Search

BACKGROUND: To determine whether the addition of durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) and oleclumab (anti-CD73) to standard-of-care treatment (FOLFOX and bevacizumab) enhances the anti-tumour effect in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: COLUMBIA-1 (NCT04068610) was a Phase Ib (feasibility; Part 1)/Phase II (randomised; Part 2) trial in patients with treatment-naïve microsatellite stable mCRC. Patients in Part 2 were randomised to receive standard-of-care (control arm) or standard-of-care plus durvalumab and oleclumab (experimental arm). Primary objectives included safety and efficacy. RESULTS: Seven patients were enrolled in Part 1 and 52 in Part 2 (n = 26 in each arm). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) occurred in 80.8% and 65.4% of patients in the control and experimental arms of Part 2, respectively, with 26.9% and 46.3% experiencing serious TEAEs. The confirmed objective response rate (ORR) was numerically higher in the experimental arm compared with the control arm (61.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 40.6-79.8] vs 46.2% [95% CI, 26.6-66.6]) but did not meet the statistically significant threshold in either arm. CONCLUSION: The safety profile of FOLFOX and bevacizumab in combination with durvalumab and oleclumab was manageable; however, the efficacy results do not warrant further development of this combination in patients with microsatellite stable mCRC. REGISTRATION: NCT04068610.

Background: Enco + cetux (doublet) has been approved in the US, EU, and Japan for the treatment of BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC after progression on 1-2 prior regimens. In the BEACON CRC study (NCT02928224), median OS (95% CI) with the doublet was 9.3 months (8.0-11.3) vs 5.9 months (5.1-7.1) with cetux + irinotecan or FOLFIRI (control) in patients (pts) with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC (HR 0.61 [95% CI: 0.5-0.8]). This post hoc analysis investigates OS by prior therapies to the doublet treatment in pts with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC from the BEACON CRC study. Methods : OS of pts treated with the doublet or control were compared according to prior treatment with bevacizumab, oxaliplatin or FOLFOXIRI and duration of prior anticancer therapy (ACT). Results : Sixty-four per cent and 55% of pts in the doublet and control arm respectively received prior bevacizumab. Of pts who had one prior therapy, 95% and 88% received prior oxaliplatin and 20% and 14% received prior FOLFOXIRI, respectively. In the doublet arm, pts who had bevacizumab < 4 months before start of study treatment had a median OS of 8.3 months (95% CI: 6.2-11.2); those who had bevacizumab >=4 months prior had a median OS of 10.7 (95% CI: 7.5-17.7). Within each treatment arm, OS was similar regardless of prior treatment with oxaliplatin or FOLFOXIRI. The duration of prior ACT was similar across study arms, ranging from 5.6 to 5.8 months for the first line of ACT. Conclusions : In the BEACON CRC study, pts treated with the doublet for BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC demonstrated similar OS regardless of prior therapies or duration of prior therapy use. This exploratory post hoc analysis provides data that reflect the prior treatment landscape clinicians may face when deciding subsequent treatment regimens for pts with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC.

