possible collaborative approaches designed to maximise the benefits of translational science for patients with cancer.

Distal and proximal colon cancers differ in terms of molecular, pathological, and clinical features.

BACKGROUND: Differences exist between the proximal and distal colon in terms of developmental origin, exposure to patterning genes, environmental mutagens, and gut flora. Little is known on how these differences may affect mechanisms of tumorigenesis, side-specific therapy response or prognosis. We explored systematic differences in pathway activation and their clinical implications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Detailed clinicopathological data for 3045 colon carcinoma patients enrolled in the PETACC3 adjuvant chemotherapy trial were available for analysis. A subset of 1404 samples had molecular data, including gene expression and DNA copy number profiles for 589 and 199 samples, respectively. In addition, 413 colon adenocarcinoma from TCGA collection were also analyzed. Tumor side-effect on anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy was assessed in a cohort of 325 metastatic patients. Outcome variables considered were relapse-free survival and survival after relapse (SAR). RESULTS: Proximal carcinomas were more often mucinous, microsatellite instable (MSI)-high, mutated in key tumorigenic pathways, expressed a B-Raf proto-oncogene, serine/threonine kinase (BRAF)-like and a serrated pathway signature, regardless of histological type. Distal carcinomas were more often chromosome instable and EGFR or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) amplified, and more frequently overexpressed epiregulin. While risk of relapse was not different per side, SAR was much poorer for proximal than for distal stage III carcinomas in a multivariable model including BRAF mutation status [N = 285; HR 1.95, 95% CI (1.6-2.4), P < 0.001]. Only patients with metastases from a distal carcinoma responded to anti-EGFR therapy, in line with the predictions of our pathway enrichment analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal carcinoma side is associated with differences in key molecular features, some immediately druggable, with important prognostic effects which are maintained in metastatic lesions. Although within side significant molecular heterogeneity remains, our findings justify stratification of patients by side for retrospective and prospective analyses of drug efficacy and prognosis.

HER2 gene copy number status may influence clinical efficacy to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), KRAS is the only validated biomarker used to select patients for administration of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted therapies. To identify additional predictive markers, we investigated the importance of HER2, the primary EGFR dimerisation partner, in this particular disease. METHODS: We evaluated the HER2 gene status by fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) in 170 KRAS wild-type mCRC patients treated with cetuximab or panitumumab. RESULTS: Depending on HER2 gene copy number status, patients showed three distinct cytogenetic profiles: 4% of patients had HER2 gene amplification (R:HER2/CEP17 ≥ 2) in all neoplastic cells (HER2-all-A), 61% of patients had HER2 gain due to polysomy or to gene amplification in minor clones (HER2-FISH+*), and 35% of patients had no or slight HER2 gain (HER2-FISH-). These subgroups were significantly correlated with different clinical behaviours, in terms of response rate (RR; P=0.0006), progression-free survival (PFS; P<0.0001) and overall survival (OS; P<0.0001). Patients with HER2-all-A profile experienced the worst outcome, patients with HER2-FISH- profile showed an intermediate behaviour and patients with HER2-FISH+* profile were related to the highest survival probability (median PFS in months: 2.5 vs 3.9 vs 7.6, respectively; median OS in months: 4.2 vs 9.7 vs 13, respectively). CONCLUSION: HER2 gene copy number status may influence the clinical response to anti-EGFR-targeted therapy in mCRC patients.

KRAS mutation analysis on low percentage of colon cancer cells: the importance of quality assurance.

KRAS mutation testing is mandatory for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who are eligible for treatment with an epidermal growth factor receptor targeting agent, since tumors with a mutation are not sensitive to the drug. Several methods for mutation testing are in use and the need for external quality assurance has been demonstrated. An often little addressed but important issue in external quality assurance schemes is a low percentage of tumor cells in the test samples, where the analytical sensitivity of most tests becomes critical. Using artificial samples based on a mixture of cell lines with known mutation status of the KRAS gene, we assessed the reliability of a series of commonly used methods (Sanger sequencing, high resolution melting, pyrosequencing, and amplification refractory mutation system-polymerase chain reaction) on samples with 0, 2.5, 5, 10, and 15 % mutated cells. Nine laboratories throughout Europe participated and submitted a total of ten data sets. The limit of detection of each method differed, ranging from >15-5 % tumor cells. All methods showed a decreasing correct mutation call rate proportionally with decreasing percentage of tumor cells. Our findings indicate that laboratories and clinicians need to be aware of the decrease in correct mutation call rate proportionally with decreasing percentage of tumor cells and that external quality assurance schemes need to address the issue of low tumor cell percentage in the test samples.