Prospective Biomarker Study in Advanced RAS Wild-Type Colorectal Cancer: POSIBA Trial (GEMCAD 10-02)

Xabier García-Albéniz, Vicente Alonso, Pilar Escudero, Miguel Méndez, Javier Gallego, Jose Ramon Rodríguez, Antonia Salud, Julen Fernández-Plana, Hermini Manzano, Montserrat Zanui, Ester Falcó, Jaime Feliu, Mireia Gil, Carlos Fernández-Martos, Uriel Bohn, Carmen Alonso, Verónica Calderero, Federico Rojo, Miriam Cuatrecasas, Joan Maurel, Xabier García-Albéniz, Vicente Alonso, Pilar Escudero, Miguel Méndez, Javier Gallego, Jose Ramon Rodríguez, Antonia Salud, Julen Fernández-Plana, Hermini Manzano, Montserrat Zanui, Ester Falcó, Jaime Feliu, Mireia Gil, Carlos Fernández-Martos, Uriel Bohn, Carmen Alonso, Verónica Calderero, Federico Rojo, Miriam Cuatrecasas, Joan Maurel

Abstract

Background: RAS testing is used to select patients with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapies sensitivity in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, other biomarkers such as BRAF, PIK3CA/PTEN, and p-IGF-1R+/MMP7+ (double positive [DP] phenotype) have not been prospectively assessed to predict anti-EGFR resistance.

Materials and methods: We designed a multicenter prospective trial (NCT01276379) to evaluate whether the biomarkers BRAF mutation, PIK3CA mutation/PTEN loss, and DP phenotype can improve the prediction for 12-months progression-free survival (PFS) over the use of clinical variables exclusively in patients with RAS wild-type (WT) mCRC treated with standard chemotherapy plus biweekly cetuximab as first-line therapy. The planned sample size was 170 RAS WT patients to detect a 20% difference in 12-month PFS based on the analysis of clinical and selected biomarkers (α = .05, β = .2). The discriminatory capacity of the biomarkers was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves.

Results: We included 181 RAS WT patients. The biomarker distribution was as follows: BRAF mutant, 20 patients (11%); PIK3CA mutated/PTEN loss, 98 patients (58%); DP, 23 patients (12.7%). The clinical variables in the clinical score were progression status >0, left-sided tumor, and resectable liver metastasis as the only metastatic site. The area under the curve (AUC) of the score containing the clinical variables was 0.67 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.75). The AUC of the score with clinical variables and BRAF mutational status was 0.68 (0.61-0.75, p = .37). The AUC of the score with clinical variables and PI3KCA mutation/PTEN status was 0.69 (0.61-0.76, p = .32). The AUC of the score with clinical variables and DP phenotype was 0.66 (0.58-0.73, p = .09).

Conclusion: The addition of BRAF, PIK3CA/PTEN, and DP to a clinical score does not improve the discrimination of 12-month PFS.

Implications for practice: This prospective biomarker design study has important clinical implications because many prospective clinical trials are designed with the hypothesis that BRAF mutation per se and MEK and PIK3CA downstream pathways are critical for colorectal tumor survival. The results lead to the question of whether these pathways should be considered as passengers instead of drivers.

Keywords: Biomarkers; Cetuximab; Clinical score; Colorectal cancer.

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article.

© 2019 The Authors. The Oncologist published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of AlphaMed Press.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Patient flowchart.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Area under the curve score with clinical and biomarker variables. ROC curves for comparisons. Abbreviations: DP, double positive; ROC, receiver operating characteristic.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Progression‐free survival under each score classification (dichotomized by the most discriminative cut‐point) was equivalent under the four scores. Abbreviation: DP, double positive.

