Association of Circulating Tumor Cells and Tumor Molecular Profile With Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of the Phase III VISNÚ-1 and Phase II VISNÚ-2 Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The bCTC count is a well-established prognostic biomarker in mCRC, as well as in other tumor types. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the prognostic/predictive role of the bCTC count (≥3 vs. <3) in previously untreated mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study involved 589 untreated mCRC patients included in the intention-to-treat population of 2 randomized clinical trials (phase III VISNU-1 [NCT01640405] and phase II VISNU-2 [NCT01640444] studies). RESULTS: Of the 589 patients, 349 (59.2%) had bCTC≥3 and 240 (40.7%) had bCTC<3. Multivariate analysis showed that the bCTC count is an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.48-0.72; P = 0.000) and potential for progression-free survival (PFS) (P = 0.0549). Median OS was 32.9 and 19.5 months in patients with bCTC<3 and bCTC≥3 (P <0.001), respectively. This effect was also observed comparing OS in RASwt patients from both studies. Other prognostic factors were: ECOG-PS, primary tumor site, number of metastatic sites and surgery of the primary tumor. Median OS was lower for patients treated with anti-VEGF versus anti-EGFR (22.3 vs. 33.3 months, P <0.0001) while there were no significant differences in PFS according to the targeted treatment received. CONCLUSION: This post-hoc analysis of 2 randomized studies confirms the poor prognosis of patients with bCTC≥3 but this is not associated with other adverse independent prognostic factors such as RAS/BRAF mutations.

Influence of BRAF and PIK3CA mutations on the efficacy of FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab or cetuximab as first-line therapy in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal carcinoma and <3 baseline circulating tumour cells: the randomised phase II VISNÚ-2 study.

BACKGROUND: We explored the influence of BRAF and PIK3CA mutational status on the efficacy of bevacizumab or cetuximab plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as first-line therapy in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: VISNÚ-2 was a multicentre, randomised, phase II study. Patients with RAS wild-type mCRC and <3 circulating tumour cells/7.5 ml blood were stratified by BRAF/PIK3CA status (wild-type versus mutated) and number of affected organs (1 versus >1), and allocated to bevacizumab (5 mg/kg every 2 weeks) or cetuximab (400 mg/m2 then 250 mg/m2 weekly) plus FOLFIRI [irinotecan 180 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, 5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 (bolus) then 2400 mg/m2 (46-h continuous infusion) every 2 weeks]. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). All analyses were exploratory. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty patients with BRAF/PIK3CA wild-type (n = 196) or BRAF- and/or PIK3CA-mutated tumours (n = 44) were enrolled. Median PFS was 12.7 and 8.8 months in patients with BRAF/PIK3CA wild-type and BRAF/PIK3CA-mutated tumours, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-1.85; P = 0.3602]. In the BRAF- and/or PIK3CA-mutated cohort, median PFS was 2.8, 8.8 and 15.0 months in patients with BRAF/PI3KCA-mutated (n = 8), BRAF-mutated/PI3KCA wild-type (n = 16) and BRAF wild-type/PI3KCA-mutated (n = 20) tumours, respectively (P = 0.0002). PFS was similar with bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI versus cetuximab plus FOLFIRI in BRAF/PIK3CA wild-type (HR = 0.99; 95% CI 0.67-1.45; P = 0.9486) and BRAF/PIK3CA-mutated tumours (HR = 1.11; 95% CI 0.53-2.35; P = 0.7820). The most common grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were neutropenia, diarrhoea and asthenia in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: BRAF/PIK3CA status influences outcomes in patients with RAS wild-type mCRC but does not appear to assist with the selection of first-line targeted therapy.

Phase II study of high-sensitivity genotyping of KRAS, NRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA to ultra-select metastatic colorectal cancer patients for panitumumab plus FOLFIRI: the ULTRA trial.

BACKGROUND: Several studies show the importance of accurately quantifying not only KRAS and other low-abundant mutations because benefits of anti-EGFR therapies may depend on certain sensitivity thresholds. We assessed whether ultra-selection of patients using a high-sensitive digital PCR (dPCR) to determine KRAS, NRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA status can improve clinical outcomes of panitumumab plus FOLFIRI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a single-arm phase II trial that analysed 38 KRAS, NRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA hotspots in tumour tissues of irinotecan-resistant metastatic colorectal cancer patients who received panitumumab plus FOLFIRI until disease progression or early withdrawal. Mutation profiles were identified by nanofluidic dPCR and correlated with clinical outcomes (ORR, overall response rate; PFS, progression-free survival; OS, overall survival) using cut-offs from 0% to 5%. A quantitative PCR (qPCR) analysis was also performed. RESULTS: Seventy-two evaluable patients were enrolled. RAS (KRAS/NRAS) mutations were detected in 23 (32%) patients and RAS/BRAF mutations in 25 (35%) by dPCR, while they were detected in 7 (10%) and 11 (15%) patients, respectively, by qPCR. PIK3CA mutations were not considered in the analyses as they were only detected in 2 (3%) patients by dPCR and in 1 (1%) patient by qPCR. The use of different dPCR cut-offs for RAS (KRAS/NRAS) and RAS/BRAF analyses translated into differential clinical outcomes. The highest ORR, PFS and OS in wild-type patients with their lowest values in patients with mutations were achieved with a 5% cut-off. We observed similar outcomes in RAS/BRAF wild-type and mutant patients defined by qPCR. CONCLUSIONS: High-sensitive dPCR accurately identified patients with KRAS, NRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA mutations. The optimal RAS/BRAF mutational cut-off for outcome prediction is 5%, which explains that the predictive performance of qPCR was not improved by dPCR. The biological and clinical implications of low-frequent mutated alleles warrant further investigations. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV NUMBER: NCT01704703. EUDRACT NUMBER: 2012-001955-38.

Actualización del cáncer de mama en Atención Primaria (III/V) / Update of breast cancer in Primary Care (III/V)

El cáncer de mama es una enfermedad prevalente con implicaciones en todas las esferas de la vida de las pacientes, por lo que el médico de familia debe conocer en profundidad esta patología, para optimizar la atención con los mejores recursos disponibles. Los cinco artículos que componen esta revisión ofrecen un resumen de la literatura sobre el cáncer de mama publicada en los últimos diez años. En esta tercera parte, se recordarán el contexto clínico, estadiaje y los factores pronósticos de la enfermedad. Esta revisión pretende ofrecer una visión global, actualizada y práctica sobre la enfermedad que permita resolver los interrogantes que se presentan en la consulta de Atención Primaria, facilitar respuestas a las mujeres que lo soliciten y, en definitiva, permanecer al lado de las pacientes a lo largo de su enfermedad con la tranquilidad del conocimiento (AU)

Breast cancer is a prevalent disease with implications in all aspects of patientś life, therefore, family doctors must know this pathology in depth, in order to optimize the health care provided to these patients with the best available resources. This series of five articles on breast cancer is based on a review of the scientific literature of the last ten years. This third article will review the clinical context and the staging and prognostic factors of the disease. This summary report aims to provide a global, current and practical review about this problem, providing answers to family doctors and helping them to be by the patients for their benefit throughout their illness (AU)

[Update of breast cancer in Primary Care (III/V)]. / Actualización del cáncer de mama en Atención Primaria (III/V).

Breast cancer is a prevalent disease with implications in all aspects of patients life, therefore, family doctors must know this pathology in depth, in order to optimize the health care provided to these patients with the best available resources. This series of five articles on breast cancer is based on a review of the scientific literature of the last ten years. This third article will review the clinical context and the staging and prognostic factors of the disease. This summary report aims to provide a global, current and practical review about this problem, providing answers to family doctors and helping them to be by the patients for their benefit throughout their illness.

DNA copy number profiling reveals extensive genomic loss in hereditary BRCA1 and BRCA2 ovarian carcinomas.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have attempted to characterise genomic changes occurring in hereditary epithelial ovarian carcinomas (EOCs) and inconsistent results have been obtained. Given the relevance of DNA copy number alterations in ovarian oncogenesis and growing clinical implications of the BRCA-gene status, we aimed to characterise the genomic profiles of hereditary and sporadic ovarian tumours. METHODS: High-resolution array Comparative Genomic Hybridisation profiling of 53 familial (21 BRCA1, 6 BRCA2 and 26 non-BRCA1/2) and 15 sporadic tumours in combination with supervised and unsupervised analysis was used to define common and/or specific copy number features. RESULTS: Unsupervised hierarchical clustering did not stratify tumours according to their familial or sporadic condition or to their BRCA1/2 mutation status. Common recurrent changes, spanning genes potentially fundamental for ovarian carcinogenesis, regardless of BRCA mutations, and several candidate subtype-specific events were defined. Despite similarities, greater contribution of losses was revealed to be a hallmark of BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumours. CONCLUSION: Somatic alterations occurring in the development of familial EOCs do not differ substantially from the ones occurring in sporadic carcinomas. However, some specific features like extensive genomic loss observed in BRCA1/2 tumours may be of clinical relevance helping to identify BRCA-related patients likely to respond to PARP inhibitors.

SEOM recommendations on the structure and operation of hereditary cancer genetic counseling units (HCGCUs)

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 5 % of all cancer cases are hereditary. Cancer genetic counseling assesses individual and family risks of cancer, conducts genetic studies, interprets results, and advises patients regarding strategies for prevention and risk reduction. Currently, many networks of hereditary cancer genetic counseling units (HCGCUs) are integrated in the medical oncology services of most Spanish hospitals, which are comprised of multidisciplinary teams and offer high-quality care for the treatment of hereditary cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) analyzed key issues involving the integration of HCGCUs into the National Health Service. These included basic compliance issues by these units regarding their operation and organization, as well as prerequisites in quality control thereof. RESULTS: This document describes the specific roles and clinical processes performed in HCGCUs in addition to basic services provided by molecular diagnostic laboratories. It also provides a summary on the coordination of care across different levels for patients and families with hereditary cancers. Finally, this document describes the human and material resources needed for the organization of HCGCUs. CONCLUSIONS: SEOM has been a pioneer in the creation and development of HCGCUs. This paper seeks to ensure high-quality care to individuals and families with inherited susceptibility to cancer in Spain (AU)