An Explorative Analysis of ABCG2/TOP-1 mRNA Expression as a Biomarker Test for FOLFIRI Treatment in Stage III Colon Cancer Patients: Results from Retrospective Analyses of the PETACC-3 Trial.

Biomarker-guided treatment for patients with colon cancer is needed. We tested ABCG2 and topoisomerase 1 (TOP1) mRNA expression as predictive biomarkers for irinotecan benefit in the PETACC-3 patient cohort. The present study included 580 patients with mRNA expression data from Stage III colon cancer samples from the PETACC-3 study, which randomized the patients to Fluorouracil/leucovorin (5FUL) +/- irinotecan. The primary end-points were recurrence free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Patients were divided into one group with high ABCG2 expression (above median) and low TOP-1 expression (below 75 percentile) ("resistant") (n = 216) and another group including all other combinations of these two genes ("sensitive") (n = 364). The rationale for the cut-offs were based on the distribution of expression levels in the PETACC-3 Stage II set of patients, where ABCG2 was unimodal and TOP1 was bimodal with a high expression level mode in the top quarter of the patients. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios and the association between variables and end-points and log-rank tests to assess the statistical significance of differences in survival between groups. Kaplan-Meier estimates of the survival functions were used for visualization and estimation of survival rates at specific time points. Significant differences were found for both RFS (Hazard ratio (HR): 0.63 (0.44-0.92); p = 0.016) and OS (HR: 0.60 (0.39-0.93); p = 0.02) between the two biomarker groups when the patients received FOLFIRI (5FUL+irinotecan). Considering only the Microsatellite Stable (MSS) and Microsatellite Instability-Low (MSI-L) patients (n = 470), the differences were even more pronounced. In contrast, no significant differences were observed between the groups when patients received 5FUL alone. This study shows that the combination of ABCG2 and TOP1 gene expression significantly divided the Stage III colon cancer patients into two groups regarding benefit from adjuvant treatment with FOLFIRI but not 5FUL.

Clinical and pharmacogenetic determinants of 5-fluorouracyl/leucovorin/irinotecan toxicity: Results of the PETACC-3 trial.

PURPOSE: Irinotecan (CPT-11) in combination with 5-fluorouracil (5FU) is widely used in the treatment of colorectal cancer. We assessed potential clinical variables that may predict toxicity and more specifically the role of UGT1A1 polymorphisms associated with irinotecan toxicity. We used data from the PETACC3 trial, which randomised patients in adjuvant setting to 6 months of leucovorin (LV) and 5FU (LV5/FU2) or LV5/FU2 + irinotecan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical and toxicity data were available for 2982 patients, DNA was available for 1200 (40%) of these patients. We genotyped the polymorphisms UGT1A1*28 and UGT1A1-3156G > A. Risk factors for neutropenia and diarrhoea were assessed by univariable and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: In univariable analysis, UGT1A*28 genotype was associated with an increased incidence of grade III-IV neutropenia (incidence: 44% versus 26%; odds ratio [OR]: 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-3.7). In multivariable analysis, the most important predictors (ordered in terms of contribution to R2) were baseline neutrophil count (OR for 1-unit (109/l) decrease: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.3-1.7), female sex (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.1-3.0), body surface area (OR for 0.1-unit increase: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.7-1.0), UGT1A1 (OR: 2.8, 95% CI: 1.6-5.0), age (OR per 10 years: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1-1.6) and poor performance status (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.0-2.6). The main predictors for grade IV neutropenia were sex, age, performance score and UGT1A1. The main predictors for diarrhoea were sex and age. CONCLUSIONS: We found that a complex of risk factors is involved in the development of toxicity, including UGT1A1. Parameters that are readily available in clinical practice, notably sex, age and performance status, are stronger predictors than the UGT1A1*28 genotype. Further studies beyond the UGT1A1*28 genotype are needed to fully understand the determinants of toxicity risk, notably in females.

Recommendations for reporting tumor budding in colorectal cancer based on the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) 2016.

Tumor budding is a well-established independent prognostic factor in colorectal cancer but a standardized method for its assessment has been lacking. The primary aim of the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) was to reach agreement on an international, evidence-based standardized scoring system for tumor budding in colorectal cancer. The ITBCC included nine sessions with presentations, a pre-meeting survey and an e-book covering the key publications on tumor budding in colorectal cancer. The 'Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation' method was used to determine the strength of recommendations and quality of evidence. The following 10 statements achieved consensus: tumor budding is defined as a single tumor cell or a cell cluster consisting of four tumor cells or less (22/22, 100%). Tumor budding is an independent predictor of lymph node metastases in pT1 colorectal cancer (23/23, 100%). Tumor budding is an independent predictor of survival in stage II colorectal cancer (23/23, 100%). Tumor budding should be taken into account along with other clinicopathological features in a multidisciplinary setting (23/23, 100%). Tumor budding is counted on H&E (19/22, 86%). Intratumoral budding exists in colorectal cancer and has been shown to be related to lymph node metastasis (22/22, 100%). Tumor budding is assessed in one hotspot (in a field measuring 0.785 mm2) at the invasive front (22/22, 100%). A three-tier system should be used along with the budding count in order to facilitate risk stratification in colorectal cancer (23/23, 100%). Tumor budding and tumor grade are not the same (23/23, 100%). Tumor budding should be included in guidelines/protocols for colorectal cancer reporting (23/23, 100%). Members of the ITBCC were able to reach strong consensus on a single international, evidence-based method for tumor budding assessment and reporting. It is proposed that this method be incorporated into colorectal cancer guidelines/protocols and staging systems.

Image-based surrogate biomarkers for molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer.

MOTIVATION: Whole genome expression profiling of large cohorts of different types of cancer led to the identification of distinct molecular subcategories (subtypes) that may partially explain the observed inter-tumoral heterogeneity. This is also the case of colorectal cancer (CRC) where several such categorizations have been proposed. Despite recent developments, the problem of subtype definition and recognition remains open, one of the causes being the intrinsic heterogeneity of each tumor, which is difficult to estimate from gene expression profiles. However, one of the observations of these studies indicates that there may be links between the dominant tumor morphology characteristics and the molecular subtypes. Benefiting from a large collection of CRC samples, comprising both gene expression and histopathology images, we investigated the possibility of building image-based classifiers able to predict the molecular subtypes. We employed deep convolutional neural networks for extracting local descriptors which were then used for constructing a dictionary-based representation of each tumor sample. A set of support vector machine classifiers were trained to solve different binary decision problems, their combined outputs being used to predict one of the five molecular subtypes. RESULTS: A hierarchical decomposition of the multi-class problem was obtained with an overall accuracy of 0.84 (95%CI=0.79-0.88). The predictions from the image-based classifier showed significant prognostic value similar to their molecular counterparts. CONTACT: popovici@iba.muni.cz. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Source code used for the image analysis is freely available from https://github.com/higex/qpath . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

BRAF V600E Mutant Colorectal Cancer Subtypes Based on Gene Expression.

PURPOSE: Mutation of BRAF at the valine 600 residue occurs in approximately 10% of colorectal cancers, a group with particularly poor prognosis. The response of BRAF mutant colorectal cancer to recent targeted strategies such as anti-BRAF or combinations with MEK and EGFR inhibitors remains limited and highly heterogeneous within BRAF V600E cohorts. There is clearly an unmet need in understanding the biology of BRAF V600E colorectal cancers and potential subgroups within this population. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In the biggest yet reported cohort of 218 BRAF V600E with gene expression data, we performed unsupervised clustering using non-negative matrix factorization to identify gene expression-based subgroups and characterized pathway activation. RESULTS: We found strong support for a split into two distinct groups, called BM1 and BM2. These subtypes are independent of MSI status, PI3K mutation, gender, and sidedness. Pathway analyses revealed that BM1 is characterized by KRAS/AKT pathway activation, mTOR/4EBP deregulation, and EMT whereas BM2 displays important deregulation of the cell cycle. Proteomics data validated these observations as BM1 is characterized by high phosphorylation levels of AKT and 4EBP1, and BM2 patients display high CDK1 and low cyclin D1 levels. We provide a global assessment of gene expression motifs that differentiate BRAF V600E subtypes from other colorectal cancers. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that BRAF mutant patients should not be considered as having a unique biology and provide an in depth characterization of heterogeneous motifs that may be exploited for drug targeting. Clin Cancer Res; 23(1); 104-15. ©2016 AACR.