Background: In the BEACON study, encorafenib + binimetinib + cetuximab (enco/bini/cetux; triplet) and enco + cetux (doublet) improved OS and ORR vs standard of care in previously treated BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC pts. Molecular profiling of tumours from this study was performed to identify molecular correlates of outcome. Methods : Baseline tumour samples were analysed by whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole transcriptome sequencing (WTS). BRAF-mutant (BM) and consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) were determined and pathway activities evaluated with gene set variation analysis. Tumour response was evaluated for each subtype. Additional association and interaction analyses between molecular features and outcomes by treatments are ongoing and will be presented. Results : Baseline tumour samples were analysed by WES and/or WTS for 79.2% of pts. Of the 460 pts analysed by WTS (73.7% in the triplet arm, 66.4% in the doublet arm, 67.4% in the control arm), 84.6% were classified as CMS1 or CMS4. Overall 32.2% of pts were classified as BM1 and the majority (84.5%) of these were CMS4. Many of those classified as BM2 (67.8%) were CMS1 (64.7%). In the BM1 and CMS4 tumours, expression of inflammatory response and epithelial mesenchymal transition genes were elevated, and expression of cell cycle genes was reduced. Response rate in pts with CMS4 and/or BM1 tumors was higher in the triplet arm (CMS4: 33.3% [95% CI: 21.7-46.7]; BM1: 33.3% [95% CI: 21.4-47.1]) vs the doublet arm (CMS4: 19.2% [95% CI: 9.6-32.5]; BM1: 14.9% [95% CI: 6.2-28.3]). Conclusions : Molecular characteristics and biological properties observed in BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC suggest a subset of pts with specific molecular features may derive greater clinical benefit from triplet vs doublet therapy. These findings support further investigating the biological landscape in BRAF-mutant mCRC to enable potential hypotheses for pt selection to improve clinical outcome in future studies.

Background: Enco + cetux (doublet) has been approved in the US, EU, and Japan for the treatment of BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC after progression on 1-2 prior regimens. In the BEACON CRC study (NCT02928224), median OS (95% CI) with the doublet was 9.3 months (8.0-11.3) vs 5.9 months (5.1-7.1) with cetux + irinotecan or FOLFIRI (control) in patients (pts) with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC (HR 0.61 [95% CI: 0.5-0.8]). This post hoc analysis investigates OS by prior therapies to the doublet treatment in pts with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC from the BEACON CRC study. Methods : OS of pts treated with the doublet or control were compared according to prior treatment with bevacizumab, oxaliplatin or FOLFOXIRI and duration of prior anticancer therapy (ACT). Results : Sixty-four per cent and 55% of pts in the doublet and control arm respectively received prior bevacizumab. Of pts who had one prior therapy, 95% and 88% received prior oxaliplatin and 20% and 14% received prior FOLFOXIRI, respectively. In the doublet arm, pts who had bevacizumab < 4 months before start of study treatment had a median OS of 8.3 months (95% CI: 6.2-11.2); those who had bevacizumab >=4 months prior had a median OS of 10.7 (95% CI: 7.5-17.7). Within each treatment arm, OS was similar regardless of prior treatment with oxaliplatin or FOLFOXIRI. The duration of prior ACT was similar across study arms, ranging from 5.6 to 5.8 months for the first line of ACT. Conclusions : In the BEACON CRC study, pts treated with the doublet for BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC demonstrated similar OS regardless of prior therapies or duration of prior therapy use. This exploratory post hoc analysis provides data that reflect the prior treatment landscape clinicians may face when deciding subsequent treatment regimens for pts with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC.

Background: In the BEACON study, encorafenib + binimetinib + cetuximab (enco/bini/cetux; triplet) and enco + cetux (doublet) improved OS and ORR vs standard of care in previously treated BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC pts. Molecular profiling of tumours from this study was performed to identify molecular correlates of outcome. Methods : Baseline tumour samples were analysed by whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole transcriptome sequencing (WTS). BRAF-mutant (BM) and consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) were determined and pathway activities evaluated with gene set variation analysis. Tumour response was evaluated for each subtype. Additional association and interaction analyses between molecular features and outcomes by treatments are ongoing and will be presented. Results : Baseline tumour samples were analysed by WES and/or WTS for 79.2% of pts. Of the 460 pts analysed by WTS (73.7% in the triplet arm, 66.4% in the doublet arm, 67.4% in the control arm), 84.6% were classified as CMS1 or CMS4. Overall 32.2% of pts were classified as BM1 and the majority (84.5%) of these were CMS4. Many of those classified as BM2 (67.8%) were CMS1 (64.7%). In the BM1 and CMS4 tumours, expression of inflammatory response and epithelial mesenchymal transition genes were elevated, and expression of cell cycle genes was reduced. Response rate in pts with CMS4 and/or BM1 tumors was higher in the triplet arm (CMS4: 33.3% [95% CI: 21.7-46.7]; BM1: 33.3% [95% CI: 21.4-47.1]) vs the doublet arm (CMS4: 19.2% [95% CI: 9.6-32.5]; BM1: 14.9% [95% CI: 6.2-28.3]). Conclusions : Molecular characteristics and biological properties observed in BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC suggest a subset of pts with specific molecular features may derive greater clinical benefit from triplet vs doublet therapy. These findings support further investigating the biological landscape in BRAF-mutant mCRC to enable potential hypotheses for pt selection to improve clinical outcome in future studies.

