The impact of mismatch repair status and systemic inflammatory markers on radiological staging in colon cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Mismatch repair (MMR) deficient (dMMR) colon cancer (CC) is distinct from MMR proficient (pMMR) CC, yet the impact of MMR status on radiological staging is unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate how MMR status impacts CC CT staging. METHODS: We retrospectively compared CT staging accuracy between dMMR and pMMR CC patients undergoing curative resection. Accuracy was assessed as individual tumour (T)/nodal (N) stages and as dichotomous "statuses" (T1/2 vs T3/4; N0 vs N1/2). Patient characteristics were analysed for factors to support staging. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in overall staging accuracy between the dMMR (44 patients) and pMMR (57 patients) groups. dMMR tumours with incorrect N stage/"status" were more likely to be overstaged than pMMR tumours (90% vs 59%; p = 0.023 for "N status"). Platelet count, CRP and neutrophil count (AUC 0.76 (p = 0.0078), 0.75 (p = 0.034) and 0.70 (p = 0.044), respectively) were associated with "N status" in dMMR tumours. CONCLUSION: Whilst overall staging accuracy was similar between groups, incorrectly N staged dMMR tumours were more likely to be overstaged than pMMR tumours, risking inappropriate surgical or neoadjuvant treatment. We describe novel relationships between several inflammatory markers and pathological "N status" in dMMR CC, which if integrated into routine practice may improve CT staging accuracy. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Compared to pMMR CC, dMMR CC is at significant risk of N overstaging. Platelet count, CRP and neutrophil count are higher in dMMR CC patients with nodal metastases than those without, and their role in refining clinical staging requires further investigation.

Preoperative Chemotherapy for Operable Colon Cancer: Mature Results of an International Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has potential advantages over standard postoperative chemotherapy for locally advanced colon cancer but requires formal evaluation. METHODS: Patients with radiologically staged T3-4, N0-2, M0 colon cancer were randomly allocated (2:1) to 6 weeks oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine preoperatively plus 18 postoperatively (NAC group) or 24 weeks postoperatively (control group). Patients with RAS-wildtype tumors could also be randomly assigned 1:1 to receive panitumumab or not during NAC. The primary end point was residual disease or recurrence within 2 years. Secondary outcomes included surgical morbidity, histopathologic stage, regression grade, completeness of resection, and cause-specific mortality. Log-rank analyses were by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: Of 699 patients allocated to NAC, 674 (96%) started and 606 (87%) completed NAC. In total, 686 of 699 (98.1%) NAC patients and 351 of 354 (99.2%) control patients underwent surgery. Thirty patients (4.3%) allocated to NAC developed obstructive symptoms requiring expedited surgery, but there were fewer serious postoperative complications with NAC than with control. NAC produced marked T and N downstaging and histologic tumor regression (all P < .001). Resection was more often histopathologically complete: 94% (648/686) versus 89% (311/351), P < .001. Fewer NAC than control patients had residual or recurrent disease within 2 years (16.9% [118/699] v 21.5% [76/354]; rate ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.54 to 0.98]; P = .037). Tumor regression correlated strongly with freedom from recurrence. Panitumumab did not enhance the benefit from NAC. Little benefit from NAC was seen in mismatch repair-deficient tumors. CONCLUSION: Six weeks of preoperative oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy for operable colon cancer can be delivered safely, without increasing perioperative morbidity. This chemotherapy regimen, when given preoperatively, produces marked histopathologic down-staging, fewer incomplete resections, and better 2-year disease control. Histologic regression after NAC is a strong predictor of lower postoperative recurrence risk so has potential use as a guide for postoperative therapy. Six weeks of NAC should be considered as a treatment option for locally advanced colon cancer.

Personalizing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced colon cancer: protocols for the international phase III FOxTROT2 and FOxTROT3 randomized controlled trials.