A Four-Gene Promoter Methylation Marker Panel Consisting of GREM1, NEURL, LAD1, and NEFH Predicts Survival of Clear Cell Renal Cell Cancer Patients.

Purpose: The currently used prognostic models for patients with nonmetastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) are based on clinicopathologic features and might be improved by adding molecular markers. Epigenetic alterations occur frequently in ccRCC and are promising biomarkers. The aim of this study is to identify prognostic promoter methylation markers for ccRCC.Experimental Design: We integrated data generated by massive parallel sequencing of methyl-binding domain enriched DNA and microarray-based RNA expression profiling of 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine-treated ccRCC cell lines to comprehensively characterize the ccRCC methylome. A selection of the identified methylation markers was evaluated in two independent series of primary ccRCC (n = 150 and n = 185) by methylation-specific PCR. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were used to estimate cause-specific survival. HRs and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models. To assess the predictive capacity and fit of models combining several methylation markers, HarrellC statistic and the Akaike Information Criterion were used.Results: We identified four methylation markers, that is, GREM1, NEURL, LAD1, and NEFH, that individually predicted prognosis of patients with ccRCC. The four markers combined were associated with poorer survival in two independent patient series (HR, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.02-13.00 and HR, 7.54; 95% CI, 2.68-21.19). These findings were confirmed in a third series of ccRCC cases from The Cancer Genome Atlas (HR, 3.60; 95% CI, 2.02-6.40).Conclusions: A four-gene promoter methylation marker panel consisting of GREM1, NEURL, LAD1, and NEFH predicts outcome of patients with ccRCC and might be used to improve current prognostic models. Clin Cancer Res; 23(8); 2006-18. ©2016 AACR.

Cell Line Derived 5-FU and Irinotecan Drug-Sensitivity Profiles Evaluated in Adjuvant Colon Cancer Trial Data.

PURPOSE: This study evaluates whether gene signatures for chemosensitivity for irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) derived from in vitro grown cancer cell lines can predict clinical sensitivity to these drugs. METHODS: To test if an irinotecan signature and a SN-38 signature could identify patients who benefitted from the addition of irinotecan to 5-FU, we used gene expression profiles based on cell lines and clinical tumor material. These profiles were applied to expression data obtained from pretreatment formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tumor tissue from 636 stage III colon cancer patients enrolled in the PETACC-3 prospective randomized clinical trial. A 5-FU profile developed similarly was assessed by comparing the PETACC-3 cohort with a cohort of 359 stage II colon cancer patients who underwent surgery but received no adjuvant therapy. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant association between the irinotecan or SN-38 profiles and benefit from irinotecan. The 5-FU sensitivity profile showed a statistically significant association with relapse free survival (RFS) (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.54 (0.41-0.71), p<1e-05) and overall survival (HR = 0.47 (0.34-0.63), p<1e-06) in the PETACC-3 subpopulation. The effect of the 5-FU profile remained significant in a multivariable Cox Proportional Hazards model, adjusting for several relevant clinicopathological parameters. No statistically significant effect of the 5-FU profile was observed in the untreated cohort of 359 patients (relapse free survival, p = 0.671). CONCLUSION: The irinotecan predictor had no predictive value. The 5-FU predictor was prognostic in stage III patients in PETACC-3 but not in stage II patients with no adjuvant therapy. This suggests a potential predictive ability of the 5-FU sensitivity profile to identify colon cancer patients who may benefit from 5-FU, however, any biomarker predicting benefit for adjuvant 5-FU must be rigorously evaluated in independent cohorts. Given differences between the two study cohorts, the present results should be further validated.

Communication skills in diagnostic pathology.

Communication is an essential element of good medical practice also in pathology. In contrast to technical or diagnostic skills, communication skills are not easy to define, teach, or assess. Rules almost do not exist. In this paper, which has a rather personal character and cannot be taken as a set of guidelines, important aspects of communication in pathology are explored. This includes what should be communicated to the pathologist on the pathology request form, communication between pathologists during internal (interpathologist) consultation, communication around frozen section diagnoses, modalities of communication of a final diagnosis, with whom and how critical and unexpected findings should be communicated, (in-)adequate routes of communication for pathology diagnoses, who will (or might) receive pathology reports, and what should be communicated and how in case of an error or a technical problem. An earlier more formal description of what the responsibilities are of a pathologist as communicator and as collaborator in a medical team is added in separate tables. The intention of the paper is to stimulate reflection and discussion rather than to formulate strict rules.

DNA Topoisomerase I Gene Copy Number and mRNA Expression Assessed as Predictive Biomarkers for Adjuvant Irinotecan in Stage II/III Colon Cancer.

PURPOSE: Prospective-retrospective assessment of the TOP1 gene copy number and TOP1 mRNA expression as predictive biomarkers for adjuvant irinotecan in stage II/III colon cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue microarrays were obtained from an adjuvant colon cancer trial (PETACC3) where patients were randomized to 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid with or without additional irinotecan. TOP1 copy number status was analyzed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) using a TOP1/CEN20 dual-probe combination. TOP1 mRNA data were available from previous analyses. RESULTS: TOP1 FISH and follow-up data were obtained from 534 patients. TOP1 gain was identified in 27% using a single-probe enumeration strategy (≥4 TOP1 signals per cell) and in 31% when defined by a TOP1/CEN20 ratio ≥ 1.5. The effect of additional irinotecan was not dependent on TOP1 FISH status.TOP1 mRNA data were available from 580 patients with stage III disease. Benefit of irinotecan was restricted to patients characterized by TOP1 mRNA expression ≥ third quartile (RFS: HRadjusted, 0.59;P= 0.09; OS: HRadjusted, 0.44;P= 0.03). The treatment by TOP1 mRNA interaction was not statistically significant, but in exploratory multivariable fractional polynomial interaction analysis, increasing TOP1 mRNA values appeared to be associated with increasing benefit of irinotecan. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to the TOP1 copy number, a trend was demonstrated for a predictive property of TOP1 mRNA expression. On the basis of TOP1 mRNA, it might be possible to identify a subgroup of patients where an irinotecan doublet is a clinically relevant option in the adjuvant setting of colon cancer.

Establishment and characterization of models of chemotherapy resistance in colorectal cancer: Towards a predictive signature of chemoresistance.

Current standard treatments for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) are based on combination regimens with one of the two chemotherapeutic drugs, irinotecan or oxaliplatin. However, drug resistance frequently limits the clinical efficacy of these therapies. In order to gain new insights into mechanisms associated with chemoresistance, and departing from three distinct CRC cell models, we generated a panel of human colorectal cancer cell lines with acquired resistance to either oxaliplatin or irinotecan. We characterized the resistant cell line variants with regards to their drug resistance profile and transcriptome, and matched our results with datasets generated from relevant clinical material to derive putative resistance biomarkers. We found that the chemoresistant cell line variants had distinctive irinotecan- or oxaliplatin-specific resistance profiles, with non-reciprocal cross-resistance. Furthermore, we could identify several new, as well as some previously described, drug resistance-associated genes for each resistant cell line variant. Each chemoresistant cell line variant acquired a unique set of changes that may represent distinct functional subtypes of chemotherapy resistance. In addition, and given the potential implications for selection of subsequent treatment, we also performed an exploratory analysis, in relevant patient cohorts, of the predictive value of each of the specific genes identified in our cellular models.