BACKGROUND: In the BEACON CRC study (NCT02928224), encorafenib plus cetuximab with binimetinib {9.3 versus 5.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.60 [0.47-0.75]} or without binimetinib [9.3 versus 5.9 months; HR (95% CI): 0.61 (0.48-0.77)] significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared with the previous standard of care (control) in patients with BRAF V600E metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Quality of life (QoL) was a secondary endpoint, assessed using validated instruments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: BEACON CRC was a randomized, open-label, phase III study comparing encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib and the investigator's choice of irinotecan plus cetuximab or FOLFIRI plus cetuximab (chemotherapy control) in patients with previously treated BRAF V600E mCRC. Patient-reported QoL assessments included the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C). The primary outcome for these tools was time to definitive 10% deterioration. RESULTS: Encorafenib plus cetuximab, both with and without binimetinib, was associated with longer median times to definitive 10% deterioration versus the control group in the EORTC Global Health Status scale [HR (95% CI): 0.65 (0.52-0.80) versus 0.61 (0.49-0.75), respectively] and the FACT-C functional well-being subscale [HR (95% CI): 0.62 (0.50-0.76) versus 0.58 (0.47-0.72), respectively]. Consistent results were observed across all subscales of the EORTC and FACT-C instruments. QoL was generally maintained during treatment for the global EORTC and FACT-C scales. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to improving OS, encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib delays QoL decline in previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC.

Single-cell RNA sequencing studies have suggested that total mRNA content correlates with tumor phenotypes. Technical and analytical challenges, however, have so far impeded at-scale pan-cancer examination of total mRNA content. Here we present a method to quantify tumor-specific total mRNA expression (TmS) from bulk sequencing data, taking into account tumor transcript proportion, purity and ploidy, which are estimated through transcriptomic/genomic deconvolution. We estimate and validate TmS in 6,590 patient tumors across 15 cancer types, identifying significant inter-tumor variability. Across cancers, high TmS is associated with increased risk of disease progression and death. TmS is influenced by cancer-specific patterns of gene alteration and intra-tumor genetic heterogeneity as well as by pan-cancer trends in metabolic dysregulation. Taken together, our results indicate that measuring cell-type-specific total mRNA expression in tumor cells predicts tumor phenotypes and clinical outcomes.

