Fortunato Ciardiello

EGFR Antagonists in Cancer Treatment

Functional activation of growth factors and receptors of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) family occurs in most epithelial-cell cancers, rendering EGFR a target for cancer treatment. This article discusses the mechanisms of action of EGFR inhibitors, their anticancer activity, and clinical issues concerning their use in the treatment of patients with cancer.

Effects of KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations on the efficacy of cetuximab plus chemotherapy in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective consortium analysis

BACKGROUND Following the discovery that mutant KRAS is associated with resistance to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies, the tumours of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer are now profiled for seven KRAS mutations before receiving cetuximab or panitumumab. However, most patients with KRAS wild-type tumours still do not respond. We studied the effect of other downstream mutations on the efficacy of cetuximab in, to our knowledge, the largest cohort to date of patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab plus chemotherapy in the pre-KRAS selection era. METHODS 1022 tumour DNA samples (73 from fresh-frozen and 949 from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue) from patients treated with cetuximab between 2001 and 2008 were gathered from 11 centres in seven European countries. 773 primary tumour samples had sufficient quality DNA and were included in mutation frequency analyses; mass spectrometry genotyping of tumour samples for KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA was done centrally. We analysed objective response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival in molecularly defined subgroups of the 649 chemotherapy-refractory patients treated with cetuximab plus chemotherapy. FINDINGS 40.0% (299/747) of the tumours harboured a KRAS mutation, 14.5% (108/743) harboured a PIK3CA mutation (of which 68.5% [74/108] were located in exon 9 and 20.4% [22/108] in exon 20), 4.7% (36/761) harboured a BRAF mutation, and 2.6% (17/644) harboured an NRAS mutation. KRAS mutants did not derive benefit compared with wild types, with a response rate of 6.7% (17/253) versus 35.8% (126/352; odds ratio [OR] 0.13, 95% CI 0.07-0.22; p<0.0001), a median PFS of 12 weeks versus 24 weeks (hazard ratio [HR] 1.98, 1.66-2.36; p<0.0001), and a median overall survival of 32 weeks versus 50 weeks (1.75, 1.47-2.09; p<0.0001). In KRAS wild types, carriers of BRAF and NRAS mutations had a significantly lower response rate than did BRAF and NRAS wild types, with a response rate of 8.3% (2/24) in carriers of BRAF mutations versus 38.0% in BRAF wild types (124/326; OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02-0.51; p=0.0012); and 7.7% (1/13) in carriers of NRAS mutations versus 38.1% in NRAS wild types (110/289; OR 0.14, 0.007-0.70; p=0.013). PIK3CA exon 9 mutations had no effect, whereas exon 20 mutations were associated with a worse outcome compared with wild types, with a response rate of 0.0% (0/9) versus 36.8% (121/329; OR 0.00, 0.00-0.89; p=0.029), a median PFS of 11.5 weeks versus 24 weeks (HR 2.52, 1.33-4.78; p=0.013), and a median overall survival of 34 weeks versus 51 weeks (3.29, 1.60-6.74; p=0.0057). Multivariate analysis and conditional inference trees confirmed that, if KRAS is not mutated, assessing BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA exon 20 mutations (in that order) gives additional information about outcome. Objective response rates in our series were 24.4% in the unselected population, 36.3% in the KRAS wild-type selected population, and 41.2% in the KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA exon 20 wild-type population. INTERPRETATION While confirming the negative effect of KRAS mutations on outcome after cetuximab, we show that BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA exon 20 mutations are significantly associated with a low response rate. Objective response rates could be improved by additional genotyping of BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA exon 20 mutations in a KRAS wild-type population. FUNDING Belgian Federation against Cancer (Stichting tegen Kanker).

