Takeru Wakatsuki

Retrospective study of RAS/PIK3CA/BRAF tumor mutations as predictors of response to first-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer patients

BackgroundAfter analysis of minor RAS mutations (KRAS exon 3, 4/NRAS) in the FIRE-3 and PRIME studies, an expanded range of RAS mutations were established as a negative predictive marker for the efficacy of anti-EGFR antibody treatment. BRAF and PIK3CA mutations may be candidate biomarkers for anti-EGFR targeted therapies. However, it remains unknown whether RAS/PIK3CA/BRAF tumor mutations can predict the efficacy of bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer. We assessed whether selection according to RAS/PIK3CA/BRAF mutational status could be beneficial for patients treated with bevacizumab as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.MethodsOf the 1001 consecutive colorectal cancer patients examined for RAS, PIK3CA, and BRAF tumor mutations using a multiplex kit (Luminex®), we studied 90 patients who received combination chemotherapy with bevacizumab as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. The objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated according to mutational status.ResultsThe ORR was higher among patients with wild-type tumors (64.3%) compared to those with tumors that were only wild type with respect to KRAS exon 2 (54.8%), and the differences in ORR between patients with wild-type and mutant-type tumors were greater when considering only KRAS exon 2 mutations (6.8%) rather than RAS/PIK3CA/BRAF mutations (18.4%). There were no statistically significant differences in ORR or PFS between all wild-type tumors and tumors carrying any of the mutations. Multivariate analysis revealed that liver metastasis and RAS and BRAF mutations were independent negative factors for disease progression after first-line treatment with bevacizumab.ConclusionsPatient selection according to RAS/PIK3CA/BRAF mutations could help select patients who will achieve a better response to bevacizumab treatment. We found no clinical benefit of restricting combination therapy with bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer patients with EGFR-wild type tumors.

Phase II trial of biweekly cetuximab and irinotecan as third-line therapy for pretreated KRAS exon 2 wild-type colorectal cancer

Efficacy and safety of biweekly cetuximab plus irinotecan were evaluated to provide guidance for its use in Japan as third‐line treatment for pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients harboring wild‐type KRAS exon 2. Objective response rate (ORR) was used as primary endpoint based on an expected proportion of 0.23 with confidence width of 0.298 (95% CI, 0.105‐0.403), which showed 35 to be the minimal participant number. Forty patients, refractory to first‐ and second‐line chemotherapy containing irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and fluoropyrimidine, were enrolled. ORR and disease control rate were 25.0% (95% CI: 11.5‐38.4) and 72.5% (95% CI: 56.8‐86.4), respectively. Median progression‐free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and number of courses were 5.70 months (95% CI: 2.7‐7.9), 15.1 months (95% CI: 11.8‐19.0), and 10.5 (range: 3.0‐31.0), respectively. Grade 3 adverse events were skin toxicity (12.5%), diarrhea (10.0%), neutropenia (5.0%), febrile neutropenia (5.0%), nausea (5.0%), anorexia (5.0%), and fatigue (2.5%). Cmax mean was 723.2 μg/mL after first dose. High area under the curve (AUC)last variance was associated with t1/2 range of 131.2‐1209.6 hours (median, 174.4 hours). Early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and median depth of response were 25.0% and 13.0%, respectively. Mutation frequencies in KRAS exon 3 or 4, NRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA were 5.5%, 2.7%, 8.3%, and 5.5%, respectively. Multivariate Cox regression analysis assessed whether any gene mutations and ETS are predictors for PFS, and whether performance status, synchronous metastasis, and ETS are predictors for OS. Importantly, the data provide guidance for a biweekly cetuximab plus irinotecan regimen in mCRC patients.

Change in clinical outcomes during the transition of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colorectal cancer

Background There are robust data supporting the contribution of oxaliplatin (L-OHP) regarding clinical outcomes for colorectal cancer (CRC) in an adjuvant setting in European and US trials; however, there is no Japanese clinical evidence although L-OHP has been approved since 2009. We examined the transition of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colorectal cancer in our institute. Methods A total of 642 patients with histopathologically confirmed stage III CRC underwent curative surgery from 2005 to 2010. We examined disease free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and prognostic factors for stage III CRC patients who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy. Results A total of 509 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. 3-year DFS and 5-year OS rates were 74.5% and 87.5%, respectively. The frequency of inclusion of L-OHP as adjuvant chemotherapy was increased after 2008. A total of 189 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy from 2005 to 2007 increasing to 320 patients from 2008 to 2010; the 5-year OS rates were 82.4% and 91.5%, respectively, and the 3-year DFS rates were 69.2% and 76.6%, respectively (OS, P = 0.007; DFS, P = 0.023). In univariate analysis, adjuvant chemotherapy including L-OHP was no significant deference compared to FU monotherapy. (OS: HR 0.88, 95%CI 0.4–1.91, p = 0.75, DFS: HR 0.78, 95%CI 0.21–2.3, p = 0.29). In multivariate analysis, the OS was predicted by means of N stage (HR = 2; 95%CI, 1.1–3.8; P = 0.02) and pathology (HR = 0.28; 95%CI, 0.13–0.59; P = 0.0008). The DFS was predicted by means of N stage (HR = 2.67; 95%CI, 1.82–3.9; P < 0.05), T stage (HR = 1.61; 95%CI, 1.1–2.3; P = 0.01) pathology (HR = 0.47; 95%CI, 0.29–0.75; P < 0.05) and venous invasion (HR = 2.06; 95%CI, 1.12–3.77; P = 0.01). Conclusions Clinical outcomes of stage III CRC patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy improved. The frequency of L-OHP usage was increasing annually, however it was no influence for clinical outcomes in this study. It will be necessary to reevaluate additional effect of L-OHP with more patients.