AIM: FOxTROT1 established a new standard of care for managing locally advanced colon cancer (CC) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Six weeks of neoadjuvant oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine (OxFp) chemotherapy was associated with greater 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) when compared with proceeding straight to surgery (STS). There is now a need to refine the use of NAC and identify those most likely to benefit. FOxTROT2 will aim to investigate NAC in older adults and those with frailty. FOxTROT3 will aim to assess whether intensified triplet NAC provides additional benefits over OxFp. METHOD: FOxTROT2 and FOxTROT3 are international, open-label, phase III randomized controlled trials. Eligible patients will be identified by the multidisciplinary team. Patient age, frailty and comorbidities will be considered to guide trial entry. Participants will be randomized 2:1 to the intervention or control arm: 6 weeks of dose-adapted neoadjuvant OxFp versus STS in FOxTROT2 and 6 weeks of neoadjuvant modified oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and irinotecan versus OxFp in FOxTROT3. The primary endpoint in FOxTROT2 is 3-year DFS. In FOxTROT3, tumour regression grade and 3-year DFS are co-primary endpoints. DISCUSSION: FOxTROT2 and FOxTROT3 will establish the FOxTROT platform, a key part of our long-term strategy to develop neoadjuvant treatments for CC. FOxTROT2 will investigate NAC in a population under-represented in FOxTROT1 and wider research. FOxTROT3 will assess whether it is possible to induce greater early tumour responses and whether this translates to superior long-term outcomes. Looking ahead, the FOxTROT platform will facilitate further trial comparisons and extensive translational research to optimize the use of NAC in CC.

Incorporating neoadjuvant chemotherapy into locally advanced colon cancer treatment pathways: Real-life experience of implementing FOxTROT.

AIM: The international FOxTROT trial, recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology is the first randomized controlled trial testing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) with oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil in locally advanced, but operable, colon cancer. The trial met its primary endpoint with fewer patients experiencing recurrent or residual disease at 2 years with NAC compared with the control (16.8% vs. 21.2%, risk ratio = 0.74, p  = 0.042). Translating the findings of the FOxTROT trial into improved patient outcomes is dependent on implementation of new neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) pathways in colorectal cancer. METHOD: We describe our experience implementing a novel neoadjuvant treatment pathway in colorectal cancer at a large UK teaching hospital. RESULTS: To date 64 patients have been commenced on the novel pathway following presentation and adoption of the FOxTROT trial results. We present key lessons and strategies developed across the multidisciplinary team to minimize impact on person hours, service capacity and budget, whilst building patient safety and confidence. CONCLUSION: Use of NAC for locally advanced colon cancer has been shown to improve surgical outcomes and longer term cancer outcomes. Provision of NAC requires some modifications to current treatment pathways but can be delivered with team working and without the requirement for additional resources.

A Phase II trial of Higher RadiOtherapy Dose In The Eradication of early rectal cancer (APHRODITE): protocol for a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The standard of care for patients with localised rectal cancer is radical surgery, often combined with preoperative neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy. While oncologically effective, this treatment strategy is associated with operative mortality risks, significant morbidity and stoma formation. An alternative approach is chemoradiotherapy to try to achieve a sustained clinical complete response (cCR). This non-surgical management can be attractive, particularly for patients at high risk of surgical complications. Modern radiotherapy techniques allow increased treatment conformality, enabling increased radiation dose to the tumour while reducing dose to normal tissue. The objective of this trial is to assess if radiotherapy dose escalation increases the cCR rate, with acceptable toxicity, for treatment of patients with early rectal cancer unsuitable for radical surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: APHRODITE (A Phase II trial of Higher RadiOtherapy Dose In The Eradication of early rectal cancer) is a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled phase II trial aiming to recruit 104 participants from 10 to 12 UK sites. Participants will be allocated with a 2:1 ratio of intervention:control. The intervention is escalated dose radiotherapy (62 Gy to primary tumour, 50.4 Gy to surrounding mesorectum in 28 fractions) using simultaneous integrated boost. The control arm will receive 50.4 Gy to the primary tumour and surrounding mesorectum. Both arms will use intensity-modulated radiotherapy and daily image guidance, combined with concurrent chemotherapy (capecitabine, 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin or omitted). The primary endpoint is the proportion of participants with cCR at 6 months after start of treatment. Secondary outcomes include early and late toxicities, time to stoma formation, overall survival and patient-reported outcomes (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaires QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29, low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) questionnaire). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial obtained ethical approval from North West Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee (reference number 19/NW/0565) and is funded by Yorkshire Cancer Research. The final trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and adhere to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16158514.

