Background: OncoBEAM TM is a circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) test that uses the BEAMing digital polymerase chain reaction technology. We clarified the association between the baseline tumor burden and discordance in the RAS status by metastatic sites in patients with a single metastatic site.Patients and methods: Data from previous Spanish and Japanese studies investigating the concordance of the RAS status between OncoBEAM TM and tissue biopsy in 221 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were used. We collected data from patients with liver, peritoneal, or lung metastases and evaluated the concordance rates according to the metastatic site and the association between the concordance rate and tumor burden.Results: Patients had metastases in the liver (n=151), peritoneum (n=25), or lung (n=45) with concordance rates of 91% (95% confidence interval, 85-95%), 88% (68-97%), and 64% (49-78%), respectively. Factors associated with concordance included the baseline longest diameter and lesion number (P=0.004), and sample collection interval (P=0.036). Concordance rates ≥90% were observed in the following groups: liver metastases alone, regardless of the baseline longest diameter and lesion number; peritoneal metastases alone in patients with a baseline longest diameter ≥20 mm; and lung metastases alone in patients with a baseline longest diameter ≥20 mm and/or number of lesions ≥10. Conclusion:Plasma ctDNA-based liquid biopsy in patients with mCRC may be useful depending on the metastatic site. The maximum diameter and lesion number should be carefully considered when determining patients' RAS status with only peritoneal or lung metastases.

Despite major advances in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the survival rate remains very poor. This study aims at exploring the prognostic value of RAS ‐mutant allele fraction (MAF) in plasma in mCRC. Forty‐seven plasma samples from 37 RAS ‐mutated patients with nonresectable metastases were tested for RAS in circulating tumor DNA using BEAMing before first‐ and/or second‐line treatment. RAS MAF was correlated with several clinical parameters (number of metastatic sites, hepatic volume, carcinoembryonic antigen, CA19‐9 levels, primary site location, and treatment line) and clinical outcome [progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS)]. An independent cohort of 32 patients from the CAPRI‐GOIM trial was assessed for clinical outcome based on plasma baseline MAF. RAS MAF analysis at baseline revealed a significant correlation with longer OS [Hazard ratios (HR) = 3.514; P = 0.00066]. Patients with lower MAF also showed a tendency to longer PFS, although not statistically significant. Multivariate analysis showed RAS MAFs as an independent prognostic factor in both OS (HR = 2.73; P = 0.006) and first‐line PFS (HR = 3.74; P = 0.049). Tumor response to treatment in patients with higher MAF was progression disease ( P = 0.007). Patients with low MAFs at baseline in the CAPRI‐GOIM group also showed better OS [HR = 3.84; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.5–9.6; P = 0.004] and better PFS (HR = 2.5; 95% CI: 1.07–5.62; P = 0.033). This minimally invasive test may help in adding an independent factor to better estimate outcomes before initiating treatment. Further prospective studies using MAF as a stratification factor could further validate its utility in clinical practice.

Sequencing of tumors is now routine and guides personalized cancer therapy. Mutant allele fractions (MAFs, or the ‘mutation dose’) of a driver gene may reveal the genomic structure of tumors and influence response to targeted therapies. We performed a comprehensive analysis of MAFs of driver alterations in unpaired primary and metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) at our institution from 2010 to 2015 and studied their potential clinical relevance. Of 763 CRC samples, 622 had detailed annotation on overall survival in the metastatic setting (OSmet) and 89 received targeted agents matched to KRAS (MEK inhibitors), BRAF (BRAF inhibitors), or PIK3CA mutations (PI3K pathway inhibitors). MAFs of each variant were normalized for tumor purity in the sample (adjMAFs). We found lower adjMAFs for BRAFV 600E and PIK3CA than for KRAS,NRAS, and BRAF non‐V600 variants. TP53 and BRAFV 600E adjMAFs were higher in metastases as compared to primary tumors, and high KRAS adjMAFs were found in CRC metastases of patients with KRAS wild‐type primary tumors previously exposed to EGFR antibodies. Patients with RAS‐ or BRAFV 600E‐mutated tumors, irrespective of adjMAFs, had worse OSmet. There was no significant association between adjMAFs and time to progression on targeted therapies matched to KRAS,BRAF, or PIK3CA mutations, potentially related to the limited antitumor activity of the employed drugs (overall response rate of 4.5%). In conclusion, the lower BRAFV 600E and PIK3CA adjMAFs in subsets of primary CRC tumors indicate subclonality of these driver genes. Differences in adjMAFs between metastases and primary tumors suggest that approved therapies may result in selection of BRAFV 600E‐ and KRAS‐resistant clones and an increase in genomic heterogeneity with acquired TP53 alterations. Despite significant differences in prognosis according to mutations in driver oncogenes, adjMAFs levels did not impact on survival and did not help predict benefit with matched targeted agents in the metastatic setting.