J. Milburn Jessup

American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion: Testing for KRAS Gene Mutations in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma to Predict Response to Anti–Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Monoclonal Antibody Therapy

PURPOSE An American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO), offers timely clinical direction to ASCOs oncologists following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This PCO addresses the utility of KRAS gene mutation testing in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) monoclonal antibody (MoAb) therapy with cetuximab or panitumumab (see Note). CLINICAL CONTEXT Recent results from phase II and III clinical trials demonstrate that patients with metastatic colorectal cancer benefit from therapy with monoclonal antibodies directed against the EGFR, when used either as monotherapy or combined with chemotherapy. Retrospective subset analyses of the data from these trials strongly suggest that patients who have KRAS mutations detected in codon 12 or 13 do not benefit from this therapy. RECENT DATA Five randomized controlled trials of cetuximab or panitumumab have evaluated outcomes for patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma in relation to KRAS mutational status as no mutation detected (wild type) or abnormal (mutated). Another five single-arm studies have retrospectively evaluated tumor response according to KRAS status. PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINION Based on systematic reviews of the relevant literature, all patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma who are candidates for anti-EGFR antibody therapy should have their tumor tested for KRAS mutations in a CLIA-accredited laboratory. If KRAS mutation in codon 12 or 13 is detected, then patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma should not receive anti-EGFR antibody therapy as part of their treatment. NOTE ASCOs provisional clinical opinions (PCOs) reflect expert consensus based on clinical evidence and literature available at the time they are written, and are intended to assist physicians in clinical decision-making and identify questions and settings for further research. Due to the rapid flow of scientific information in oncology, new evidence may have emerged since the time a PCO was submitted for publication. PCOs are not continually updated and may not reflect the most recent evidence. PCOs cannot account for individual variation among patients, and cannot be considered inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of other treatments. It is the responsibility of the treating physician or other health care provider, relying on independent experience and knowledge of the patient, to determine the best course of treatment for the patient. Accordingly, adherence to any PCO is voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding its application to be made by the physician in light of each patients individual circumstances. ASCO PCOs describe the use of procedures and therapies in clinical practice and cannot be assumed to apply to the use of these interventions in the context of clinical trials. ASCO assumes no responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of ASCOs PCOs, or for any errors or omissions.

Updated Analysis of SWOG-Directed Intergroup Study 0116: A Phase III Trial of Adjuvant Radiochemotherapy Versus Observation After Curative Gastric Cancer Resection

PURPOSE Surgical resection of gastric cancer has produced suboptimal survival despite multiple randomized trials that used postoperative chemotherapy or more aggressive surgical procedures. We performed a randomized phase III trial of postoperative radiochemotherapy in those at moderate risk of locoregional failure (LRF) following surgery. We originally reported results with 4-year median follow-up. This update, with a more than 10-year median follow-up, presents data on failure patterns and second malignancies and explores selected subset analyses. PATIENTS AND METHODS In all, 559 patients with primaries ≥ T3 and/or node-positive gastric cancer were randomly assigned to observation versus radiochemotherapy after R0 resection. Fluorouracil and leucovorin were administered before, during, and after radiotherapy. Radiotherapy was given to all LRF sites to a dose of 45 Gy. RESULTS Overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) data demonstrate continued strong benefit from postoperative radiochemotherapy. The hazard ratio (HR) for OS is 1.32 (95% CI, 1.10 to 1.60; P = .0046). The HR for RFS is 1.51 (95% CI, 1.25 to 1.83; P < .001). Adjuvant radiochemotherapy produced substantial reduction in both overall relapse and locoregional relapse. Second malignancies were observed in 21 patients with radiotherapy versus eight with observation (P = .21). Subset analyses show robust treatment benefit in most subsets, with the exception of patients with diffuse histology who exhibited minimal nonsignificant treatment effect. CONCLUSION Intergroup 0116 (INT-0116) demonstrates strong persistent benefit from adjuvant radiochemotherapy. Toxicities, including second malignancies, appear acceptable, given the magnitude of RFS and OS improvement. LRF reduction may account for the majority of overall relapse reduction. Adjuvant radiochemotherapy remains a rational standard therapy for curatively resected gastric cancer with primaries T3 or greater and/or positive nodes.

Guidelines for the Development and Incorporation of Biomarker Studies in Early Clinical Trials of Novel Agents

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Investigational Drug Steering Committee (IDSC) charged the Biomarker Task Force to develop recommendations to improve the decisions about incorporation of biomarker studies in early investigational drug trials. The Task Force members reviewed biomarker trials, the peer-reviewed literature, NCI and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance documents, and conducted a survey of investigators to determine practices and challenges to executing biomarker studies in clinical trials of new drugs in early development. This document provides standard definitions and categories of biomarkers, and lists recommendations to sponsors and investigators for biomarker incorporation into such trials. Our recommendations for sponsors focus on the identification and prioritization of biomarkers and assays, the coordination of activities for the development and use of assays, and for operational activities. We also provide recommendations for investigators developing clinical trials with biomarker studies for scientific rationale, assay criteria, trial design, and analysis. The incorporation of biomarker studies into early drug trials is complex. Thus the decision to proceed with studies of biomarkers should be based on balancing the strength of science, assay robustness, feasibility, and resources with the burden of proper sample collection on the patient and potential impact of the results on drug development. The Task Force provides these guidelines in the hopes that improvements in biomarker studies will enhance the efficiency of investigational drug development. Clin Cancer Res; 16(6); 1745–55

Evidence of Clinical Utility: An Unmet Need in Molecular Diagnostics for Patients with Cancer

This article defines and describes best practices for the academic and business community to generate evidence of clinical utility for cancer molecular diagnostic assays. Beyond analytical and clinical validation, successful demonstration of clinical utility involves developing sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a diagnostic test results in an improvement in patient outcomes. This discussion is complementary to theoretical frameworks described in previously published guidance and literature reports by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Institute of Medicine, and Center for Medical Technology Policy, among others. These reports are comprehensive and specifically clarify appropriate clinical use, adoption, and payer reimbursement for assay manufacturers, as well as Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified laboratories, including those that develop assays (laboratory developed tests). Practical criteria and steps for establishing clinical utility are crucial to subsequent decisions for reimbursement without which high-performing molecular diagnostics will have limited availability to patients with cancer and fail to translate scientific advances into high-quality and cost-effective cancer care. See all articles in this CCR Focus section, “The Precision Medicine Conundrum: Approaches to Companion Diagnostic Co-development.” Clin Cancer Res; 20(6); 1428–44. ©2014 AACR.

Leveling the Playing Field: Bringing Development of Biomarkers and Molecular Diagnostics up to the Standards for Drug Development

Molecular diagnostics are becoming increasingly important in clinical research to stratify or identify molecularly profiled patient cohorts for targeted therapies, to modify the dose of a therapeutic, and to assess early response to therapy or monitor patients. Molecular diagnostics can also be used to identify the pharmacogenetic risk of adverse drug reactions. The articles in this CCR Focus section on molecular diagnosis describe the development and use of markers to guide medical decisions regarding cancer patients. They define sources of preanalytic variability that need to be minimized, as well as the regulatory and financial challenges involved in developing diagnostics and integrating them into clinical practice. They also outline a National Cancer Institute program to assist diagnostic development. Molecular diagnostic clinical tests require rigor in their development and clinical validation, with sensitivity, specificity, and validity comparable to those required for the development of therapeutics. These diagnostics must be offered at a realistic cost that reflects both their clinical value and the costs associated with their development. When genome-sequencing technologies move into the clinic, they must be integrated with and traceable to current technology because they may identify more efficient and accurate approaches to drug development. In addition, regulators may define progressive drug approval for companion diagnostics that requires further evidence regarding efficacy and safety before full approval can be achieved. One way to accomplish this is to emphasize phase IV postmarketing, hypothesis-driven clinical trials with biological characterization that would permit an accurate definition of the association of low-prevalence gene alterations with toxicity or response in large cohorts. Clin Cancer Res; 18(6); 1515–23. ©2012 AACR.

Intralesional treatment of recurrent metastatic cutaneous malignant melanoma. A randomized prospective study of intralesional bacillus calmette‐guerin versus intralesional dinitrochlorobenzene

Eighteen patients with multiple recurrences of malignant melanoma without evident distant spread were randomly assigned to treatment with either intralesional Bacillus Calmette‐Guerin (BCG) or intralesional dinitrochlorobenzene (DNCB). Both agents were able to destroy approximately 90% of the injected intradermal nodules. Intradermal disease was more easily obliterated than subcutaneous disease with intralesional treatment with either agent, and local control of satellitosis with elimination of all clinically evident tumor was achieved in the patients who had intradermal without subcutaneous satellitosis, regardless of whether the patient was receiving BCG or DNCB. The clinical courses of the treated patients were essentially the same. Although PHA reactivity was depressed, the patients in both groups were responsive to recall and melanoma skin test antigens, demonstrated leukocyte migration inhibition with melanoma antigen and were generally within normal limits when assayed for 29° C E rosettes. Our study demonstrated a dramatic difference in toxicity between the two intralesional agents without a similar difference in therapeutic efficacy or immune testing.