Background: BEACONCRC is a randomized, phase 3 study which evaluated the triplet of encorafenib (ENCO) + binimetinib (BINI) + cetuximab (CETUX) and the doublet of ENCO + CETUX vs. investigator's choice of irinotecan + CETUX or FOLFIRI + CETUX in patients (pts) with BRAFV600E metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) whose disease had progressed after 1-2 prior regimens in the metastatic setting. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR; by blinded central review) for triplet vs control. In a previous interim analysis, triplet and doublet improvedOS andORRversus standard of care. Here we report on an updated analysis. Method(s): Updated analysis includes 6 months of additional follow-up and response data for all randomized pts. The study is ongoing. Result(s): Patients received triplet (n = 224), doublet (n = 220), or control (n = 221). Median OS was 9.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]:8.2, 10.8) for triplet and 5.9 months (95% CI:5.1-7.1) for control (hazard ratio [HR] (95% CI): 0.60 (0.47-0.75)). Median OS for doublet was 9.3 months (95% CI: 8.0-11.3) (HR vs control: 0.61 (0.48- 0.77). Confirmed ORR was 26.8% (95% CI: 21.1%-33.1%) for triplet, 19.5% (95% CI: 14.5%-25.4%) for doublet, and 1.8% (95% CI: 0.5%- 4.6%) for control. Retrospective subgroup analyses suggested some pts may benefit more from triplet than doublet therapy (Table). Both triplet and doublet showedimprovedOS compared to control in all subgroups. Adverse events were consistent with prior analysis, with grade >=3 adverse events in 65.8%, 57.4%, and 64.2% for triplet, doublet and control, respectively. Conclusion(s): The updated analysis of the BEACON CRC study confirmed that encorafenib + cetuximab with or without binimetinib improved OS and ORR in previously treated pts with BRAF V600E mCRC compared with standard chemotherapy.

Background: BEACONCRC is a randomized, phase 3 study which evaluated the triplet of encorafenib (ENCO) + binimetinib (BINI) + cetuximab (CETUX) and the doublet of ENCO + CETUX vs. investigator's choice of irinotecan + CETUX or FOLFIRI + CETUX in patients (pts) with BRAFV600E metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) whose disease had progressed after 1-2 prior regimens in the metastatic setting. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR; by blinded central review) for triplet vs control. In a previous interim analysis, triplet and doublet improvedOS andORRversus standard of care. Here we report on an updated analysis. Method(s): Updated analysis includes 6 months of additional follow-up and response data for all randomized pts. The study is ongoing. Result(s): Patients received triplet (n = 224), doublet (n = 220), or control (n = 221). Median OS was 9.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]:8.2, 10.8) for triplet and 5.9 months (95% CI:5.1-7.1) for control (hazard ratio [HR] (95% CI): 0.60 (0.47-0.75)). Median OS for doublet was 9.3 months (95% CI: 8.0-11.3) (HR vs control: 0.61 (0.48- 0.77). Confirmed ORR was 26.8% (95% CI: 21.1%-33.1%) for triplet, 19.5% (95% CI: 14.5%-25.4%) for doublet, and 1.8% (95% CI: 0.5%- 4.6%) for control. Retrospective subgroup analyses suggested some pts may benefit more from triplet than doublet therapy (Table). Both triplet and doublet showedimprovedOS compared to control in all subgroups. Adverse events were consistent with prior analysis, with grade >=3 adverse events in 65.8%, 57.4%, and 64.2% for triplet, doublet and control, respectively. Conclusion(s): The updated analysis of the BEACON CRC study confirmed that encorafenib + cetuximab with or without binimetinib improved OS and ORR in previously treated pts with BRAF V600E mCRC compared with standard chemotherapy.

BRAF V600E mutations are identified in <=15% of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients and confer a poor prognosis. In patient's refractory to initial therapy, ORR to standard chemotherapy and biologic combinations are generally <10%, with median PFS and OS of ~2 and 4-6 months, respectively. The BEACON CRC Study (NCT02928224) was a multicentre, randomized, open-label, 3-arm, phase 3 study evaluating ENCO + CETUX +/- BINI (triplet or doublet combination) versus investigator's choice of Irinotecan or FOLFIRI + CETUX (control) in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC who had failed one or two prior regimens in the metastatic setting. Primary endpoints were OS and ORR (blinded central review) for the triplet versus control arm; secondary endpoints included OS for the doublet versus control arm, as well as PFS, duration of response and safety. A total of 665 patients were randomly assigned to receive: triplet combination (n= 224), doublet combination (n= 220) or control regimen (n= 221). Median OS was 9.0 months (95% CI, 8.0-11.4) for the triplet versus 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.8-6.6) for control regimens (HR: 0.52; 95% CI, 0.39-0.70; P < .0001). ConfirmedORR(blinded central review) was 26% (95% CI, 18-35%) for the triplet versus 2% (95% CI, <1% to 7%) for control (P < .0001). Median OS for the doublet was 8.4months (95% CI, 7.5-11.0) (HR vs control, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45-0.79; P = .0003). Adverse events (AEs) were consistent with prior trials with each combination. AEs >=grade 3 occurred in 58%, 50% and 61% of patients in the triplet, doublet and control arms, respectively. ENCO + BINI + CETUX improved OS and ORR in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC compared with current standard of care chemotherapy and had a safety profile consistent with the known safety profile of each agent. This targeted therapy regimen should be a new standard of care for this patient population.

