No abstract

IMPORTANCE Based on a small retrospective study, rechallenge with cetuximab-based therapy for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who were previously treated with the same anti-epidermal growth factor receptor-based regimen might be efficacious. Recent data suggest the role of liquid biopsy as a tool to track molecular events in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). OBJECTIVE To prospectively assess the activity of cetuximab plus irinotecan as third-line treatment for patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC who were initially sensitive to and then resistant to first-line irinotecan-and cetuximab-based therapy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Multicenter phase 2 single-arm trial conducted from January 7, 2015, to June 19, 2017. Liquid biopsies for analysis of ctDNA were collected at baseline. Main eligibility criteria included RAS and BRAF wild-type status on tissue samples; prior first-line irinotecan-and cetuximab-based regimen with at least partial response, progression-free survival of at least 6 months with first-line therapy, and progression within 4 weeks after last dose of cetuximab; and prior second-line oxaliplatin-and bevacizumab-based treatment.INTERVENTIONS Biweekly cetuximab, 500 mg/m 2 , plus irinotecan, 180 mg/m 2 . MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Overall response rate according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Secondary end points included progression-free survival and overall survival and, as an exploratory analysis, RAS mutations in ctDNA. RESULTS Twenty-eight patients (9 women and 19 men; median age, 69 years [range, 45-79 years]) were enrolled. Six partial responses (4 confirmed) and 9 disease stabilizations were reported (response rate, 21%; 95% CI, 10%-40%; disease control rate, 54%; 95% CI, 36%-70%). Primary end point was met because lower limit of 95% CI of response rate was higher than 5%. RAS mutations were found in ctDNA collected at rechallenge baseline in 12 of 25 evaluable patients (48%). No RAS mutations were detected in samples from patients who achieved confirmed partial response. Patients with RAS wild-type ctDNA had significantly longer progression-free survival than those with RAS mutated ctDNA (median progression-free survival, 4.0 vs 1.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.18-0.98; P = .03).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This is the first prospective demonstration that a rechallenge strategy with cetuximab and irinotecan may be active in patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC with acquired resistance to first-line irinotecan-and cetuximab-based therapy. The evaluation of RAS mutational status on ctDNA might be helpful in selecting candidate patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02296203A, Hazard ratio, 0.44 (95% CI, 0.18-0.98; P = .03). B, Hazard ratio, 0.58 (95% CI, 0.22-1.52; P = .24). Research Original InvestigationRechallenge for Patients With RAS and BRAF Wild-Type mCRC With Resistance to Cetuximab and Irinotecan Additional Contributions: We are grateful to all participating patients, their fa...

No abstract

NRAS mutations occur in 3-5% of colorectal cancer. Differently from KRAS and BRAF mutations, the role of NRAS mutations as prognostic and predictive markers in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been investigated to a lesser extent. A retrospective series suggested the role of NRAS mutations as predictors of resistance to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) in chemo-refractory patients with mCRC. In our study, KRAS codons 12, 13, 61 and BRAF codon 600 mutational status were evaluated in mCRCs referred to our Institution from 2009 to 2012. NRAS codons 12, 13 and 61 mutational status was analyzed in KRAS/BRAF wt patients. We collected pathological and clinical features in the overall population and outcome data in a subset of NRAS mutated chemo-refractory patients treated with anti-EGFR MoAbs in advanced lines. NRAS was mutated in 47/786 (6%) mCRCs. NRAS and KRAS mutated tumors did not show significant differences in terms of clinical and pathological characteristics, except for a lower prevalence of mucinous histology (p = 0.012) and lung metastases (p = 0.012) among NRAS mutated tumors. In the uni- and multivariate model, NRAS mutations were associated with shorter overall survival (OS) compared to all wt patients (median OS 25.6 vs 42.7 months; univ: HR = 1.91, 95% CI 1.39-3.86, p = 0.0013; multiv: HR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.1.3-2.72, p = 0.013). None of the chemo-refractory NRAS mutated patients evaluable for response to anti-EGFRs achieved response. In conclusion, NRAS mutations have a relevant incidence in patients with mCRC and showed an association with specific clinical and pathological features. NRAS mutations affect mCRC patients' prognosis and predict lack of response to anti-EGFRs.

Background:Despite major advances in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with liver-only involvement, relapse rates are high and reliable prognostic markers are needed.Methods:To assess the prognostic impact of BRAF and RAS mutations in a large series of liver-resected patients, medical records of 3024 mCRC patients were reviewed. Eligible cases undergoing potentially curative liver resection were selected. BRAF and RAS mutational status was tested on primary and/or metastases by means of pyrosequencing and mass spectrometry genotyping assay. Primary endpoint was relapse-free survival (RFS).Results:In the final study population (N=309) BRAF mutant, RAS mutant and all wild-type (wt) patients were 12(4%), 160(52%) and 137(44%), respectively. Median RFS was 5.7, 11.0 and 14.4 months respectively and differed significantly (Log-rank, P=0.043). At multivariate analyses, BRAF mutant had a higher risk of relapse in comparison to all wt (multivariate hazard ratio (HR)=2.31; 95% CI, 1.09–4.87; P=0.029) and to RAS mutant (multivariate HR=2.06; 95% CI, 1.02–4.14; P=0.044). Similar results were obtained in terms of overall survival. Compared with all wt patients, RAS mutant showed a higher risk of death (HR=1.47; 95% CI, 1.05–2.07; P=0.025), but such effect was lost at multivariate analyses.Conclusions:BRAF mutation is associated with an extremely poor median RFS after liver resection and with higher probability of relapse and death. Knowledge of BRAF mutational status may optimise clinical decision making in mCRC patients potentially candidate to hepatic surgery. RAS status as useful marker in this setting might require further studies.