Tumour gene expression predicts response to cetuximab in patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer

Background:

Although it is accepted that metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRCs) that carry activating mutations in KRAS are unresponsive to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies, a significant fraction of KRAS wild-type (wt) mCRCs are also unresponsive to anti-EGFR therapy. Genes encoding EGFR ligands amphiregulin (AREG) and epiregulin (EREG) are promising gene expression-based markers but have not been incorporated into a test to dichotomise KRAS wt mCRC patients with respect to sensitivity to anti-EGFR treatment.

Methods:

We used RT–PCR to test 110 candidate gene expression markers in primary tumours from 144 KRAS wt mCRC patients who received monotherapy with the anti-EGFR antibody cetuximab. Results were correlated with multiple clinical endpoints: disease control, objective response, and progression-free survival (PFS).

Results:

Expression of many of the tested candidate genes, including EREG and AREG, strongly associate with all clinical endpoints. Using multivariate analysis with two-layer five-fold cross-validation, we constructed a four-gene predictive classifier. Strikingly, patients below the classifier cutpoint had PFS and disease control rates similar to those of patients with KRAS mutant mCRC.

Conclusion:

Gene expression appears to identify KRAS wt mCRC patients who receive little benefit from cetuximab. It will be important to test this model in an independent validation study.     

Expression of pEGFR and pAKT as response-predictive biomarkers for RAS wild-type patients to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancers

Background:

RAS wild-type (RAS_w/t) tumours have been associated with better outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (mAb). We investigated the expression of EGFR downstream proteins under their active phosphorylated forms as potential markers in response to these patients.

Methods:

One-hundred tumour samples were collected from patients with mCRC refractory to FOLFOX and/or FOLFIRI and treated by a combination of chemotherapy with anti-EGFR mAb. The outcomes were measured on response evaluation criteria in solid tumour (RECIST), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). All samples were assessed for RAS and BRAF mutations, and the key phosphorylated proteins of EGFR downstream signalling were quantitatively analysed using the BioPlex Protein array.

Results:

Among the 60 RAS_w/t patients, 45.0% achieved a complete or partial response when treated with anti-EGFR mAb. Expression of pAKT, pERK1/2 and pMEK1 was significantly lower in RAS_w/t patients (P=0.0246; P=0.004; P=0.0110, respectively). The response rate was significantly higher for RAS_w/t patients who express pEGFR and pAKT (P=0.0258; P=0.0277, respectively).

Conclusions:

Overexpression of pEGFR and pAKT may predict the response rate in RAS_w/t patients treated with anti-EGFR mAb. On the basis of our results, we hypothesise that the association of anti-EGFR mAb and anti-AKT therapies could be of interest.     

Pathological responses after angiogenesis or EGFR inhibitors in metastatic colorectal cancer depend on the chemotherapy backbone

Background:

Optimal preoperative treatment before colorectal cancer metastases (CRCM) resection remains unclear. This study evaluated pathological responses (pR) in CRCM resected after chemotherapy alone or combined with angiogenesis or epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors.

Methods:

Pathological response was retrospectively evaluated on 264 resected metastases from 99 patients. The proportion of responding metastases after different preoperative treatments was reported and compared. Patient''s progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared based on pR.

Results:

The combination of anti-angiogenics with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy resulted in more pR than when they were combined with irinotecan-based chemotherapy (80% vs 50% P<0.001). Inversely, the combination of EGFR inhibitors with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy seemed to induce fewer pR than when they were combined with irinotecan-based treatment (53% vs 72% P=0.049). Overall survival at 5 years was improved for patients with a pR in all resected metastases compared with those who did not achieve a pR (68.5% vs 32.6% P=0.023) and this response was the only factor predicting OS in a multivariate analysis.

Conclusion:

The chemotherapy partner combined with angiogenesis or EGFR inhibitors influenced pR in resected CRCM. In our exploratory analysis anti-angiogenic/oxaliplatin-based regimens and anti-EGFR/irinotecan-based regimens were associated with the highest pR. Prospective randomised trials should be performed to validate these observations.     