Cetuximab Plus Irinotecan, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin As First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Updated Analysis of Overall Survival According to Tumor KRAS and BRAF Mutation Status

PURPOSE The addition of cetuximab to irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRI) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was shown to reduce the risk of disease progression and increase the chance of response in patients with KRAS wild-type disease. An updated survival analysis, including additional patients analyzed for tumor mutation status, was undertaken. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive FOLFIRI with or without cetuximab. DNA was extracted from additional slide-mounted tumor samples previously used to assess epidermal growth factor receptor expression. Clinical outcome according to the tumor mutation status of KRAS and BRAF was assessed in the expanded patient series. RESULTS The ascertainment rate of patients analyzed for tumor KRAS status was increased from 45% to 89%, with mutations detected in 37% of tumors. The addition of cetuximab to FOLFIRI in patients with KRAS wild-type disease resulted in significant improvements in overall survival (median, 23.5 v 20.0 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.796; P = .0093), progression-free survival (median, 9.9 v 8.4 months; HR, 0.696; P = .0012), and response (rate 57.3% v 39.7%; odds ratio, 2.069; P < .001) compared with FOLFIRI alone. Significant interactions between KRAS status and treatment effect were noted for all key efficacy end points. KRAS mutation status was confirmed as a powerful predictive biomarker for the efficacy of cetuximab plus FOLFIRI. BRAF tumor mutation was a strong indicator of poor prognosis. CONCLUSION The addition of cetuximab to FOLFIRI as first-line therapy improves survival in patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC. BRAF tumor mutation is an indicator of poor prognosis.

Chronic inflammation and oxidative stress in human carcinogenesis

A wide array of chronic inflammatory conditions predispose susceptible cells to neoplastic transformation. In general, the longer the inflammation persists, the higher the risk of cancer. A mutated cell is a sine qua non for carcinogenesis. Inflammatory processes may induce DNA mutations in cells via oxidative/nitrosative stress. This condition occurs when the generation of free radicals and active intermediates in a system exceeds the systems ability to neutralize and eliminate them. Inflammatory cells and cancer cells themselves produce free radicals and soluble mediators such as metabolites of arachidonic acid, cytokines and chemokines, which act by further producing reactive species. These, in turn, strongly recruit inflammatory cells in a vicious circle. Reactive intermediates of oxygen and nitrogen may directly oxidize DNA, or may interfere with mechanisms of DNA repair. These reactive substances may also rapidly react with proteins, carbohydrates and lipids, and the derivative products may induce a high perturbation in the intracellular and intercellular homeostasis, until DNA mutation. The main substances that link inflammation to cancer via oxidative/nitrosative stress are prostaglandins and cytokines. The effectors are represented by an imbalance between pro‐oxidant and antioxidant enzyme activities (lipoxygenase, cyclooxygenase and phospholipid hydroperoxide glutathione‐peroxidase), hydroperoxides and lipoperoxides, aldehydes and peroxinitrite. This review focalizes some of these intricate events by discussing the relationships occurring among oxidative/nitrosative/metabolic stress, inflammation and cancer.

