Susan Richman

KRAS and BRAF Mutations in Advanced Colorectal Cancer Are Associated With Poor Prognosis but Do Not Preclude Benefit From Oxaliplatin or Irinotecan: Results From the MRC FOCUS Trial

PURPOSE Activating mutation of the KRAS oncogene is an established predictive biomarker for resistance to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) therapies in advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC). We wanted to determine whether KRAS and/or BRAF mutation is also a predictive biomarker for other aCRC therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS The Medical Research Council Fluorouracil, Oxaliplatin and Irinotecan: Use and Sequencing (MRC FOCUS) trial compared treatment sequences including first-line fluorouracil (FU), FU/irinotecan or FU/oxaliplatin in aCRC. Tumor blocks were obtained from 711 consenting patients. DNA was extracted and KRAS codons 12, 13, and 61 and BRAF codon 600 were assessed by pyrosequencing. Mutation (mut) status was assessed first as a prognostic factor and then as a predictive biomarker for the benefit of adding irinotecan or oxaliplatin to FU. The association of BRAF-mut with loss of MLH1 was assessed by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS Three hundred eight (43.3%) of 711 patients had KRAS-mut and 56 (7.9%) of 711 had BRAF-mut. Mutation of KRAS, BRAF, or both was present in 360 (50.6%) of 711 patients. Mutation in either KRAS or BRAF was a poor prognostic factor for overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR], 1.40; 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.65; P < .0001) but had minimal impact on progression-free survival (PFS; HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.36; P = .05). Mutation status did not affect the impact of irinotecan or oxaliplatin on PFS or OS. BRAF-mut was weakly associated with loss of MLH1 staining (P = .012). CONCLUSION KRAS/BRAF mutation is associated with poor prognosis but is not a predictive biomarker for irinotecan or oxaliplatin. There is no evidence that patients with KRAS/BRAF mutated tumors are less likely to benefit from these standard chemotherapy agents.

Value of Mismatch Repair, KRAS, and BRAF Mutations in Predicting Recurrence and Benefits From Chemotherapy in Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE It is uncertain whether modest benefits from adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colorectal cancer justify the toxicity, cost, and inconvenience. We investigated the usefulness of defective mismatch repair (dMMR), BRAF, and KRAS mutations in predicting tumor recurrence and sensitivity to chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Immunohistochemistry for dMMR and pyrosequencing for KRAS/BRAF were performed for 1,913 patients randomly assigned between fluorouracil and folinic acid chemotherapy and no chemotherapy in the Quick and Simple and Reliable (QUASAR) trial. RESULTS Twenty-six percent of 695 right-sided colon, 3% of 685 left-sided colon, and 1% of 407 rectal tumors were dMMR. Similarly, 17% of right colon, 2% of left colon, and 2% of rectal tumors were BRAF mutant. KRAS mutant tumors were more evenly distributed: 40% right colon, 28% left colon, and 36% rectal tumors. Recurrence rate for dMMR tumors was half that for MMR-proficient tumors (11% [25 of 218] v 26% [438 of 1,695] recurred; risk ratio [RR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.70; P < .001). Risk of recurrence was also significantly higher for KRAS mutant than KRAS wild-type tumors (28% [150 of 542] v 21% [219 of 1,041]; RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.74; P = .002) but did not differ significantly between BRAF mutant and wild-type tumors (P = .36). No marker predicted benefit from chemotherapy with efficacy not differing significantly by MMR, KRAS, or BRAF status. The prognostic value of MMR and KRAS was similar in the presence and absence of chemotherapy. CONCLUSION MMR assays identify patients with a low risk of recurrence. KRAS mutational analysis provides useful additional risk stratification to guide use of chemotherapy.

Predictive Biomarkers of Chemotherapy Efficacy in Colorectal Cancer: Results From the UK MRC FOCUS Trial