Serum levels of hepatocyte growth factor and epiregulin are associated with the prognosis on anti-EGFR antibody treatment in KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer

Background:

Ligands of transmembrane receptor tyrosine kinases have important roles in cell proliferation, survival, migration and differentiation in solid tumours. We conducted this study to evaluate the relationship between concentration of serum ligands and prognosis of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies.

Methods:

Between August 2008 and August 2011, serum samples were obtained from KRAS wild-type patients who met the inclusion criteria and received an anti-EGFR antibody treatment. Serum concentration of ligands was measured by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and somatic mutations of KRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA and BRAF were analysed by direct sequencing.

Results:

A total of 103 patients were enrolled in the present study. At the pretreatment serum levels, patients with high levels of hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) had shorter progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with those with low levels of HGF (median PFS: 6.4 months vs 4.4 months; P<0.001, median OS: 15.3 months vs 8.0 months; P<0.001, respectively). Patients with high levels of epiregulin (EREG) also had shorter PFS and OS compared with those with low levels of EREG (median PFS: 6.6 months vs 4.9 months; P=0.016, median OS: 13.8 months vs 7.4 months; P=0.048, respectively). In addition, patients whose serum levels of ligands were elevated at progressive disease had shorter PFS and OS compared with other patients.

Conclusions:

Our study indicated that high levels of HGF and EREG were associated with resistance to treatment with anti-EGFR antibodies in KRAS wild-type patients with mCRC. Our findings will contribute to the newly combination therapy on the treatment of anti-EGFR antibodies.     

EGFR gene copy number assessment from areas with highest EGFR expression predicts response to anti-EGFR therapy in colorectal cancer

Background:

Only 40–70% of metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRCs) with wild-type (WT) KRAS oncogene respond to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) antibody treatment. EGFR amplification has been suggested as an additional marker to predict the response. However, improved methods for bringing the EGFR analysis into routine laboratory are needed.

Methods:

The material consisted of 80 patients with mCRC, 54 of them receiving anti-EGFR therapy. EGFR gene copy number (GCN) was analysed by automated silver in situ hybridisation (SISH). Immunohistochemical EGFR protein analysis was used to guide SISH assessment.

Results:

Clinical benefit was seen in 73% of high (⩾4.0) EGFR GCN patients, in comparison with 59% of KRAS WT patients. Only 20% of low EGFR GCN patients responded to therapy. A high EGFR GCN number associated with longer progression-free survival (P<0.0001) and overall survival (P=0.004). Together with KRAS analysis, EGFR GCN identified the responsive patients to anti-EGFR therapy more accurately than either test alone. The clinical benefit rate of KRAS WT/high EGFR GCN tumours was 82%.

Conclusion:

Our results show that automated EGFR SISH, in combination with KRAS mutation analysis, can be a useful and easily applicable technique in routine diagnostic practise for selecting patients for anti-EGFR therapy.     

Prognostic role of EGFR gene copy number and KRAS mutation in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy

Background:

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), evaluated by immunohistochemistry, has been shown to have prognostic significance in patients with colorectal cancer. Gene copy number (GCN) of EGFR and KRAS status predict response and outcome in patients treated with anti-EGFR therapy, but their prognostic significance in colorectal cancer patients is still unclear.

Methods:

We have retrospectively reviewed the baseline EGFR GCN, KRAS status and clinical outcome of 146 locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Pathological response evaluated by Dworak''s tumour regression grade (TRG), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were analysed.

Results:

Tumour regression grade 4 and TRG3–4 were achieved in 14.4 and 30.8% of the patients respectively. Twenty-nine (19.9%) and 33 patients (19.2%) had an EGFR/nuclei ratio >2.9 and CEP7 polisomy >50% respectively; 28 patients (19.2%) had a KRAS mutation. Neither EGFR GCN nor KRAS status was statistically correlated to TRG. 5-year DFS and OS were 63.3 and 71.5%, respectively, and no significant relation with EGFR GCN or KRAS status was found.

Conclusion:

Our data show that EGFR GCN and KRAS status are not prognostic factors in LARC treated with preoperative chemoradiation.     

HER2 gene copy number status may influence clinical efficacy to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancer patients

Background:

In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), KRAS is the only validated biomarker used to select patients for administration of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted therapies. To identify additional predictive markers, we investigated the importance of HER2, the primary EGFR dimerisation partner, in this particular disease.

Methods:

We evaluated the HER2 gene status by fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) in 170 KRAS wild-type mCRC patients treated with cetuximab or panitumumab.

Results:

Depending on HER2 gene copy number status, patients showed three distinct cytogenetic profiles: 4% of patients had HER2 gene amplification (R:HER2/CEP17⩾2) in all neoplastic cells (HER2-all-A), 61% of patients had HER2 gain due to polysomy or to gene amplification in minor clones (HER2-FISH+*), and 35% of patients had no or slight HER2 gain (HER2-FISH−). These subgroups were significantly correlated with different clinical behaviours, in terms of response rate (RR; P=0.0006), progression-free survival (PFS; P<0.0001) and overall survival (OS; P<0.0001). Patients with HER2-all-A profile experienced the worst outcome, patients with HER2-FISH− profile showed an intermediate behaviour and patients with HER2-FISH+* profile were related to the highest survival probability (median PFS in months: 2.5 vs 3.9 vs 7.6, respectively; median OS in months: 4.2 vs 9.7 vs 13, respectively).

Conclusion:

HER2 gene copy number status may influence the clinical response to anti-EGFR-targeted therapy in mCRC patients.     

Upfront FOLFOXIRI+bevacizumab followed by fluoropyrimidin and bevacizumab maintenance in patients with molecularly unselected metastatic colorectal cancer

Background:

The addition of bevacizumab (BEV) to standard doublet chemotherapy improves outcomes compared with chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The OPAL study examined the effect of BEV+FOLFOXIRI followed by 5FU/LV and BEV maintenance on progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with previously untreated unresectable mCRC.

Methods:

Eligible patients had histologically confirmed mCRC, ECOG performance status ⩽1 and were 18–70 years old. Patients received up to 12 cycles of FOLFOXIRI+BEV q2w (induction phase) followed by up to ⩽40 cycles of 5FU/LV+BEV q2w (maintenance phase). Median PFS was the primary end point; secondary end points included response, OS, secondary resection rate, safety and prognostic value of pharmacogenetic profiling.

Results:

Ninety-seven patients were enrolled. Of these, 90 received study medication and formed the safety population: 64 males; median age 58 (range 28–71) years; ECOG performance status 0/1 in 54%/46% patients; and liver only disease in 35 patients. Relative dose intensities were 79–85% for all four drugs. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was as previously reported and there were no new safety signals. In total, 87 serious AEs occurred in 39 patients (43%). Median PFS was 11.1 months (95% CI 9.4–12.0) and did thus not meet the primary objective of 12 months. Median OS was 32.2 months (95% CI 22.6–36.9). Fifty-two patients were pharmacogenetically profiled.

Conclusions:

FOLFOXIRI+BEV was feasible in this molecularly unselected mCRC patient population, showing a high efficacy in terms of survival, overall response and secondary resection rate. Pharmacogenomic profiling revealed no clinically relevant marker.     

Changes in circulating microRNA-126 during treatment with chemotherapy and bevacizumab predicts treatment response in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Background:

This study investigated the predictive value of circulating microRNA-126 (cir-miRNA-126) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with first-line chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab.

Methods:

The study included 68 patients. Blood samples (plasma) were collected before the treatment initiation, at the first clinical evaluation after 3 weeks and at progression. Levels of cir-miRNA-126 were determined by qRT–PCR after purification of total RNA from plasma. Primary clinical end points were response rates evaluated according to the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours (RECIST) and progression-free survival (PFS).