References

    1. Venderbosch S, Nagtegaal ID, Maughan TS et al. Mismatch repair status and BRAF mutation status in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: A pooled analysis of the CAIRO, CAIRO2, COIN, and FOCUS studies. Clin Cancer Res 2014;20:5322–5330.
    1. Lièvre A, Bachet JB, Le Corre D et al. KRAS mutation status is predictive of response to cetuximab therapy in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res 2006;66:3953–3992.
    1. Benvenuti S, Sartore‐Bianchi A, Di Nicolantonio F et al. Oncogenic activation of the RAS/RAF signaling pathway impairs the response of metastatic colorectal cancers to anti‐epidermal growth factor receptor antibody therapies. Cancer Res 2007;67:2643–2648.
    1. Douillard JY, Oliner KS, Siena S et al. Panitumumab‐FOLFOX4 treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1023–1034.
    1. Van Cutsem E, Lenz HJ, Köhne CH, et al. Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan plus cetuximab treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:692–700.
    1. Di Nicolantonio F, Martini M, Molinari F et al. Wild‐type BRAF is required for response to panitumumab or cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:5705–57012.
    1. Frattini M, Saletti P, Romagnani E et al. PTEN loss of expression predicts cetuximab efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Br J Cancer 2007;97:1139–1145.
    1. Sartore‐Bianchi A, Martini M, Molinari F et al. PIK3CA mutations in colorectal cancer are associated with clinical resistance to EGFR‐targeted monoclonal antibodies. Cancer Res 2009;69:1851–1857.
    1. Laurent‐Puig P, Cayre A, Manceau G et al. Analysis of PTEN, BRAF, and EGFR status in determining benefit from cetuximab therapy in wild‐type KRAS metastatic colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:5924–5930.
    1. Perrone F, Lampis A, Orsenigo M et al. PI3KCA/PTEN deregulation contributes to impaired responses to cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Ann Oncol 2009;20:84–90.
    1. Prenen H, De Schutter J, Jacobs B, De Roock W, Biesmans B, Claes B, Lambrechts D, Van Cutsem E, Tejpar S. PIK3CA mutations are not a major determinant of resistance to the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2009;15:3184–3188.
    1. De Roock W, Claes B, Bernasconi D et al. Effects of KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations on the efficacy of cetuximab plus chemotherapy in chemotherapy‐refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: A retrospective consortium analysis. Lancet Oncol 2010;11:753–762.
    1. Tian S, Simon I, Moreno V et al. A combined oncogenic pathway signature of BRAF, KRAS and PI3KCA mutation improves colorectal cancer classification and cetuximab treatment prediction. Gut 2013;62:540–549.
    1. Hörndler C, Gallego R, García‐Albéniz X et al. Co‐expression of matrix metalloproteinase‐7 (MMP‐7) and phosphorylated insulin growth factor receptor I (pIGF‐1R) correlates with poor prognosis in patients with wild‐type KRAS treated with cetuximab or panitumumab: A GEMCAD study. Cancer Biol Ther 2011;11:177–183.
    1. Mandrekar SJ, Sargent DJ. Clinical trial designs for predictive biomarker validation: Theoretical considerations and practical challenges. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:4027–4034.
    1. Seymour MT, Brown SR, Middleton G et al. Panitumumab and irinotecan versus irinotecan alone for patients with KRAS wild‐type, fluorouracil‐resistant advanced colorectal cancer (PICCOLO): A prospectively stratified randomized trial. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:749–759.
    1. Peeters M, Oliner KS, Parker A et al. Massively parallel tumor multigene sequencing to evaluate response to panitumumab in a randomized phase III study of metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2013;19:1902–1912.
    1. Karapetis CS, Jonker D, Daneshmand M et al. NCIC Clinical Trials Group and the Australasian Gastro‐Intestinal Trials Group . PIK3CA, BRAF, and PTEN status and benefit from cetuximab in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer–results from NCIC CTG/AGITG CO.17. Clin Cancer Res 2014;20:744–753.
    1. Rubini M, D'Ambrosio C, Carturan S et al. Characterization of an antibody that can detect an activated IGF‐I receptor in human cancers. Exp Cell Res 1999;251:22–32.
    1. Nagata Y, Lan KH, Zhou X et al. PTEN activation contributes to tumor inhibition by trastuzumab, and loss of PTEN predicts trastuzumab resistance in patients. Cancer Cell 2004;6:117–127.
    1. Meigs JB, Shrader P, Sullivan LM et al. Genotype score in addition to common risk factors for prediction of type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2008;359:2208–2219.
    1. Sanchez‐Lopez E, Flashner‐Abramson E, Shalapour S et al. Targeting colorectal cancer via its microenvironment by inhibiting IGF‐1 receptor‐insulin receptor substrate and STAT3 signaling. Oncogene 2016;35:2634–2644.
    1. Cremolini C, Morano F, Moretto R et al. Negative hyper‐selection of metastatic colorectal cancer patients for anti‐EGFR monoclonal antibodies: The PRESSING case‐control study. Ann Oncol 2017;28:3009–3014.
    1. Trinh A, Trumpi K, De Sousa E Melo F et al. Practical and robust identification of molecular subtypes in colorectal cancer by immunohistochemistry. Clin Cancer Res 2017;23:387–398.
    1. Renfro LA, Mallick H, An MW et al. Clinical trial designs incorporating predictive biomarkers. Cancer Treat Rev 2016;43:74–82.
    1. Adams R, Brown E, Brown L et al. Inhibition of EGFR, HER2, and HER3 signalling in patients with colorectal cancer wild‐type for BRAF, PIK3CA, KRAS, and NRAS (FOCUS4‐D): A phase 2‐3 randomised trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;3:162–171.
    1. Arnold D, Lueza B, Douillard JY et al. Prognostic and predictive value of primary tumour side in patients with RAS wild‐type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy and EGFR directed antibodies in six randomized trials. Ann Oncol 2017;28:1713–1729.
    1. van Geel RMJM, Tabernero J, Elez E et al. A Phase Ib dose‐escalation study of encorafenib and cetuximab with or without alpelisib in metastatic BRAF mutant colorectal cancer. Cancer Discov 2017;7:610–619.
    1. Corcoran RB, André T, Atreya CE et al. Combined BRAF, EGFR, and MEK inhibition in patients with BRAFV600E‐mutant colorectal cancer. Cancer Discov 2018;8:428–443.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir