Pre-trial inter-laboratory analytical validation of the FOCUS4 personalised therapy trial.

INTRODUCTION: Molecular characterisation of tumours is increasing personalisation of cancer therapy, tailored to an individual and their cancer. FOCUS4 is a molecularly stratified clinical trial for patients with advanced colorectal cancer. During an initial 16-week period of standard first-line chemotherapy, tumour tissue will undergo several molecular assays, with the results used for cohort allocation, then randomisation. Laboratories in Leeds and Cardiff will perform the molecular testing. The results of a rigorous pre-trial inter-laboratory analytical validation are presented and discussed. METHODS: Wales Cancer Bank supplied FFPE tumour blocks from 97 mCRC patients with consent for use in further research. Both laboratories processed each sample according to an agreed definitive FOCUS4 laboratory protocol, reporting results directly to the MRC Trial Management Group for independent cross-referencing. RESULTS: Pyrosequencing analysis of mutation status at KRAS codons12/13/61/146, NRAS codons12/13/61, BRAF codon600 and PIK3CA codons542/545/546/1047, generated highly concordant results. Two samples gave discrepant results; in one a PIK3CA mutation was detected only in Leeds, and in the other, a PIK3CA mutation was only detected in Cardiff. pTEN and mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) resulting in 6/97 discordant results for pTEN and 5/388 for MMR, resolved upon joint review. Tumour heterogeneity was likely responsible for pyrosequencing discrepancies. The presence of signet-ring cells, necrosis, mucin, edge-effects and over-counterstaining influenced IHC discrepancies. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-trial assay analytical validation is essential to ensure appropriate selection of patients for targeted therapies. This is feasible for both mutation testing and immunohistochemical assays and must be built into the workup of such trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN90061564.

Somatic profiling of the epidermal growth factor receptor pathway in tumors from patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy ± cetuximab.

PURPOSE: To study the somatic molecular profile of the EGF receptor (EGFR) pathway in advanced colorectal cancer, its relationship to prognosis, the site of the primary and metastases, and response to cetuximab. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We used Sequenom and Pyrosequencing for high-throughput somatic profiling of the EGFR pathway in 1,976 tumors from patients with advanced colorectal cancer from the COIN trial (oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy ± cetuximab). Correlations between mutations, clinicopathologic, response, and survival data were carried out. RESULTS: Sequenom and Pyrosequencing had 99.0% (9,961/10,063) genotype concordance. We identified 13 different KRAS mutations in 42.3% of advanced colorectal cancers, 2 BRAF mutations in 9.0%, 4 NRAS mutations in 3.6%, and 5 PIK3CA mutations in 12.7%. 4.2% of advanced colorectal cancers had microsatellite instability (MSI). KRAS and PIK3CA exon 9, but not exon 20, mutations cooccurred (P = 8.9 × 10(-4)) as did MSI and BRAF mutations (P = 5.3 × 10(-10)). KRAS mutations were associated with right colon cancers (P = 5.2 × 10(-5)) and BRAF mutations with right (P = 7.2 × 10(-5)) and transverse colon (P = 9.8 × 10(-6)) cancers. KRAS mutations were associated with lung-only metastases (P = 2.3 × 10(-4)), BRAF mutations with peritoneal (P = 9.2 × 10(-4)) and nodal-only (P = 3.7 × 10(-5)) metastases, and MSI (BRAF(WT)) with nodal-only metastases (P = 2.9 × 10(-4)). MSI (BRAF(WT)) was associated with worse survival (HR = 1.89, 95% CI 1.30-2.76, P = 8.5 × 10(-4)). No mutations, subsets of mutations, or MSI status were associated with response to cetuximab. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support a functional cooperation between KRAS and PIK3CA in colorectal tumorigenesis and link somatic profiles to the sites of metastases. MSI was associated with poor prognosis in advanced disease, and no individual somatic profile was associated with response to cetuximab in COIN.

Addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based first-line combination chemotherapy for treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: results of the randomised phase 3 MRC COIN trial.

BACKGROUND: In the Medical Research Council (MRC) COIN trial, the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted antibody cetuximab was added to standard chemotherapy in first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer with the aim of assessing effect on overall survival. METHODS: In this randomised controlled trial, patients who were fit for but had not received previous chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy (arm A), the same combination plus cetuximab (arm B), or intermittent chemotherapy (arm C). The choice of fluoropyrimidine therapy (capecitabine or infused fluouroracil plus leucovorin) was decided before randomisation. Randomisation was done centrally (via telephone) by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit using minimisation. Treatment allocation was not masked. The comparison of arms A and C is described in a companion paper. Here, we present the comparison of arm A and B, for which the primary outcome was overall survival in patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. Analysis was by intention to treat. Further analyses with respect to NRAS, BRAF, and EGFR status were done. The trial is registered, ISRCTN27286448. FINDINGS: 1630 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (815 to standard therapy and 815 to addition of cetuximab). Tumour samples from 1316 (81%) patients were used for somatic molecular analyses; 565 (43%) had KRAS mutations. In patients with KRAS wild-type tumours (arm A, n=367; arm B, n=362), overall survival did not differ between treatment groups (median survival 17·9 months [IQR 10·3-29·2] in the control group vs 17·0 months [9·4-30·1] in the cetuximab group; HR 1·04, 95% CI 0·87-1·23, p=0·67). Similarly, there was no effect on progression-free survival (8·6 months [IQR 5·0-12·5] in the control group vs 8·6 months [5·1-13·8] in the cetuximab group; HR 0·96, 0·82-1·12, p=0·60). Overall response rate increased from 57% (n=209) with chemotherapy alone to 64% (n=232) with addition of cetuximab (p=0·049). Grade 3 and higher skin and gastrointestinal toxic effects were increased with cetuximab (14 vs 114 and 67 vs 97 patients in the control group vs the cetuximab group with KRAS wild-type tumours, respectively). Overall survival differs by somatic mutation status irrespective of treatment received: BRAF mutant, 8·8 months (IQR 4·5-27·4); KRAS mutant, 14·4 months (8·5-24·0); all wild-type, 20·1 months (11·5-31·7). INTERPRETATION: This trial has not confirmed a benefit of addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Cetuximab increases response rate, with no evidence of benefit in progression-free or overall survival in KRAS wild-type patients or even in patients selected by additional mutational analysis of their tumours. The use of cetuximab in combination with oxaliplatin and capecitabine in first-line chemotherapy in patients with widespread metastases cannot be recommended. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Cancer Research Wales, UK Medical Research Council, Merck KGgA.