Results:

Changes in circulating miRNA-126 during treatment were predictive of tumour response. Non-responding patients had a median increase in cir-miRNA-126 of 0.244 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.050–0.565) compared with a median decrease of −0.374 (95% CI, −0.472 to −0.111) in the responding patients, P=0.002. A significant positive correlation was demonstrated by comparing the changes in tumour size with the changes in cir-miRNA-126, r=0.48, P=0.0001. Grouping the patients according to the changes in cir-miRNA-126 disclosed a borderline significant separation of the groups in the PFS analysis favouring patients with decreasing miRNA-126 levels, hazard ratio (HR) 0.60 (95% CI, 0.33–1.09), P=0.07.

Conclusions:

The present results indicate that changes in cir-miRNA-126 during treatment are related to the response to chemotherapy and bevacizumab in patients with mCRC, thus representing a possible biomarker for the resistance to anti-angiogenic containing treatments.     

BRAF mutations,microsatellite instability status and cyclin D1 expression predict metastatic colorectal patients' outcome

Background:

The significance of BRAF mutations, microsatelite instability (MSI) status and cyclin D1 expression in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was evaluated.

Methods:

Primary tumours from 144 patients treated for mCRC were assessed for BRAF (V600E) mutation, MSI status and cyclin D1. The data were correlated with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results:

BRAF mutations were detected in 10 (out of 22, 45%) patients with MSI-H tumours compared with 2 (out of 122, 1.6%) in those with microsatellite stable tumours (P<0.001). The presence of BRAF mutations was correlated with cyclin D1 overexpression (7 out of 26 patients, 58% vs 5 out of 118 patients, 14% P=0.001). Patients with BRAF-mutated primary tumours had a significantly decreased PFS (2.7 vs 9.8 months; P<0.001) and median OS (14 vs 30 months; P<0.001) than patients with wild-type (wt) tumours. Patients with MSI-H and BRAF-mutated tumours experienced significantly lower PFS (3.1 vs 11.4 months; P=0.008) and OS (14.5 vs 35.5 months; P=0.004) than patients with MSI-H and BRAF wt tumours. Similarly, BRAF mutations and cyclin D1 overexpression were correlated with decreased PFS (3.1 vs 8.6 months; P=0.03) and OS (17.8 vs 39.2 months; P=0.01).

Conclusion:

BRAF V600E mutations are associated with MSI-H status and cyclin D1 overexpression and characterize a subgroup of patients with poor prognosis.     

Meta-analysis of BRAF mutation as a predictive biomarker of benefit from anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy for RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer

Background:

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that harbours a BRAF V600E mutation (BRAF MT) is associated with poorer outcomes. However, whether this mutation is predictive of treatment benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) is uncertain.

Methods:

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published up to July 2014 that evaluated the effect of BRAF MT on the treatment benefit from anti-EGFR mAbs for mCRC.

Results:

Seven RCTs met the inclusion criteria for assessment of overall survival (OS), whereas eight RCTs met the inclusion criteria for assessment of progression-free survival (PFS). For RAS WT/BRAF MT tumours, the hazard ratio for OS benefit with anti-EGFR mAbs was 0.97 (95% CI; 0.67–1.41), whereas the hazard ratio was 0.81 (95% CI; 0.70–0.95) for RAS WT/BRAF WT tumours. However, the test of interaction (P=0.43) was not statistically significant, highlighting that the observed differences in the effect of anti-EGFR mAbs on OS according to the BRAF mutation status may be due to chance alone. Regarding PFS benefit with anti-EGFR mAbs, the hazard ratio was 0.86 (95% CI; 0.61–1.21) for RAS WT/BRAF MT tumours as compared with 0.62 (95% CI; 0.50–0.77) for RAS WT/BRAF WT tumours (test of interaction, P=0.07).

Interpretation:

This meta-analysis demonstrates that there is insufficient evidence to definitively state that RAS WT/BRAF MT individuals attain a different treatment benefit from anti-EGFR mAbs for mCRC compared with RAS WT/BRAF WT individuals. As such, there are insufficient data to justify the exclusion of anti-EGFR mAb therapy for patients with RAS WT/BRAF MT mCRC.     