Atezolizumab versus docetaxel in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (OAK): a phase 3, open-label, multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Atezolizumab is a humanised antiprogrammed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody that inhibits PD-L1 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) and PD-L1 and B7-1 interactions, reinvigorating anticancer immunity. We assessed its efficacy and safety versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial (OAK) in 194 academic or community oncology centres in 31 countries. We enrolled patients who had squamous or non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, were 18 years or older, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients had received one to two previous cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens (one or more platinum based combination therapies) for stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients with a history of autoimmune disease and those who had received previous treatments with docetaxel, CD137 agonists, anti-CTLA4, or therapies targeting the PD-L1 and PD-1 pathway were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenously receive either atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks by permuted block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive voice or web response system. Coprimary endpoints were overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-expression population TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 (≥1% PD-L1 on tumour cells or tumour-infiltrating immune cells). The primary efficacy analysis was done in the first 850 of 1225 enrolled patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02008227. FINDINGS Between March 11, 2014, and April 29, 2015, 1225 patients were recruited. In the primary population, 425 patients were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab and 425 patients were assigned to receive docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer with atezolizumab in the ITT and PD-L1-expression populations. In the ITT population, overall survival was improved with atezolizumab compared with docetaxel (median overall survival was 13·8 months [95% CI 11·8-15·7] vs 9·6 months [8·6-11·2]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·62-0·87], p=0·0003). Overall survival in the TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 population was improved with atezolizumab (n=241) compared with docetaxel (n=222; median overall survival was 15·7 months [95% CI 12·6-18·0] with atezolizumab vs 10·3 months [8·8-12·0] with docetaxel; HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·58-0·93]; p=0·0102). Patients in the PD-L1 low or undetectable subgroup (TC0 and IC0) also had improved survival with atezolizumab (median overall survival 12·6 months vs 8·9 months; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·59-0·96]). Overall survival improvement was similar in patients with squamous (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·54-0·98]; n=112 in the atezolizumab group and n=110 in the docetaxel group) or non-squamous (0·73 [0·60-0·89]; n=313 and n=315) histology. Fewer patients had treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events with atezolizumab (90 [15%] of 609 patients) versus docetaxel (247 [43%] of 578 patients). One treatment-related death from a respiratory tract infection was reported in the docetaxel group. INTERPRETATION To our knowledge, OAK is the first randomised phase 3 study to report results of a PD-L1-targeted therapy, with atezolizumab treatment resulting in a clinically relevant improvement of overall survival versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer, regardless of PD-L1 expression or histology, with a favourable safety profile. FUNDING F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech, Inc.

KRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA, and PTEN mutations: implications for targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer

The discovery of mutant KRAS as a predictor of resistance to epidermal growth-factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies brought a major change in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. This seminal finding also highlighted our sparse knowledge about key signalling pathways in colorectal tumours. Drugs that inhibit oncogenic alterations such as phospho-MAP2K (also called MEK), phospho-AKT, and mutant B-RAF seem promising as single treatment or when given with EGFR inhibitors. However, our understanding of the precise role these potential drug targets have in colorectal tumours, and the oncogenic dependence that tumours might have on these components, has not progressed at the same rate. As a result, patient selection and prediction of treatment effects remain problematic. We review the role of mutations in genes other than KRAS on the efficacy of anti-EGFR therapy, and discuss strategies to target these oncogenic alterations alone or in combination with receptor tyrosine-kinase inhibition.

Addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy as first-line treatment for KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: pooled analysis of the CRYSTAL and OPUS randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND The CRYSTAL and OPUS randomised clinical trials demonstrated that adding cetuximab to first-line chemotherapy in patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) significantly improved treatment outcome compared with chemotherapy alone. The objective of this pooled analysis was to further investigate these findings in patients with KRAS wild-type tumours using extended survival data and following an enhancement in the ascertainment rate of KRAS and BRAF tumour mutation status from these studies. METHODS Pooled individual patient data from each study were analysed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and best overall response rate (ORR) in patients evaluable for KRAS and BRAF mutation status. Treatment arms were compared according to mutation status using log-rank and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests. RESULTS In 845 patients with KRAS wild-type tumours adding cetuximab to chemotherapy led to a significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81; p=0.0062), PFS (HR 0.66; p<0.001) and ORR (odds ratio 2.16; p<0.0001). BRAF mutations were detected in 70/800 evaluable tumours. No significant differences were found in outcome between the treatment groups in these patients. Prognosis was worse in each treatment arm for patients with BRAF tumour mutations compared with those with BRAF wild-type tumours. CONCLUSION Analysis of pooled data from the CRYSTAL and OPUS studies confirms the consistency of the benefit obtained across all efficacy end-points from adding cetuximab to first-line chemotherapy in patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC. BRAF mutation does not appear to be a predictive biomarker in this setting, but is a marker of poor prognosis.

ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in Western countries. Over the last 20 years, and the last decade in particular, the clinical outcome for patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has improved greatly due not only to an increase in the number of patients being referred for and undergoing surgical resection of their localised metastatic disease but also to a more strategic approach to the delivery of systemic therapy and an expansion in the use of ablative techniques. This reflects the increase in the number of patients that are being managed within a multidisciplinary team environment and specialist cancer centres, and the emergence over the same time period not only of improved imaging techniques but also prognostic and predictive molecular markers. Treatment decisions for patients with mCRC must be evidence-based. Thus, these ESMO consensus guidelines have been developed based on the current available evidence to provide a series of evidence-based recommendations to assist in the treatment and management of patients with mCRC in this rapidly evolving treatment setting.

Phase II Trial of Cetuximab in Combination With Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin in the First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE This phase II study investigated the efficacy and safety of cetuximab combined with standard oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin [FOLFOX-4]) in the first-line treatment of epidermal growth factor receptor-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS The activity of cetuximab plus oxaliplatin was investigated in colon cancer cell lines and xenograft models. In the clinical study, patients with mCRC received on day 1 of a 14 day cycle, cetuximab (initial dose 400 mg/m(2) during week 1, then 250 mg/m(2) weekly) followed by FOLFOX-4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) on day 1; leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2, followed by fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus then 600 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion during 22 hours on days 1 and 2). RESULTS The preclinical studies confirmed the supra-additive activity of cetuximab to oxaliplatin. In the clinical study, 43 patients were included, with a median age of 65 years (range, 43 to 78 years). Response rates (RRs) were 79% (unconfirmed) and 72% (confirmed), with 95% disease control. Median progression-free survival (mPFS) and median duration of response were 12.3 and 10.8 months, respectively. Ten patients (23%) underwent resection with curative intent of previously unresectable metastases. After a median follow-up of 30.5 months, median overall survival (mOS) was 30.0 months. Cetuximab did not increase the characteristic toxicity of FOLFOX-4 and was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION Cetuximab in combination with FOLFOX-4 is a highly active first-line treatment for mCRC, showing encouraging RR, mPFS, and mOS values. The treatment resulted in a high resectability rate, which could potentially result in an improved cure rate. This combination is under phase III development.

A Meta-Analysis on the Interaction between HER-2 Expression and Response to Endocrine Treatment in Advanced Breast Cancer

Purpose: Experimental data suggest a complex cross-talk between HER-2 and estrogen receptor, and it has been hypothesized that HER-2-positive tumors may be less responsive to certain endocrine treatments. Clinical data, however, have been conflicting. We have conducted a meta-analysis on the interaction between the response to endocrine treatment and the overexpression of HER-2 in metastatic breast cancer. Experimental Design: Studies have been identified by searching the Medline, Embase, and American Society of Clinical Oncology abstract databases. Selection criteria were (a) metastatic breast cancer, (b) endocrine therapy (any line of treatment), and (c) evaluation of HER-2 expression (any method). For each study, the relative risk for treatment failure for HER-2-positive over HER-2-negative patients with 95% confidence interval was calculated as an estimate of the predictive effect of HER-2. Pooled estimates of the relative risk were computed by the Mantel-Haenszel method. Results: Twelve studies (n = 2,379 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. The overall relative risk was 1.42 (95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.52; P < 0.00001; test for heterogeneity = 0.380). For studies involving tamoxifen, the pooled relative risk was 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.20-1.48; P < 0.00001; test for heterogeneity = 0.97); for studies involving other hormonal drugs, a pooled relative risk of 1.49 (95% confidence interval, 1.36-1.64; P < 0.00001; test for heterogeneity = 0.08) was estimated. A second meta-analysis limited to tumors that were either estrogen receptor positive, estrogen receptor unknown, or estrogen receptor negative/progesterone receptor positive yielded comparable results. Conclusions: HER-2-positive metastatic breast cancer is less responsive to any type of endocrine treatment. This effect holds in the subgroup of patients with positive or unknown steroid receptors.