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide, with a 5-year relative survival of 14% in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients with BRAF V600E mutations, which occur in ∼10%-15% of patients with mCRC, have a poorer prognosis compared with those with wild-type BRAF tumours. The combination of the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib with the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor cetuximab currently represents the only chemotherapy-free targeted therapy approved in the USA and Europe for previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC. As a class, BRAF inhibitors are associated with dermatologic, gastrointestinal, and renal events, as well as pyrexia and secondary skin malignancies. Adverse event (AE) profiles of specific BRAF inhibitors vary, however, and are affected by the specific agents given in combination. In patients with mCRC, commonly reported AEs of cetuximab monotherapy include infusion reactions and dermatologic toxicities. Data from the phase III BEACON CRC study indicate that the combination of encorafenib with cetuximab has a distinct safety profile. Here we review the most frequently reported AEs that occurred with this combination in BEACON CRC and best practices for managing and mitigating AEs that require more than standard supportive care.

PURPOSE: BEACON CRC evaluated encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib versus investigators' choice of irinotecan or FOLFIRI plus cetuximab in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), after progression on 1-2 prior regimens. In the previously reported primary analysis, encorafenib, binimetinib plus cetuximab (ENCO/BINI/CETUX; triplet) and encorafenib plus cetuximab (ENCO/CETUX; doublet) regimens improved overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR; by blinded central review) versus standard of care. The purpose of this analysis was to report updated efficacy and safety data. METHODS: In this open-label, phase III trial, 665 patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive triplet, doublet, or control. Primary end points were OS and independently reviewed ORR comparing triplet to control. OS for doublet versus control was a key secondary end point. Updated analyses include 6 months of additional follow-up and ORR for all randomized patients. RESULTS: Patients received triplet (n = 224), doublet (n = 220), or control (n = 221). Median OS was 9.3 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 10.8) for triplet and 5.9 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 7.1) for control (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.75]). Median OS for doublet was 9.3 months (95% CI, 8.0 to 11.3) (HR v control, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.77]). Confirmed ORR was 26.8% (95% CI, 21.1% to 33.1%) for triplet, 19.5% (95% CI, 14.5% to 25.4%) for doublet, and 1.8% (95% CI, 0.5% to 4.6%) for control. Adverse events were consistent with the prior primary analysis, with grade ≥ 3 adverse events in 65.8%, 57.4%, and 64.2% for triplet, doublet, and control, respectively. CONCLUSION: In the BEACON CRC study, encorafenib plus cetuximab improved OS, ORR, and progression-free survival in previously treated patients in the metastatic setting compared with standard chemotherapy. Based on the primary and updated analyses, encorafenib plus cetuximab is a new standard ca