Test of four colon cancer risk-scores in formalin fixed paraffin embedded microarray gene expression data.

BACKGROUND: Prognosis prediction for resected primary colon cancer is based on the T-stage Node Metastasis (TNM) staging system. We investigated if four well-documented gene expression risk scores can improve patient stratification. METHODS: Microarray-based versions of risk-scores were applied to a large independent cohort of 688 stage II/III tumors from the PETACC-3 trial. Prognostic value for relapse-free survival (RFS), survival after relapse (SAR), and overall survival (OS) was assessed by regression analysis. To assess improvement over a reference, prognostic model was assessed with the area under curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. All statistical tests were two-sided, except the AUC increase. RESULTS: All four risk scores (RSs) showed a statistically significant association (single-test, P < .0167) with OS or RFS in univariate models, but with HRs below 1.38 per interquartile range. Three scores were predictors of shorter RFS, one of shorter SAR. Each RS could only marginally improve an RFS or OS model with the known factors T-stage, N-stage, and microsatellite instability (MSI) status (AUC gains < 0.025 units). The pairwise interscore discordance was never high (maximal Spearman correlation = 0.563) A combined score showed a trend to higher prognostic value and higher AUC increase for OS (HR = 1.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.44 to 2.10, P < .001, AUC from 0.6918 to 0.7321) and RFS (HR = 1.56, 95% CI = 1.33 to 1.84, P < .001, AUC from 0.6723 to 0.6945) than any single score. CONCLUSIONS: The four tested gene expression-based risk scores provide prognostic information but contribute only marginally to improving models based on established risk factors. A combination of the risk scores might provide more robust information. Predictors of RFS and SAR might need to be different.

Context-dependent interpretation of the prognostic value of BRAF and KRAS mutations in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The mutation status of the BRAF and KRAS genes has been proposed as prognostic biomarker in colorectal cancer. Of them, only the BRAF V600E mutation has been validated independently as prognostic for overall survival and survival after relapse, while the prognostic value of KRAS mutation is still unclear. We investigated the prognostic value of BRAF and KRAS mutations in various contexts defined by stratifications of the patient population. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of patients with stage II and III colorectal cancer from the PETACC-3 clinical trial (N = 1,423), by assessing the prognostic value of the BRAF and KRAS mutations in subpopulations defined by all possible combinations of the following clinico-pathological variables: T stage, N stage, tumor site, tumor grade and microsatellite instability status. In each such subpopulation, the prognostic value was assessed by log rank test for three endpoints: overall survival, relapse-free survival, and survival after relapse. The significance level was set to 0.01 for Bonferroni-adjusted p-values, and a second threshold for a trend towards statistical significance was set at 0.05 for unadjusted p-values. The significance of the interactions was tested by Wald test, with significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: In stage II-III colorectal cancer, BRAF mutation was confirmed a marker of poor survival only in subpopulations involving microsatellite stable and left-sided tumors, with higher effects than in the whole population. There was no evidence for prognostic value in microsatellite instable or right-sided tumor groups. We found that BRAF was also prognostic for relapse-free survival in some subpopulations. We found no evidence that KRAS mutations had prognostic value, although a trend was observed in some stratifications. We also show evidence of heterogeneity in survival of patients with BRAF V600E mutation. CONCLUSIONS: The BRAF mutation represents an additional risk factor only in some subpopulations of colorectal cancers, in others having limited prognostic value. However, in the subpopulations where it is prognostic, it represents a marker of much higher risk than previously considered. KRAS mutation status does not seem to represent a strong prognostic variable.