Patients can be divided into at least three risk groups depending on the four baseline clinical parameters: performance status, WBC count, alkaline phosphatase and number of metastatic sites. Any molecular or biological marker should be validated against these clinical parameters and decisions for more or less intensive treatments may be studied separately in these three risk groups. Also, clinical trials should be stratified according to the three risk groups.

BackgroundCirculating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a potential source for tumor genome analysis. We explored the concordance between the mutational status of RAS in tumor tissue and ctDNA in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients to establish eligibility for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy.Patients and methodsA prospective-retrospective cohort study was carried out. Tumor tissue from 146 mCRC patients was tested for RAS status with standard of care (SoC) PCR techniques, and Digital PCR (BEAMing) was used both in plasma and tumor tissue.ResultsctDNA BEAMing RAS testing showed 89.7% agreement with SoC (Kappa index 0.80; 95% CI 0.71 − 0.90) and BEAMing in tissue showed 90.9% agreement with SoC (Kappa index 0.83; 95% CI 0.74 − 0.92). Fifteen cases (10.3%) showed discordant tissue-plasma results. ctDNA analysis identified nine cases of low frequency RAS mutations that were not detected in tissue, possibly due to technical sensitivity or heterogeneity. In six cases, RAS mutations were not detected in plasma, potentially explained by low tumor burden or ctDNA shedding. Prediction of treatment benefit in patients receiving anti-EGFR plus irinotecan in second- or third-line was equivalent if tested with SoC PCR and ctDNA. Forty-eight percent of the patients showed mutant allele fractions in plasma below 1%.ConclusionsPlasma RAS determination showed high overall agreement and captured a mCRC population responsive to anti-EGFR therapy with the same predictive level as SoC tissue testing. The feasibility and practicality of ctDNA analysis may translate into an alternative tool for anti-EGFR treatment selection.

The Oncologist 2012;17:15-25 www.TheOncologist.com Patients and Methods. Patients were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of bevacizumab, capecitabine, and oxaliplatin every 3 weeks followed by XELOX plus bevacizumab or bevacizumab alone until progression. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) interval; secondary endpoints were the overall survival (OS) time, objective response rate (RR), time to response, duration of response, and safety.Results. The intent-to-treat population comprised 480 patients (XELOX plus bevacizumab, n ‫؍‬ 239; bevacizumab, n ‫؍‬ 241); there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. The median follow-up was 29.0 months (range, 0 -53.2 months). There were no statistically significant differences in the median PFS or OS times or in the RR between the two arms. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities in the XELOX plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab arms were diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, and neuropathy. Conclusion. Although the noninferiority of bevacizumab versus XELOX plus bevacizumab cannot be confirmed, we can reliably exclude a median PFS detriment >3 weeks. This study suggests that maintenance therapy with singleagent bevacizumab may be an appropriate option following induction XELOX plus bevacizumab in mCRC patients. The Oncologist 2012;17:15-25

This randomized study shows a similar TTP of XELOX compared with FUOX in the first-line treatment of MCRC, although there was a trend for slightly lower RR and survival. XELOX can be considered as an alternative to FUOX.

Background Liquid biopsy offers a minimally invasive alternative to tissue-based evaluation of mutational status in cancer. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the aggregate performance of OncoBEAM RAS mutation analysis in plasma of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients at 10 hospital laboratories in Spain where this technology is routinely implemented. Methods Circulating cell-free DNA from plasma was examined for RAS mutations using the OncoBEAM platform at each hospital laboratory. Results were then compared to those obtained from DNA extracted from tumour tissue from the same patient. Results The overall percentage agreement between plasma-based and tissue-based RAS mutation testing of the 236 participants was 89% (210/236; kappa, 0.770 (95% CI: 0.689–0.852)). Re-analysis of tissue from all discordant cases by BEAMing revealed two false negative and five false positive tumour tissue RAS results, with a final concordance of 92%. Plasma false negative results were found more frequently in patients with exclusive lung metastatic disease. Conclusions In this first prospective real-world RAS mutation performance comparison study, a high overall agreement was observed between results obtained from plasma and tissue samples. Overall, these findings indicate that the plasma-based BEAMing assay is a viable solution for rapid delivery of RAS mutation status to determine mCRC patient eligibility for anti-EGFR therapy.