Evaluation of efficacy and safety markers in a phase II study of metastatic colorectal cancer treated with aflibercept in the first-line setting

Background:

Aflibercept (ziv-aflibercept) is an anti-angiogenic agent recently approved in combination with FOLFIRI for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients previously treated with oxaliplatin. Despite heterogeneity in response to aflibercept, no biomarkers for efficacy or adverse effects have been identified. Here we present biomarker data from the randomised phase II AFFIRM trial assessing aflibercept in combination with mFOLFOX6 first line in mCRC.

Methods:

Ninety-six somatic mutations in key oncogenic drivers of mCRC and 133 common single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway genes were analysed, and 27 plasma markers measured at baseline, during and after treatment. We assessed correlations of these three classes of biomarkers with progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse events (AEs).

Results:

Somatic mutations identified in KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, PIK3CA and PIK3R1 did not significantly correlate with PFS (multiple testing-adjusted false discovery rate (FDR) or multiple testing-adjusted FDR>0.3). None of the individual SNPs correlated with PFS (multiple testing-adjusted FDR>0.22), but at the gene level variability in VEGFB significantly correlated with PFS (multiple testing-adjusted FDR=0.0423). Although none of the plasma markers measured at baseline significantly correlated with PFS, high levels of circulating IL8 at baseline together with increased levels of IL8 during treatment were significantly associated with reduced PFS (multiple testing-adjusted FDR=0.0478). No association was found between biomarkers and AEs.

Conclusions:

This represents the first biomarker study in mCRC treated with aflibercept. High IL8 plasma levels at baseline and subsequent increases in IL8 were associated with worse PFS, suggesting that IL8 may act as a potentially predictive biomarker of aflibercept treatment outcome.     

Bevacizumab in combination with biweekly capecitabine and irinotecan, as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Background:

Combination of capecitabine and irinotecan (XELIRI regimen) is an active and well tolerated treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this regimen in combination with bevacizumab (BV), as first-line treatment for mCRC.

Patients and methods:

A total of 46 consecutive patients received a combination of BV (5 mg kg⁻¹, day 1), irinotecan (175 mg m⁻², day 1) and capecitabine (1000 mg m⁻² twice daily on day 2–8), every 2 weeks. Patients were treated until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was to determine the progression-free survival (PFS) and safety profile.

Results:

The overall response rate (ORR) was 67.4%, with a disease control rate (ORR+stable disease) of 93.5%. Median PFS and overall survival (OS) were 12.3 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 6.5–18.1 months) and 23.7 months (95% CI: 16.7–30.6 months), respectively. The most frequent grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were asthenia (7%), diarrhoea (7%), nausea (9%) and vomiting (7%).

Conclusion:

Bevacizumab combined with biweekly XELIRI is a highly active first-line regimen for mCRC treatment, showing encouraging PFS, ORR and OS with a good tolerability.     

Cediranib with mFOLFOX6 vs bevacizumab with mFOLFOX6 in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer

Background:

Cediranib is a highly potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signalling with activity against all three VEGF receptors. Bevacizumab is an anti-VEGF-A monoclonal antibody with clinical benefit in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Methods:

Patients with mCRC who had progressed following first-line therapy were randomised 1 : 1 : 1 to modified (m)FOLFOX6 plus cediranib (20 or 30 mg day⁻¹) or bevacizumab (10 mg kg⁻¹ every 2 weeks). The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival (PFS) between treatment arms.

Results:

A total of 210 patients were included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis (cediranib 20 mg, n=71; cediranib 30 mg, n=73; bevacizumab, n=66). Median PFS in the cediranib 20 mg, cediranib 30 mg and bevacizumab groups was 5.8, 7.2 and 7.8 months, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment arms for PFS (cediranib 20 mg vs bevacizumab: HR=1.28 (95% CI, 0.85–1.95; P=0.29); cediranib 30 mg vs bevacizumab: HR=1.17 (95% CI, 0.77–1.76; P=0.79)) or overall survival (OS). Grade ⩾3 adverse events were more common with cediranib 30 mg (91.8%) vs cediranib 20 mg (81.4%) or bevacizumab (84.8%).