Bridging the Gap: Moving Predictive and Prognostic Assays from Research to Clinical Use

The development of clinically useful molecular diagnostics requires validation of clinical assay performance and achievement of clinical qualification in clinical trials. As discussed elsewhere in this Focus section on molecular diagnostics, validation of assay performance must be rigorous, especially when the assay will be used to guide treatment decisions. Here we review some of the problems associated with assay development, especially for academic investigators. These include lack of expertise and resources for analytical validation, lack of experience in designing projects for a specific clinical use, lack of specimens from appropriate patient groups, and lack of access to Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified laboratories. In addition, financial support for assay validation has lagged behind financial support for marker discovery or drug development, even though the molecular diagnostic may be considered necessary for the successful use of the companion therapeutic. The National Cancer Institute supports a large number of clinical trials and a significant effort in drug development. In order to address some of these barriers for predictive and prognostic assays that will be used in clinical trials to select patients for a particular treatment, stratify patients into molecularly defined subgroups, or choose between treatments for molecularly defined tumors, the National Cancer Institute has begun a pilot program designed to lessen barriers to the development of validated prognostic and predictive assays. Clin Cancer Res; 18(6); 1531–9. ©2012 AACR.

Protocol for the Examination of Specimens from Patients with Neuroendocrine Tumors (Carcinoid Tumors) of the Appendix

The College of American Pathologists offers these protocols to assist pathologists in providing clinically useful and relevant information when reporting results of surgical specimen examinations. The College regards the reporting elements in the ‘‘Surgical Pathology Cancer Case Summary (Checklist)’’ portion of the protocols as essential elements of the pathology report. However, the manner in which these elements are reported is at the discretion of each specific pathologist, taking into account clinician preferences, institutional policies, and individual practice. The College developed these protocols as an educational tool to assist pathologists in the useful reporting of relevant information. It did not issue the protocols for use in litigation, reimbursement, or other contexts. Nevertheless, the College recognizes that the protocols might be used by hospitals, attorneys, payers, and others. Indeed, effective January 1, 2004, the Commission on Cancer of the American College of Surgeons mandated the use of the checklist elements of the protocols as part of its Cancer Program Standards for Approved Cancer Programs. Therefore, it becomes even more important for pathologists to familiarize themselves with these documents. At the same time, the College cautions that use of the protocols other than for their intended educational purpose may involve additional considerations that are beyond the scope of these documents.

Protocol for the Examination of Specimens From Patients With Neuroendocrine Tumors (Carcinoid Tumors) of the Small Intestine and Ampulla

The College of American Pathologists offers these protocols to assist pathologists in providing clinically useful and relevant information when reporting results of surgical specimen examinations. The College regards the reporting elements in the ‘‘Surgical Pathology Cancer Case Summary (Checklist)’’ portion of the protocols as essential elements of the pathology report. However, the manner in which these elements are reported is at the discretion of each specific pathologist, taking into account clinician preferences, institutional policies, and individual practice. The College developed these protocols as an educational tool to assist pathologists in the useful reporting of relevant information. It did not issue the protocols for use in litigation, reimbursement, or other contexts. Nevertheless, the College recognizes that the protocols might be used by hospitals, attorneys, payers, and others. Indeed, effective January 1, 2004, the Commission on Cancer of the American College of Surgeons mandated the use of the checklist elements of the protocols as part of its Cancer Program Standards for Approved Cancer Programs. Therefore, it becomes even more important for pathologists to familiarize themselves with these documents. At the same time, the College cautions that use of the protocols other than for their intended educational purpose may involve additional considerations that are beyond the scope of these documents.

Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with neuroendocrine tumors (Carcinoid Tumors) of the colon and rectum

The College of American Pathologists offers these protocols to assist pathologists in providing clinically useful and relevant information when reporting results of surgical specimen examinations. The College regards the reporting elements in the ‘‘Surgical Pathology Cancer Case Summary (Checklist)’’ portion of the protocols as essential elements of the pathology report. However, the manner in which these elements are reported is at the discretion of each specific pathologist, taking into account clinician preferences, institutional policies, and individual practice. The College developed these protocols as an educational tool to assist pathologists in the useful reporting of relevant information. It did not issue the protocols for use in litigation, reimbursement, or other contexts. Nevertheless, the College recognizes that the protocols might be used by hospitals, attorneys, payers, and others. Indeed, effective January 1, 2004, the Commission on Cancer of the American College of Surgeons mandated the use of the checklist elements of the protocols as part of its Cancer Program Standards for Approved Cancer Programs. Therefore, it becomes even more important for pathologists to familiarize themselves with these documents. At the same time, the College cautions that use of the protocols other than for their intended educational purpose may involve additional considerations that are beyond the scope of these documents.