PURPOSE: To determine the safety and preliminary efficacy of selective combination targeted therapy for BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the safety lead-in phase of the open-label, randomized, three-arm, phase III BEACON Colorectal Cancer trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02928224; European Union Clinical Trials Register identifier: EudraCT2015-005805-35). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Before initiation of the randomized portion of the BEACON Colorectal Cancer trial, 30 patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC who had experienced treatment failure with one or two prior regimens were to be recruited to a safety lead-in of encorafenib 300 mg daily, binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, plus standard weekly cetuximab. The primary end point was safety, including the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities. Efficacy end points included overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Among the 30 treated patients, dose-limiting toxicities occurred in five patients and included serous retinopathy (n = 2), reversible decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (n = 1), and cetuximab-related infusion reactions (n = 2). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were fatigue (13%), anemia (10%), increased creatine phosphokinase (10%), increased AST (10%), and urinary tract infections (10%). In 29 patients with BRAF V600E-mutant tumors (one patient had a non-BRAF V600E-mutant tumor and was not included in the efficacy analysis), the confirmed overall response rate was 48% (95% CI, 29.4% to 67.5%), median progression-free survival was 8.0 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 9.3 months), and median overall survival was 15.3 months (95% CI, 9.6 months to not reached), with median duration of follow-up of 18.2 months (range, 16.6 to 19.8 months). CONCLUSION: In the safety lead-in, the safety and tolerability of the encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab regimen is manageable and acceptable for initiation of the randomized portion of the study. The

PURPOSE: BRAF V600E mutation is seen in 5% to 8% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) and is associated with poor prognosis. Vemurafenib, an oral BRAF V600 inhibitor, has pronounced activity in patients with metastatic melanoma, but its activity in patients with BRAF V600E-positive metastatic CRC was unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multi-institutional, open-label study, patients with metastatic CRC with BRAF V600 mutations were recruited to an expansion cohort at the previously determined maximum-tolerated dose of 960 mg orally twice a day. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled, of whom 20 had received at least one prior metastatic chemotherapy regimen. Grade 3 toxicities included keratoacanthomas, rash, fatigue, and arthralgia. Of the 21 patients treated, one patient had a confirmed partial response (5%; 95% CI, 1% to 24%) and seven other patients had stable disease by RECIST criteria. Median progression-free survival was 2.1 months. Patterns of concurrent mutations, microsatellite instability status, CpG island methylation status, PTEN loss, EGFR expression, and copy number alterations were not associated with clinical benefit. In contrast to prior expectations, concurrent KRAS and NRAS mutations were detected at low allele frequency in a subset of the patients' tumors (median, 0.21% allele frequency) and were apparent mechanisms of acquired resistance in vemurafenib-sensitive patient-derived xenograft models. CONCLUSION: In marked contrast to the results seen in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant melanoma, single-agent vemurafenib did not show meaningful clinical activity in patients with BRAF V600E mutant CRC. Combination strategies are now under development and may be informed by the presence of intratumor heterogeneity of KRAS and NRAS mutations.

BackgroundThis retrospective study aims to investigate the activity of retreatment with anti-EGFR-based therapies in order to explore the concept of clonal evolution by evaluating the impact of prior activity and intervening time interval.MethodsEighty-nine KRAS exon 2-wild-type metastatic colorectal patients were retreated on phase I/II clinical trials containing anti-EGFR therapies after progressing on prior cetuximab or panitumumab. Response on prior anti-EGFR therapy was defined retrospectively per physician-records as response or stable disease ≥6 months. Multivariable statistical methods included a multiple logistic regression model for response, and Cox proportional hazards model for progression-free survival.ResultsRetreatment anti-EGFR agents were cetuximab (n = 76) or cetuximab plus erlotinib (n = 13). The median interval time between prior and retreatment regimens was 4.57 months (range: 0.46-58.7). Patients who responded to the prior cetuximab or panitumumab were more likely to obtain clinical benefit to the retreatment compared to the non-responders in both univariate (p = 0.007) and multivariate analyses (OR: 3.38, 95 % CI: 1.27, 9.31, p = 0.019). The clinical benefit rate on retreatment also showed a marginally significant association with interval time between the two anti-EGFR based therapies (p = 0.053). Median progression-free survival on retreatment was increased in prior responders (4.9 months, 95 % CI: 3.6, 6.2) compared to prior non-responders (2.5 months, 95 % CI, 1.58, 3.42) in univariate (p = 0.064) and multivariate analysis (HR: 0.70, 95 % CI: 0.43-1.15, p = 0.156).ConclusionOur data lends support to the concept of clonal evolution, though the clinical impact appears less robust than previously reported. Further work to determine which patients benefit from retreatment post progression is needed.