Conclusion:

There were no statistically significant differences between treatment arms for PFS or OS. When combined with mFOLFOX6, the 20 mg day⁻¹ dose of cediranib was better tolerated than the 30 mg day⁻¹ dose.     

Clinico-pathological nomogram for predicting BRAF mutational status of metastatic colorectal cancer

Background:

In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), BRAFV600E mutation has been variously associated to specific clinico-pathological features.

Methods:

Two large retrospective series of mCRC patients from two Italian Institutions were used as training-set (TS) and validation-set (VS) for developing a nomogram predictive of BRAFV600E status. The model was internally and externally validated.

Results:

In the TS, data from 596 mCRC patients were gathered (RAS wild-type (wt) 281 (47.1%); BRAFV600E mutated 54 (9.1%)); RAS and BRAFV600E mutations were mutually exclusive. In the RAS-wt population, right-sided primary (odds ratio (OR): 7.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.05–19.92), female gender (OR: 2.90, 95% CI 1.14–7.37) and mucinous histology (OR: 4.95, 95% CI 1.90–12.90) were independent predictors of BRAFV600E mutation, with high replication at internal validation (100%, 93% and 98%, respectively). A predictive nomogram was calculated: patients with the highest score (right-sided primary, female and mucinous) had a 81% chance to bear a BRAFV600E-mutant tumour; accuracy measures: AUC=0.812, SE:0.034, sensitivity:81.2% specificity:72.1%. In the VS (508 pts, RAS wt: 262 (51.6%), BRAFV600E mutated: 49 (9.6%)), right-sided primary, female gender and mucinous histology were confirmed as independent predictors of BRAFV600E mutation with high accuracy.

Conclusions:

Three simple and easy-to-collect characteristics define a useful nomogram for predicting BRAF status in mCRC with high specificity and sensitivity.     

Prognostic and predictive value of common mutations for treatment response and survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Background:

We address the prognostic and predictive value of KRAS, PIK3CA and BRAF mutations for clinical outcomes in response to active agents in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Methods:

We determined KRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA mutations in tumours from 168 patients treated for mCRC at two institutions. All patients received 5-FU-based first-line chemotherapy and treatment outcome was analysed retrospectively.

Results:

KRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA mutations were present in 62 (37%), 13 (8%) and 26 (15%) cases, respectively. Multivariate analysis uncovered BRAF mutation as an independent prognostic factor for decreased survival (hazard ratio (HR) 4.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1–7.6). In addition, patients with BRAF-mutant tumours had significantly lower progression-free survival (PFS: HR 4.0, 95% CI 2.2–7.4) than those whose tumors that carried wild-type BRAF. Among 92 patients treated using chemotherapy and cetuximab as salvage therapy, KRAS mutation was associated with lack of response (P=0.002) and shorter PFS (P=0.09). BRAF (P=0.0005) and PIK3CA (P=0.01) mutations also predicted reduced PFS in response to cetuximab salvage therapy.

Conclusions:

These results underscore the potential of mutational profiling to identify CRCs with different natural histories or treatment responses. The adverse significance of BRAF mutation should inform patient selection and stratification in clinical trials.     

Prognostic and predictive value of VEGF,sVEGFR-2 and CEA in mCRC studies comparing cediranib,bevacizumab and chemotherapy

Background:

The prognostic/predictive value of potential vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signalling biomarkers was evaluated retrospectively using samples from two randomized Phase III studies (HORIZON II and III) investigating cediranib in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Methods:

Baseline levels of VEGF, soluble VEGF receptor-2 (sVEGFR-2) and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) were measured in plasma/serum samples collected from patients participating in HORIZON II (n=860; FOLFOX/XELOX plus cediranib 20 mg (n=502) or placebo (n=358)) and HORIZON III (n=1422; mFOLFOX6 plus cediranib 20 mg (n=709) or bevacizumab (n=713)). Median biomarker baseline levels determined cutoff values for the patient subgroups.