PURPOSE Candidate predictive biomarkers for irinotecan and oxaliplatin were assessed in 1,628 patients in Fluorouracil, Oxaliplatin, CPT-11: Use and Sequencing (FOCUS), a large randomized trial of fluorouracil alone compared with fluorouracil and irinotecan and compared with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin in advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS The candidate biomarkers were: tumor immunohistochemistry for MLH1/MSH2, p53, topoisomerase-1 (Topo1), excision repair cross-complementing gene 1 (ERCC1), O-6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltranserase (MGMT), and cyclooxygenase 2 (COX2); germline DNA polymorphisms in GSTP1, ABCB1, XRCC1, ERCC2, and UGT1A1. These were screened in more than 750 patients for interaction with benefit from irinotecan or oxaliplatin; two markers (Topo1 and MLH1/MSH2) met criteria to be taken forward for analysis in the full population. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival. RESULTS One thousand three hundred thirteen patients (81%) were assessable for Topo1 immunohistochemistry (low, < 10%; moderate, 10% to 50%; or high, > 50% tumor nuclei). In patients with low Topo1, PFS was not improved by the addition of either irinotecan (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.22) or oxaliplatin (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.07); conversely, patients with moderate/high Topo1 benefited from the addition of either drug (HR, 0.48 to 0.70 in all categories; interaction P = .005; overall, P = .001 for irinotecan; P = .05 for oxaliplatin). High Topo1 was associated with a major overall survival benefit with first-line combination chemotherapy (HR, 0.60; median benefit, 5.3 months); patients with moderate or low Topo1 did not benefit (HR, 0.92 and 1.09, respectively; interaction P = .005). MLH1/MSH2 did not show significant interaction with treatment, although the low rate of loss (4.4%) limits the power of the study for this biomarker. CONCLUSION Topo1 immunohistochemistry identified subpopulations that did or did not benefit from irinotecan, and possibly also from oxaliplatin. If verified independently, this information will contribute to the individualization of treatment for colorectal cancer.

Panitumumab and irinotecan versus irinotecan alone for patients with KRAS wild-type, fluorouracil-resistant advanced colorectal cancer (PICCOLO): a prospectively stratified randomised trial

Summary Background Therapeutic antibodies targeting EGFR have activity in advanced colorectal cancer, but results from clinical trials are inconsistent and the population in which most benefit is derived is uncertain. Our aim was to assess the addition of panitumumab to irinotecan in pretreated advanced colorectal cancer. Methods In this open-label, randomised trial, we enrolled patients who had advanced colorectal cancer progressing after fluoropyrimidine treatment with or without oxaliplatin from 60 centres in the UK. From December, 2006 until June, 2008, molecularly unselected patients were recruited to a three-arm design including irinotecan (control), irinotecan plus ciclosporin, and irinotecan plus panitumumab (IrPan) groups. From June 10, 2008, in response to new data, the trial was amended to a prospectively stratified design, restricting panitumumab randomisation to patients with KRAS wild-type tumours; the results of the comparison between the irinotcan and IrPan groups are reported here. We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence (stratified by previous EGFR targeted therapy and then minimised by centre, WHO performance status, previous oxaliplatin, previous bevacizumab, previous dose modifications, and best previous response) to randomly allocate patients to either irinotecan or IrPan. Patients in both groups received 350 mg/m2 intravenous irinotecan every 3 weeks (300 mg/m2 if aged ≥70 years or a performance status of 2); patients in the IrPan group also received intravenous panitumumab 9 mg/kg every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival in KRAS wild-type patients who had not received previous EGFR targeted therapy, analysed by intention to treat. Tumour DNA was pyrosequenced for KRASc.146, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations, and predefined molecular subgroups were analysed for interaction with the effect of panitumumab. This study is registered, number ISRCTN93248876. Results Between Dec 4, 2006, and Aug 31, 2010, 1198 patients were enrolled, of whom 460 were included in the primary population of patients with KRASc.12–13,61 wild-type tumours and no previous EGFR targeted therapy. 230 patients were randomly allocated to irinotecan and 230 to IrPan. There was no difference in overall survival between groups (HR 1·01, 95% CI 0·83–1·23; p=0·91), but individuals in the IrPan group had longer progression-free survival (0·78, 0·64–0·95; p=0·015) and a greater number of responses (79 [34%] patients vs 27 [12%]; p<0·0001) than did individuals in the irinotecan group. Grade 3 or worse diarrhoea (64 [29%] of 219 patients vs 39 [18%] of 218 patients), skin toxicity (41 [19%] vs none), lethargy (45 [21]% vs 24 [11%]), infection (42 [19%] vs 22 [10%]) and haematological toxicity (48 [22%] vs 27 [12%]) were reported more commonly in the IrPan group than in the irinotecan group. We recorded five treatment-related deaths, two in the IrPan group and three in the irinotecan group. Interpretation Adding panitumumab to irinotecan did not improve the overall survival of patients with wild-type KRAS tumours. Further refinement of molecular selection is needed for substantial benefits to be derived from EGFR targeting agents. Funding Cancer Research UK, Amgen Inc.