Experiences of running a stratified medicine adaptive platform trial: Challenges and lessons learned from 10 years of the FOCUS4 trial in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Complex innovative design trials are becoming increasingly common and offer potential for improving patient outcomes in a faster time frame. FOCUS4 was the first molecularly stratified trial in metastatic colorectal cancer and it remains one of the first umbrella trial designs to be launched globally. Here, we aim to describe lessons learned from delivery of the trial over the last 10 years. METHODS: FOCUS4 was a Phase II/III molecularly stratified umbrella trial testing the safety and efficacy of targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer. It used adaptive statistical methodology to decide which sub-trial should close early, and new therapies were added as protocol amendments. Patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer were registered, and central laboratory testing was used to stratify their tumour into molecular subtypes. Following 16 weeks of first-line therapy, patients with stable or responding disease were eligible for randomisation into either a molecularly stratified sub-trial (FOCUS4-B, C or D) or non-stratified FOCUS4-N. The primary outcome for all studies was progression-free survival comparing the intervention with active monitoring/placebo. At the close of the trial, feedback was elicited from all investigators through surveys and interviews and consolidated into a series of recommendations and lessons learned for the delivery of similar future trials. RESULTS: Between January 2014 and October 2020, 1434 patients were registered from 88 UK hospitals. Of the 20 drug combinations that were explored for inclusion in the platform trial, three molecularly targeted sub-trials were activated: FOCUS4-D (February 2014-March 2016) evaluated AZD8931 in the BRAF-PIK3CA-RAS wildtype subgroup; FOCUS4-B (February 2016-July 2018) evaluated aspirin in the PIK3CA mutant subgroup and FOCUS4-C (June 2017-October 2020) evaluated adavosertib in the RAS+TP53 double mutant subgroup. FOCUS4-N was active throughout and evaluated capecitabine monotherapy versus a treatment break. A total of 361 (25%) registered patients were randomised into a sub-trial. Feedback on the experiences of delivery of FOCUS4 could be grouped into three main areas of challenge: funding/infrastructure, biomarker testing procedures and trial design efficiencies within which 20 recommendations are summarised. CONCLUSION: Adaptive stratified medicine platform studies are feasible in common cancers but present challenges. Our stakeholder feedback has helped to inform how these trial designs can succeed and answer multiple questions efficiently, providing resource is adequate.

Inhibition of WEE1 Is Effective in TP53- and RAS-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Trial (FOCUS4-C) Comparing Adavosertib (AZD1775) With Active Monitoring.

PURPOSE: Outcomes in RAS-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remain poor and patients have limited therapeutic options. Adavosertib is the first small-molecule inhibitor of WEE1 kinase. We hypothesized that aberrations in DNA replication seen in mCRC with both RAS and TP53 mutations would sensitize tumors to WEE1 inhibition. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed mCRC were registered into FOCUS4 and tested for TP53 and RAS mutations. Those with both mutations who were stable or responding after 16 weeks of chemotherapy were randomly assigned 2:1 between adavosertib and active monitoring (AM). Adavosertib (250 mg or 300 mg) was taken orally once on days 1-5 and days 8-12 of a 3-week cycle. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), with a target hazard ratio (HR) of 0.5 and 80% power with a one-sided 0.025 significance level. RESULTS: FOCUS4-C was conducted between April 2017 and Mar 2020 during which time 718 patients were registered; 247 (34%) were RAS/TP53-mutant. Sixty-nine patients were randomly assigned from 25 UK hospitals (adavosertib = 44; AM = 25). Adavosertib was associated with a PFS improvement over AM (median 3.61 v 1.87 months; HR = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.68; P = .0022). Overall survival (OS) was not improved with adavosertib versus AM (median 14.0 v 12.8 months; HR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.94; P = .93). In prespecified subgroup analysis, adavosertib activity was greater in left-sided tumors (HR = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.51), versus right-sided (HR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.41 to 2.56; interaction P = .043). Adavosertib was well-tolerated; grade 3 toxicities were diarrhea (9%), nausea (5%), and neutropenia (7%). CONCLUSION: In this phase II randomized trial, adavosertib improved PFS compared with AM and demonstrates potential as a well-tolerated therapy for RAS/TP53-mutant mCRC. Further testing is required in this sizable population of unmet need.