Despite marked tumor shrinkage after 5-FU treatment, the frequency of colon cancer relapse indicates that a fraction of tumor cells survives treatment causing tumor recurrence. The majority of cancer cells divert metabolites into anabolic pathways through Warburg behavior giving an advantage in terms of tumor growth. Here, we report that treatment of colon cancer cell with 5-FU selects for cells with mesenchymal stem-like properties that undergo a metabolic reprogramming resulting in addiction to OXPHOS to meet energy demands. 5-FU treatment-resistant cells show a de novo expression of pyruvate kinase M1 (PKM1) and repression of PKM2, correlating with repression of the pentose phosphate pathway, decrease in NADPH level and in antioxidant defenses, promoting PKM2 oxidation and acquisition of stemlike phenotype. Response to 5-FU in a xenotransplantation model of human colon cancer confirms activation of mitochondrial function. Combined treatment with 5-FU and a pharmacological inhibitor of OXPHOS abolished the spherogenic potential of colon cancer cells and diminished the expression of stem-like markers. These findings suggest that inhibition of OXPHOS in combination with 5-FU is a rational combination strategy to achieve durable treatment response in colon cancer.

PURPOSE: BRAF V600E mutation is seen in 5% to 8% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) and is associated with poor prognosis. Vemurafenib, an oral BRAF V600 inhibitor, has pronounced activity in patients with metastatic melanoma, but its activity in patients with BRAF V600E-positive metastatic CRC was unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multi-institutional, open-label study, patients with metastatic CRC with BRAF V600 mutations were recruited to an expansion cohort at the previously determined maximum-tolerated dose of 960 mg orally twice a day. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were enrolled, of whom 20 had received at least one prior metastatic chemotherapy regimen. Grade 3 toxicities included keratoacanthomas, rash, fatigue, and arthralgia. Of the 21 patients treated, one patient had a confirmed partial response (5%; 95% CI, 1% to 24%) and seven other patients had stable disease by RECIST criteria. Median progression-free survival was 2.1 months. Patterns of concurrent mutations, microsatellite instability status, CpG island methylation status, PTEN loss, EGFR expression, and copy number alterations were not associated with clinical benefit. In contrast to prior expectations, concurrent KRAS and NRAS mutations were detected at low allele frequency in a subset of the patients' tumors (median, 0.21% allele frequency) and were apparent mechanisms of acquired resistance in vemurafenib-sensitive patient-derived xenograft models. CONCLUSION: In marked contrast to the results seen in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant melanoma, single-agent vemurafenib did not show meaningful clinical activity in patients with BRAF V600E mutant CRC. Combination strategies are now under development and may be informed by the presence of intratumor heterogeneity of KRAS and NRAS mutations.

BackgroundThis retrospective study aims to investigate the activity of retreatment with anti-EGFR-based therapies in order to explore the concept of clonal evolution by evaluating the impact of prior activity and intervening time interval.MethodsEighty-nine KRAS exon 2-wild-type metastatic colorectal patients were retreated on phase I/II clinical trials containing anti-EGFR therapies after progressing on prior cetuximab or panitumumab. Response on prior anti-EGFR therapy was defined retrospectively per physician-records as response or stable disease ≥6 months. Multivariable statistical methods included a multiple logistic regression model for response, and Cox proportional hazards model for progression-free survival.ResultsRetreatment anti-EGFR agents were cetuximab (n = 76) or cetuximab plus erlotinib (n = 13). The median interval time between prior and retreatment regimens was 4.57 months (range: 0.46-58.7). Patients who responded to the prior cetuximab or panitumumab were more likely to obtain clinical benefit to the retreatment compared to the non-responders in both univariate (p = 0.007) and multivariate analyses (OR: 3.38, 95 % CI: 1.27, 9.31, p = 0.019). The clinical benefit rate on retreatment also showed a marginally significant association with interval time between the two anti-EGFR based therapies (p = 0.053). Median progression-free survival on retreatment was increased in prior responders (4.9 months, 95 % CI: 3.6, 6.2) compared to prior non-responders (2.5 months, 95 % CI, 1.58, 3.42) in univariate (p = 0.064) and multivariate analysis (HR: 0.70, 95 % CI: 0.43-1.15, p = 0.156).ConclusionOur data lends support to the concept of clonal evolution, though the clinical impact appears less robust than previously reported. Further work to determine which patients benefit from retreatment post progression is needed.