Association of Molecular Markers With Toxicity Outcomes in a Randomized Trial of Chemotherapy for Advanced Colorectal Cancer: The FOCUS Trial

PURPOSE Predicting efficacy and toxicity could potentially allow individualization of cancer therapy. We investigated putative pharmacogenetic markers of chemotherapy toxicity in a large randomized trial. PATIENTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to different sequences of chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer. First-line therapy was fluorouracil (FU), irinotecan/FU (IrFU) or oxaliplatin/FU (OxFU). Patients allocated first-line FU had planned second-line irinotecan alone, IrFU, or OxFU. The primary toxicity outcome measure was toxicity-induced delay or dose reduction; the secondary outcome was Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events grade >or= 3 toxicity. DNA was analyzed in 1,188 patients; 1,036 were assessable for the primary outcome, including 688 treated with FU, 270 with IrFU (first or second line), 280 with OxFU (first or second line), 184 with irinotecan alone, and 454 with any irinotecan-containing regimen. Ten polymorphisms were assessed: thymidylate synthase-enhancer region (TYMS-ER), thymidylate synthase 1494 (TYMS-1494), dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD), methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR), mutL homolog 1 (MLH1), UDP glucuronyltransferase (UGT1A1), ATP-binding cassette group B gene 1 (ABCB1), x-ray cross-complementing group 1 (XRCC1), glutathione-S-transferase P1 (GSTP1), and excision repair cross-complementing gene 2 (ERCC2). Results Using the primary outcome measure, no polymorphism was significantly associated (P < .01) with the toxicity of any regimen or with the difference in toxicity of IrFU or OxFU versus FU alone. Trends (of doubtful significance) were seen for associations of XRCC1, ERCC2, and GSTP1 with toxicity during irinotecan regimens: XRCC1, primary end point, any irinotecan-containing regimen (P = .045); ERCC2, secondary end point, irinotecan alone (P = .003); GSTP1, secondary end point; IrFU (P = .039); and irinotecan alone (P = .05). There was no evidence of association of UGT1A1*28 with irinotecan toxicity. CONCLUSION These results do not support the routine clinical use of the evaluated polymorphisms, including UGT1A1*28. Further investigation of XRCC1, ERCC2, and GSTP1 as potential predictors of irinotecan toxicity is warranted.

Mismatch Repair Status and BRAF Mutation Status in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Pooled Analysis of the CAIRO, CAIRO2, COIN, and FOCUS Studies

Purpose: To determine the prevalence and prognostic value of mismatch repair (MMR) status and its relation to BRAF mutation (BRAFMT) status in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Experimental Design: A pooled analysis of four phase III studies in first-line treatment of mCRC (CAIRO, CAIRO2, COIN, and FOCUS) was performed. Primary outcome parameter was the hazard ratio (HR) for median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in relation to MMR and BRAF. For the pooled analysis, Cox regression analysis was performed on individual patient data. Results: The primary tumors of 3,063 patients were analyzed, of which 153 (5.0%) exhibited deficient MMR (dMMR) and 250 (8.2%) a BRAFMT. BRAFMT was observed in 53 (34.6%) of patients with dMMR tumors compared with 197 (6.8%) of patients with proficient MMR (pMMR) tumors (P < 0.001). In the pooled dataset, median PFS and OS were significantly worse for patients with dMMR compared with pMMR tumors [HR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12–1.57 and HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.13–1.61, respectively), and for patients with BRAFMT compared with BRAF wild-type (BRAFWT) tumors (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.17–1.54 and HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.66–2.19, respectively). PFS and OS were significantly decreased for patients with BRAFMT within the group of patients with pMMR, but not for BRAF status within dMMR, or MMR status within BRAFWT or BRAFMT. Conclusions: Prevalence of dMMR and BRAFMT in patients with mCRC is low and both biomarkers confer an inferior prognosis. Our data suggest that the poor prognosis of dMMR is driven by the BRAFMT status. Clin Cancer Res; 20(20); 5322–30. ©2014 AACR.

Intra-tumoral heterogeneity of KRAS and BRAF mutation status in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC) and cost-effectiveness of multiple sample testing.

KRAS mutation status is established as a predictive biomarker of benefit from anti-EGFr therapies. Mutations are normally assessed using DNA extracted from one formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor block. We assessed heterogeneity of KRAS and BRAF mutation status intra-tumorally (multiple blocks from the same primary tumor). We also investigated the utility and efficiency of genotyping a ‘DNA cocktail’ prepared from multiple blocks. We studied 68 consenting patients in two randomized clinical trials. DNA was extracted, from ≥2 primary tumor FFPE blocks per patient. DNA was genotyped by pyrosequencing for KRAS codons 12, 13 and 61 and BRAF codon 600. In patients with heterogeneous mutation status, DNA cocktails were prepared and genotyped. Among 69 primary tumors in 68 patients, 7 (10.1%) showed intratumoral heterogeneity; 5 (7.2%) at KRAS codons 12, 13 and 2 (2.9%) at BRAF codon 600. In patients displaying heterogeneity, the relevant KRAS or BRAF mutation was also identified in ‘DNA cocktail’ samples when including DNA from mutant and wild-type blocks. Heterogeneity is uncommon but not insignificant. Testing DNA from a single block will wrongly assign wild-type status to 10% patients. Testing more than one block, or preferably preparation of a ‘DNA cocktail’ from two or more tumor blocks, improves mutation detection at minimal extra cost.

MLH1 −93G>A promoter polymorphism and risk of mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer

Rare inherited mutations in the mutL homolog 1 (MLH1) DNA mismatch repair gene can confer an increased susceptibility to colorectal cancer (CRC) with high penetrance where disease frequently develops in the proximal colon. The core promoter of MLH1 contains a common single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) (−93G>A, dbSNP ID:rs1800734) located in a region essential for maximum transcriptional activity. We used logistic regression analysis to examine the association between this variant and risk of CRC in patients in the United Kingdom. All statistical tests were 2 sided. In an analysis of 1,518 patients with CRC, homozygosity for the MLH1 −93A variant was associated with a significantly increased 3‐fold risk of CRC negative for MLH1 protein by immunohistochemistry (odds ratio (OR): AA vs GG = 3.30, 95% CI 1.46–7.47, n = 1392, p = 0.004, MLH1 negative vs MLH1 positive CRC) and with a 68% excess of proximal CRC (OR: AA vs GG=1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00–2.83, n = 1,518, p = 0.05, proximal vs distal CRC). These findings suggest that the MLH1 −93G>A polymorphism defines a low penetrance risk allele for CRC.

HER2 overexpression and amplification as a potential therapeutic target in colorectal cancer: analysis of 3256 patients enrolled in the QUASAR, FOCUS and PICCOLO colorectal cancer trials

HER2 overexpression/amplification is linked to trastuzumab response in breast/gastric cancers. One suggested anti‐EGFR resistance mechanism in colorectal cancer (CRC) is aberrant MEK–AKT pathway activation through HER2 up‐regulation. We assessed HER2‐amplification/overexpression in stage II–III and IV CRC patients, assessing relationships to KRAS/BRAF and outcome. Pathological material was obtained from 1914 patients in the QUASAR stage II–III trial and 1342 patients in stage IV trials (FOCUS and PICCOLO). Tissue microarrays were created for HER2 immunohistochemistry. HER2‐amplification was assessed using FISH and copy number variation. KRAS/BRAF mutation status was assessed by pyrosequencing. Progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) data were obtained for FOCUS/PICCOLO and recurrence and mortality for QUASAR; 29/1342 (2.2%) stage IV and 25/1914 (1.3%) stage II–III tumours showed HER2 protein overexpression. Of the HER2‐overexpressing cases, 27/28 (96.4%) stage IV tumours and 20/24 (83.3%) stage II–III tumours demonstrated HER2 amplification by FISH; 41/47 (87.2%) also showed copy number gains. HER2‐overexpression was associated with KRAS/BRAF wild‐type (WT) status at all stages: in 5.2% WT versus 1.0% mutated tumours (p < 0.0001) in stage IV and 2.1% versus 0.2% in stage II–III tumours (p = 0.01), respectively. HER2 was not associated with OS or PFS. At stage II–III, there was no significant correlation between HER2 overexpression and 5FU/FA response. A higher proportion of HER2‐overexpressing cases experienced recurrence, but the difference was not significant. HER2‐amplification/overexpression is identifiable by immunohistochemistry, occurring infrequently in stage II–III CRC, rising in stage IV and further in KRAS/BRAF WT tumours. The value of HER2‐targeted therapy in patients with HER2‐amplified CRC must be tested in a clinical trial.

Left and right sided large bowel cancer: Have significant genetic differences in addition to well known clinical differences

Cancer of the large bowel is the third commonest cancer, and second commonest cause of death due to cancer in the United Kingdom. In 1994, there were 28 904 registered new cases and about 15 740 deaths from colorectal cancer in England and Wales.1 Differences in clinical presentation and surgical management of right and left sided large bowel cancer are well known. For example, right sided tumours typically present at a more advanced stage with symptoms of weight loss and anaemia, whereas left sided tumours often present with rectal bleeding, change in bowel habit, and tenesmus. However, we are now aware of increasing differences in the molecular pathology of carcinomas depending on their laterality within the large bowel. These differences will become more relevant as systemic treatments improve. The large bowel includes both the colon and the rectum. It is continuous, with no definite point microscopically where colon ends and rectum begins. From an anatomical and surgical point of …