Capecitabine Versus Active Monitoring in Stable or Responding Metastatic Colorectal Cancer After 16 Weeks of First-Line Therapy: Results of the Randomized FOCUS4-N Trial.

PURPOSE: Despite extensive randomized evidence supporting the use of treatment breaks in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), they are not universally offered to patients despite improvements in quality of life without detriment to overall survival (OS). FOCUS4-N was set up to explore the impact of oral maintenance therapy in patients who are responding to first-line therapy. METHODS: FOCUS4 was a molecularly stratified trial program that registered patients with newly diagnosed mCRC. The FOCUS4-N trial was offered to patients in whom a targeted subtrial was unavailable or biomarker tests failed. Patients were randomly assigned using a 1:1 ratio between maintenance capecitabine and active monitoring (AM). The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) with secondary outcomes including OS toxicity and tolerability. RESULTS: Between March 2014 and March 2020, 254 patients were randomly assigned (127 to capecitabine and 127 to AM) across 88 UK sites. Baseline characteristics were balanced. There was strong evidence of efficacy for PFS (hazard ratio = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75; P < .0001), but no significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.27; P = .66) was observed. Compliance with treatment was good, and toxicity from capecitabine versus AM was as expected with grade ≥ 2 fatigue (25% v 12%), diarrhea (23% v 13%), and hand-foot syndrome (26% v 3%). Quality of life showed little difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: Despite strong evidence of disease control with maintenance therapy, OS remains unaffected and FOCUS4-N provides additional evidence to support the use of treatment breaks as safe management alternatives for patients who are stable or responding to first-line treatment for mCRC. Capecitabine without bevacizumab may be used to extend PFS in the interval after 16 weeks of first-line therapy.

Molecular subtype-specific efficacy of anti-EGFR therapy in colorectal cancer is dependent on the chemotherapy backbone.

BACKGROUND: Patient selection for addition of anti-EGFR therapy to chemotherapy for patients with RAS and BRAF wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer can still be optimised. Here we investigate the effect of anti-EGFR therapy on survival in different consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) and stratified by primary tumour location. METHODS: Retrospective analyses, using the immunohistochemistry-based CMS classifier, were performed in the COIN (first-line oxaliplatin backbone with or without cetuximab) and PICCOLO trial (second-line irinotecan with or without panitumumab). Tumour tissue was available for 323 patients (20%) and 349 (41%), respectively. RESULTS: When using an irinotecan backbone, anti-EGFR therapy is effective in both CMS2/3 and CMS4 in left-sided primary tumours (progression-free survival (PFS): HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26-0.75, P = 0.003 and HR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04-0.36, P < 0.001, respectively) and in CMS4 right-sided tumours (PFS HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.71, P = 0.02). Efficacy using an oxaliplatin backbone was restricted to left-sided CMS2/3 tumours (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36-0.96, P = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: The subtype-specific efficacy of anti-EGFR therapy is dependent on the chemotherapy backbone. This may provide the possibility of subtype-specific treatment strategies for a more optimal use of anti-EGFR therapy.

Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Amphiregulin and Epiregulin IHC Predicts Panitumumab Benefit in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: High tumor mRNA levels of the EGFR ligands amphiregulin (AREG) and epiregulin (EREG) are associated with anti-EGFR agent response in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, ligand RNA assays have not been adopted into routine practice due to issues with analytic precision and practicality. We investigated whether AREG/EREG IHC could predict benefit from the anti-EGFR agent panitumumab. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Artificial intelligence algorithms were developed to assess AREG/EREG IHC in 274 patients from the PICCOLO trial of irinotecan with or without panitumumab (Ir vs. IrPan) in RAS wild-type mCRC. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were RECIST response rate (RR) and overall survival (OS). Models were repeated adjusting separately for BRAF mutation status and primary tumor location (PTL). RESULTS: High ligand expression was associated with significant PFS benefit from IrPan compared with Ir [8.0 vs. 3.2 months; HR, 0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.37-0.79; P = 0.001]; whereas low ligand expression was not (3.4 vs. 4.4 months; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.74-1.49; P = 0.78). The ligand-treatment interaction was significant (P interaction = 0.02) and remained significant after adjustment for BRAF-mutation status and PTL. Likewise, RECIST RR was significantly improved in patients with high ligand expression (IrPan vs. Ir: 48% vs. 6%; P < 0.0001) but not those with low ligand expression (25% vs. 14%; P = 0.10; P interaction = 0.01). The effect on OS was similar but not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: AREG/EREG IHC identified patients who benefitted from the addition of panitumumab to irinotecan chemotherapy. IHC is a practicable assay that may be of use in routine practice.

EGFR Amplification in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: EGFR amplification occurs in about 1% of metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRCs) but is not routinely tested as a prognostic or predictive biomarker for patients treated with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies. Herein, we aimed to characterize the clinical and molecular landscape of EGFR-amplified mCRC. METHODS: In this multinational cohort study, we compared clinical data of 62 patients with EGFR-amplified vs 1459 EGFR nonamplified mCRC, as well as comprehensive genomic data of 35 EGFR-amplified vs 439 EGFR nonamplified RAS/BRAF wild-type and microsatellite stable (MSS) tumor samples. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: EGFR amplification was statistically significantly associated with left primary tumor sidedness and RAS/BRAF wild-type status. All EGFR-amplified tumors were MSS and HER2 nonamplified. Overall, EGFR-amplified samples had higher median fraction of genome altered compared with EGFR-nonamplified, RAS/BRAF wild-type MSS cohort. Patients with EGFR-amplified tumors reported longer overall survival (OS) (median OS = 71.3 months, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 50.7 to not available [NA]) vs EGFR-nonamplified ones (24.0 months; 95% CI = 22.8 to 25.6; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.20 to 0.44; P < .001; adjusted HR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.69; P < .001). In the subgroup of patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC exposed to anti-EGFR-based therapy, EGFR amplification was again associated with better OS (median OS = 54.0 months, 95% CI = 35.2 to NA, vs 29.1 months, 95% CI = 27.0 to 31.9, respectively; HR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.28 to 0.76; P = .002). CONCLUSION: Patients with EGFR-amplified mCRC represent a biologically defined subgroup and merit dedicated clinical trials with novel and more potent EGFR-targeting strategies beyond single-agent monoclonal antibodies.

Addressing the variation in adjuvant chemotherapy treatment for colorectal cancer: Can a regional intervention promote national change?

Analysis of routine population-based data has previously shown that patterns of surgical treatment for colorectal cancer can vary widely, but there is limited evidence available to determine if such variation is also seen in the use of chemotherapy. This study quantified variation in adjuvant chemotherapy across both England using cancer registry data and in more detail across the representative Yorkshire and Humber regions. Individuals with Stages II and III colorectal cancer who underwent major resection from 2014 to 2015 were identified. Rates of chemotherapy were calculated from the Systemic Anticancer Treatment database using multilevel logistic regression. Additionally, questionnaires addressing different clinical scenarios were sent to regional oncologists to investigate the treatment preferences of clinicians. The national adjusted chemotherapy treatment rate ranged from 2% to 46% (Stage II cancers), 19% to 81% (Stage III cancers), 24% to 75% (patients aged <70 years) and 5% to 46% (patients aged ≥70 years). Regionally, the rates of treatment and the proportions of treated patients receiving combination chemotherapy varied by stage (Stage II 4%-26% and 0%-55%, Stage III 48%-71% and 40%-84%) and by age (<70 years 35%-68% and 49%-91%; ≥70 years 15%-39% and 6%-75%). Questionnaire responses showed significant variations in opinions for high-risk Stage II patients with both deficient and proficient mismatch repair tumours and Stage IIIB patients aged ≥70 years. Following a review of the evidence, open discussion in our region has enabled a consensus agreement on an algorithm for colorectal cancer that is intended to reduce variation in practice.

Colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases: Biology, treatment and next steps.

The presence of peritoneal metastases in patients with advanced colorectal cancer is associated with poor prognosis but the mechanisms for this are unclear. This review summarises the current knowledge of the pathophysiology, clinical features, prevalence, prognosis, and molecular biology of peritoneal metastases and the risk factors for the development of peritoneal metastases following resection of a primary colorectal tumour. Furthermore, the evidence for treatment strategies are described including cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, early post-operative intraperitoneal chemotherapy, sequential post-operative intraperitoneal chemotherapy and emerging novel strategies. Active areas of research should include the identification of individuals at high risk of peritoneal metastases after curative resection of primary tumour, development of a surveillance program for high-risk patients, optimisation of systematic therapies and further investigation of the use of intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

The Evolving Biomarker Landscape for Treatment Selection in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

The approval of targeted therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has led to important improvements in patient outcomes. However, it is still necessary to increase individualisation of treatments based on tumour genetic profiles to optimise efficacy, while minimising toxicity. As such, there is currently great focus on the discovery and validation of further biomarkers in mCRC, with many new potential prognostic and predictive markers being identified alongside developments in patient molecular profiling technologies. Here, we review data for validated and emerging biomarkers impacting treatment strategies in mCRC. We completed a structured literature search of the PubMed database to identify relevant publications, limiting for English-language publications published between 1 January 2014 and 11 July 2018. In addition, we performed a manual search of the key general oncology and CRC-focused congresses to identify abstracts reporting emerging mCRC biomarker data, and of ClinicalTrials.gov to identify ongoing clinical trials investigating emerging biomarkers in mCRC and/or molecular-guided clinical trials. There is solid evidence supporting the use of BRAF status as a prognostic biomarker and DYPD, UGT1A1, RAS, and microsatellite instability as predictive biomarkers in mCRC. There are a number of emerging biomarkers that may prove to be clinically relevant in the future to have prognostic (HPP1 methylation), predictive (HER3, microRNAs, anti-angiogenic markers, and CRC intrinsic subtypes), or both prognostic and predictive values (HER2, CpG island methylator phenotype, tumour mutational load, gene fusions, and consensus molecular subtypes). As such, new biomarker-led treatment strategies in addition to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor and anti-angiogenetic treatments are being explored. Biomarkers that are not recommended to be tested in clinical practice or are unlikely to be imminently clinically relevant for mCRC include thymidylate transferase, ERCC1, PIK3CA, and PTEN. We highlight the clinical utility of existing and emerging biomarkers in mCRC and provide recommended treatment strategies according to the biomarker status. An update on ongoing molecular-guided clinical trials is also provided.