Results:

Baseline data were available for 88–97% of patients/study (>2000 patients). In both the studies, high baseline VEGF and CEA were associated with worse outcomes for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) independent of treatment (HORIZON II OS: VEGF, hazard ratio (HR)=1.35 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12–1.63); CEA, HR=1.63 (1.36–1.96); HORIZON III OS: VEGF, HR=1.32 (1.12–1.54); CEA, HR=1.50 (1.29–1.76)). sVEGFR-2 was not prognostic for PFS/OS. Baseline VEGF and CEA were not predictive for PFS/OS outcome to cediranib treatment; low sVEGFR-2 was associated with a trend towards improved cediranib effect in HORIZON II.

Conclusion:

Baseline VEGF and CEA levels were treatment-independent prognostic biomarkers for PFS and OS in both the studies.     

A randomised phase II trial of selumetinib vs selumetinib plus temsirolimus for soft-tissue sarcomas

Background:

The MEK inhibitor, selumetinib, suppresses soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) cell proliferation in vitro. Mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors possess modest activity against STS; however, resistance develops via MAPK pathway feedback activation. The combination of selumetinib and temsirolimus synergistically inhibits STS cell line growth. Therefore, a randomized phase II trial of selumetinib vs selumetinib plus temsirolimus was conducted.

Methods:

Seventy-one adults with advanced STS who received ⩽2 prior chemotherapeutics were randomized to selumetinib 75 mg p.o. bid and allowed to crossover upon progression, or to selumetinib 50 mg p.o. bid plus temsirolimus 20 mg i.v. weekly, with primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS).

Results:

There was no difference in PFS between the two arms for the overall cohort (median 1.9 vs 2.1 months); an improved median PFS was observed in the combination arm (N=11) over single agent (N=10) in the prespecified leiomyosarcoma stratum (median 3.7 vs 1.8 months; P=0.01). Four-month PFS rate was 50% (95% confidence interval 0.19–0.81) with the combination vs 0% with selumetinib alone in the leiomyosarcoma cohort. Most common grade 3/4 adverse events with the combination were mucositis (29%), lymphopenia (26%), neutropenia and anaemia (20% each).

Conclusions:

While single-agent selumetinib has no significant activity in STS, the combination may be active for leiomyosarcomas.     

Sorafenib and irinotecan (NEXIRI) as second- or later-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and KRAS-mutated tumours: a multicentre Phase I/II trial

Background:

This trial evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of combined sorafenib and irinotecan (NEXIRI) as second- or later-line treatment of patients with KRAS-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), who had progressed after irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

Methods:

In Phase I, in a 3+3 dose escalation schedule, patients received irinotecan (125, 150 or 180 mg m⁻² every 2 weeks), in combination with 400 mg sorafenib b.d. The primary end point was the maximum-tolerated dose of irinotecan. In Phase II, the primary end point was disease control rate (DCR). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity.

Results:

Phase I included 10 patients (median age 63 (49–73)); no dose-limiting toxicity was seen. In Phase II, 54 patients (median age 60 (43–80) years) received irinotecan 180 mg m⁻² every 2 weeks with sorafenib 400 mg b.d. Nine patients (17%) remained on full-dose sorafenib. The DCR was 64.9% (95% CI, 51–77). Median PFS and OS were 3.7 (95% CI, 3.2–4.7) and 8.0 (95% CI, 4.8–9.7) months, respectively. Toxicities included Grade 3 diarrhoea (37%), neutropenia (18%), hand-foot syndrome (13%) and Grade 4 neutropenia (17%).

Conclusion:

The NEXIRI regimen showed promising activity as second- or later-line treatment in this heavily pretreated mCRC population (ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00989469","term_id":"NCT00989469"}}NCT00989469).