Identification of an optimal mutant allele frequency to detect activating KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF mutations in a commercial cell-free DNA next-generation sequencing assay in colorectal and pancreatic adenocarcinomas.

Background: Evaluation for activating mutations in KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF in colorectal cancer (CRC) and in KRAS in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is essential for clinical care. Plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) next-generation sequencing (NGS) allows convenient assessment of a tumor's molecular profile, however low tumor DNA shedding limits sensitivity. We investigated mutant allele frequency (MAF) of other oncogenic dominant genes to identify a threshold for accurate detection of KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF (RAS/RAF) mutations in cfDNA. Methods: Molecular and clinical data were obtained from the Duke Molecular Registry of Tumors and the SCRUM-Japan GOZILA study. Patients with CRC or PDAC and a KRAS, NRAS, or BRAF activating single nucleotide variant (SNV) present on tissue NGS and with available cfDNA assays were included. Recursive partitioning and Wilcoxon-rank statistics methods identified potential cut-points for discriminative MAF values. Results: One hundred and thirty-five CRC and 30 PDAC cases with 198 total cfDNA assays met criteria. Greatest non-RAS/RAF dominant gene MAF of 0.34% provided maximum discrimination for predicting RAS/RAF SNV detection. Sensitivity for RAS/RAF SNVs increased with dominant gene MAF, with MAF ≥1% predicting sensitivity >98%, MAF between 0.34 and 1% predicting sensitivity of 84.0%, and MAF £0.34% predicting sensitivity of 50%. For 43 cfDNA assays that did not detect RAS/RAF SNVs, 18 assays detected 34 other oncogenic variants, of which 80.6% were not also detected on tissue. Conclusions: Non-RAS/RAF dominant oncogenic mutation MAF ≥1% on cfDNA NGS predicts high sensitivity to detect RAS/RAF oncogenic SNVs in CRC and PDAC. MAF £0.34% indicates an assay may not reliably detect RAS/RAF SNVs, despite detection on tissue testing. Most variants from assays that did not detect RAS/RAF had MAF <1% and were not detected on tissue, suggesting potential confounding. These data suggest a practical approach to determining cfDNA assay adequacy, with implications for guiding clinical decisions in CRC and PDAC.

Changes in Prescribing Patterns in Stage III Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: For patients with resected stage III colon cancer, 6 months of adjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy has been the standard of care. The IDEA collaboration aimed to evaluate whether 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy was noninferior to 6 months. Despite failing to meet its primary endpoint, the subgroup analyses demonstrated noninferiority based on regimen and treatment duration when a risk-stratified approach was used. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To evaluate the impact of the results of the IDEA collaboration, we evaluated adjuvant chemotherapy prescribing practice patterns, including planned adjuvant treatment regimen and duration from January 1, 2016, to January 31, 2021. The time period was selected to evaluate chemotherapy prescribing patterns prior to the abstract presentation of the IDEA collaboration in June 2017 and after full manuscript publication in March 2018. RESULTS: A total of 399 patients with stage III colon cancer who received adjuvant chemotherapy were included in the analysis. A significant increasing trend for use of 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy was observed after presentation of the IDEA abstract (P<.001). A significant change in CAPOX (capecitabine/oxaliplatin) prescribing was also observed, increasing from 14% of patients prior to presentation of the IDEA abstract to 48% after presentation (P<.001). Comparing 3 months of CAPOX with 6 months of FOLFOX (fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin), 3 months of CAPOX use also steadily increased over time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.20-1.37; P<.001). Among subgroups of interest, no differences in adoption of CAPOX were observed. The adoption of 3 months of CAPOX was similar in patients with low-risk cancer (aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.17-1.37) and those with high-risk cancer (aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.16-1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the IDEA collaboration failing to demonstrate noninferiority of 3 months' duration of adjuvant therapy compared with 6 months, the findings have influenced practice prescribing patterns, favoring CAPOX and a shorter duration of planned adjuvant treatment.

A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Regorafenib and TAS-102 in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib at different dosing strategies and TAS-102 are treatment options for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness evidence supporting these different strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched different databases for randomized controlled trials evaluating TAS-102 or regorafenib in patients with refractory mCRC who failed prior oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and fluoropyrimidine. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian random effects model. We conducted network meta-analysis based on White's multivariate meta-regression to pool evidence from direct and indirect comparisons. RESULTS: Six trials at low risk of bias (2,445 patients) were included. Direct comparisons showed that Rego 160 and TAS-102 as monotherapy were superior to best-supportive care (BSC) in terms of PFS (Rego 160: hazard ratio [HR], 0.4; 95% confidence ratio [CI], 0.26-0.63; TAS-102: HR, 0.46 CI, 0.40-0.52) and OS (Rego 160: HR, 0.67; CI, 0.48-0.93; TAS-102: HR, 0.67; CI, 0.57-0.80). Network analysis showed no statistically difference in PFS or OS between Rego 160 and TAS-102. Rego 80+ was superior to BSC in terms of OS (HR, 0.44; CI, 0.23-0.84) and PFS (HR, 0.37; CI, 0.21-0.66). Rego 80+ was associated with statistically nonsignificant improvement in OS and PFS compared with TAS-102 and Rego 160. CONCLUSION: Regorafenib 160 and TAS-102 appear to have similar efficacy. Rego 80+ is shown to be superior to BSC. A trend for improved OS was observed with Rego 80+ versus Rego 160 or TAS 102. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Regorafenib at a dose of 160 mg and TAS-102 appear to have similar efficacy in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Regorafenib with a dose escalation strategy is superior to best-supportive care. Given its tolerability and the observed trend in survival benefit compared with regorafenib 160, dose escalation strategy of regorafenib (80+) may be the preferred option in this setting.