Inhibition of EGFR, HER2, and HER3 signalling in patients with colorectal cancer wild-type for BRAF, PIK3CA, KRAS, and NRAS (FOCUS4-D): a phase 2-3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: A substantial change in trial methodology for solid tumours has taken place, in response to increased understanding of cancer biology. FOCUS4 is a phase 2-3 trial programme testing targeted agents in patients with advanced colorectal cancer in molecularly stratified cohorts. Here, we aimed to test the hypothesis that combined inhibition of EGFR, HER2, and HER3 signalling with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor AZD8931 will control growth of all wild-type tumours. METHODS: In FOCUS4-D, we included patients from 18 hospitals in the UK with newly diagnosed advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer whose tumour was wild-type for BRAF, PIK3CA, KRAS, and NRAS. After 16 weeks of first-line therapy, patients with stable or responding tumours were randomised to oral AZD8931 (40 mg twice a day) or placebo. Randomisation was done by minimisation with a random element of 20%, minimisation by hospital site, site of primary tumour, WHO performance status, 16-week CT scan result, number of metastatic sites, and first-line chemotherapy regimen. The primary outcome was progression-free-survival. CT scans were assessed by local radiologists according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1. Preplanned interim analyses were assessed per protocol and were agreed using multiarm multistage (MAMS) trial design methodology triggered by occurrence of progression-free survival events in the placebo group. The final analysis was assessed by intention to treat. This trial is registered at controlled-trials.com, ISRCTN 90061546. FINDINGS: Between July 7, 2014, and March 7, 2016, 32 patients were randomised to study treatment, 16 to AZD8931 and 16 to placebo. At the first preplanned interim analysis (March, 2016), the independent data monitoring committee (IDMC) recommended closure of FOCUS4-D because of a lack of activity. At the final analysis (Aug 1, 2016), 31 patients had had a progression-free survival event (15 with AZD8931 and 16 with placebo). Median progression-free survival was 3·48 months (95% CI 1·51-5·09) in the placebo group and 2·96 months (1·94-5·62) in the AZD8931 group. No progression-free survival benefit of AZD8931 compared with placebo was noted (hazard ratio [HR] 1·10, 95% CI 0·47-3·57; p=0·95). The most common grade 3 adverse event in the AZD8931 group was skin rash (three [20%] of 15 patients with available data vs none of 16 patients in the placebo group), and in the placebo group it was diarrhoea (one [7%] vs one [6%]). No grade 4 adverse events were recorded and no treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: The MAMS trial design for FOCUS4 has shown efficiency and effectiveness in trial outcome delivery, informing the decision to proceed or stop clinical evaluation of a targeted treatment within a molecularly defined cohort of patients. The overarching FOCUS4 trial is now aiming to open a replacement arm in the cohort with all wild-type tumours. FUNDING: Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, Cancer Research UK, NIHR Clinical Trials Research Network, Health and Care Research Wales, and AstraZeneca.

Association of Tumor HER3 Messenger RNA Expression With Panitumumab Efficacy in Advanced Colorectal Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) (HER1) signaling depends on ligand binding and dimerization with itself or other HER receptors. We previously showed in a randomized trial that high EGFR ligand expression is predictive of panitumumab benefit in advanced colorectal cancer. Tumor expression of HER3 may further refine the RAS wild-type (wt) population benefitting from anti-EGFR agents. OBJECTIVE: To examine HER3 messenger RNA expression as a prognostic and predictive biomarker for anti-EGFR therapy in a randomized clinical trial of panitumumab. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The study was a prospectively planned retrospective biomarker study of pretreatment samples from the PICCOLO trial that tested the addition of panitumumab to irinotecan therapy in patients with KRAS wt advanced colorectal cancer who experienced failure with prior fluoropyrimidine treatment. HER3 was assessed as a prognostic marker, then as a predictive biomarker in patients with RAS wt, first as a continuous variable and then as a binary (high vs low) variable. Relationship with MEK-AKT pathway mutations and EGFR ligands epiregulin and amphiregulin (EREG/AREG) were also assessed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points were response rate and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In 308 patients (mean age at randomization, 61.6 years; 193 men) higher HER3 was weakly prognostic for OS (hazard ratio [HR] per 2-fold change, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-0.99; P = .04) but not PFS (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83-1.05; P = .25). Higher HER3 was predictive, being associated with prolonged PFS on irinotecan plus panitumumab (IrPan) (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.82; P < .001), but not irinotecan (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.82-1.13; P = .65) in patients with RAS wt, with significant interaction between biomarker and treatment (P = .001). Similar interaction was seen for OS (P = .004). In an exploratory binary model, dividing the population at the 66th percentile, HER3 was predictive of panitumumab benefit: in patients with high HER3 expression, median PFS was 8.2 months (IrPan) vs 4.4 months (irinotecan) (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.19-0.58; P < .001). Patients with low HER3 expression gained no benefit in PFS: 3.3 months (IrPan) vs 4.3 months (irinotecan) (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.67-1.38; P = .84), with significant interaction (P = .002). The binary model was also predictive for OS, with significant interaction (P = .01). Combining HER3 and ligand data, patients with HER3-high, AREG/EREG-high tumors gained markedly from panitumumab (PFS HR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.11-0.51; P < .005 and OS HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.18-0.73; P = .004). Conversely, patients with HER3-low, AREG/EREG-low tumors did not benefit (PFS HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.73-1.79; P = .57 and OS HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 0.92-2.26; P = .11). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: High HER3 expression identified patients with RAS wt who gained markedly from panitumumab, and those who did not, with statistically significant biomarker-treatment interactions for PFS and OS. This finding provides insight into the mechanism of anti-EGFR agents and is of potential clinical utility.

Combined Epiregulin and Amphiregulin Expression Levels as a Predictive Biomarker for Panitumumab Therapy Benefit or Lack of Benefit in Patients With RAS Wild-Type Advanced Colorectal Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: RAS wild-type (wt) status is necessary but not sufficient for response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents in advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC). RNA expression of EGFR ligands epiregulin (EREG) and amphiregulin (AREG) may correlate with EGFR-targeted therapy efficacy in aCRC, so may represent a much-needed additional predictive marker for these drugs. OBJECTIVE: To examine a novel ligand model in a randomized clinical trial of panitumumab, irinotecan, and ciclosporin in colorectal cancer (PICCOLO) with with the a priori hypothesis that high tumor expression of either AREG or EREG would predict panitumumab therapy benefit in RAS-wt patients; and low expression, lack of efficacy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospectively planned retrospective biomarker study from the PICCOLO trial, which tested the addition of panitumumab to irinotecan therapy in patients with KRAS wt aCRC who experienced failure with prior fluoropyrimidine treatment. The analysis was conducted between 2012 and 2014. A predefined dichotomous model classified tumors as "high expressor" (either EREG or AREG in top tertile for messenger RNA level) or "low expressor" (neither EREG nor AREG in top tertile). Ligand expression was assessed as a prognostic and predictive biomarker. Expression of AREG/EREG and RAS and BRAF mutations were assessed in archival tumor tissue. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points were response rate and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of the 696 PICCOLO trial patients in the irinotecan-vs-irinotecan with panitumumab randomization, 331 had sufficient tumor tissue available and measurement of ligand expression was successful in 323. High ligand expression was not prognostic for OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.79 [95% CI, 0.58-1.09]; P = .15) or PFS (HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.68-1.27]; P = .64). The primary population had RAS wt aCRC (n = 220); for RAS wt patients with high ligand expression, median (interquartile range [IQR]) PFS was 8.3 [4.0-11.0] months (irinotecan with panitumumab) vs 4.4 [2.8-6.7] months (irinotecan alone); HR, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.24-0.61]; P < .001). In RAS wt patients with low ligand expression, median (IQR) PFS was 3.2 [2.7-8.1] months (irinotecan with panitumumab) vs 4.0 [2.7-7.5] months (irinotecan); HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.64-1.37]; P = .73; interaction test results were significant [P = .01]). Less marked effects were seen for response rate (interaction P = .17) and OS (interaction P = .11). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: High ligand expression is a predictive marker for panitumumab therapy benefit on PFS in RAS wt patients; conversely, patients with low ligand expression gained no benefit. The current "opt-in" strategy for anti-EGFR therapy in all patients with RAS wt aCRC should be questioned. Expression of EREG/AREG is a useful biomarker for anti-EGFR therapy; optimization for clinical use is indicated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn Identifier: ISRCTN93248876.

Can D-Dimer Measurement Reduce the Frequency of Radiological Assessment in Patients Receiving Palliative Imatinib for Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor (GIST)?

Imatinib therapy has improved outcomes in advanced GISTs. Current guidelines suggest monitoring with CT scanning every 12 weeks. There are no validated biomarkers to assist disease evaluation. We identified 50 patients treated with imatinib for GIST in a single tertiary center. We assessed the prognostic value of D-dimers by Cox regression, and the utility as a biomarker for radiological progression (rPD) using receiver-operator curve (ROC) analysis. In asymptomatic patients with D-dimer levels <1,000 and falling levels, the negative predictive value for rPD was 92%. D-dimers may reduce the burden of CT scanning in a proportion of patients in this setting.