Despite marked tumor shrinkage after 5-FU treatment, the frequency of colon cancer relapse indicates that a fraction of tumor cells survives treatment causing tumor recurrence. The majority of cancer cells divert metabolites into anabolic pathways through Warburg behavior giving an advantage in terms of tumor growth. Here, we report that treatment of colon cancer cell with 5-FU selects for cells with mesenchymal stem-like properties that undergo a metabolic reprogramming resulting in addiction to OXPHOS to meet energy demands. 5-FU treatment-resistant cells show a de novo expression of pyruvate kinase M1 (PKM1) and repression of PKM2, correlating with repression of the pentose phosphate pathway, decrease in NADPH level and in antioxidant defenses, promoting PKM2 oxidation and acquisition of stemlike phenotype. Response to 5-FU in a xenotransplantation model of human colon cancer confirms activation of mitochondrial function. Combined treatment with 5-FU and a pharmacological inhibitor of OXPHOS abolished the spherogenic potential of colon cancer cells and diminished the expression of stem-like markers. These findings suggest that inhibition of OXPHOS in combination with 5-FU is a rational combination strategy to achieve durable treatment response in colon cancer.

Contains fulltext : 137112.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), The American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (AJCC/UICC) TNM staging system provides the most reliable guidelines for the routine prognostication and treatment of colorectal carcinoma. This traditional tumour staging summarizes data on tumour burden (T), the presence of cancer cells in draining and regional lymph nodes (N) and evidence for distant metastases (M). However, it is now recognized that the clinical outcome can vary significantly among patients within the same stage. The current classification provides limited prognostic information and does not predict response to therapy. Multiple ways to classify cancer and to distinguish different subtypes of colorectal cancer have been proposed, including morphology, cell origin, molecular pathways, mutation status and gene expression-based stratification. These parameters rely on tumour-cell characteristics. Extensive literature has investigated the host immune response against cancer and demonstrated the prognostic impact of the in situ immune cell infiltrate in tumours. A methodology named 'Immunoscore' has been defined to quantify the in situ immune infiltrate. In colorectal cancer, the Immunoscore may add to the significance of the current AJCC/UICC TNM classification, since it has been demonstrated to be a prognostic factor superior to the AJCC/UICC TNM classification. An international consortium has been initiated to validate and promote the Immunoscore in routine clinical settings. The results of this international consortium may result in the implementation of the Immunoscore as a new component for the classification of cancer, designated TNM-I (TNM-Immune).

The American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (AJCC/UICC) TNM staging system provides the most reliable guidelines for the routine prognostication and treatment of colorectal carcinoma. This traditional tumour staging summarizes data on tumour burden (T), the presence of cancer cells in draining and regional lymph nodes (N) and evidence for distant metastases (M). However, it is now recognized that the clinical outcome can vary significantly among patients within the same stage. The current classification provides limited prognostic information and does not predict response to therapy. Multiple ways to classify cancer and to distinguish different subtypes of colorectal cancer have been proposed, including morphology, cell origin, molecular pathways, mutation status and gene expression-based stratification. These parameters rely on tumour-cell characteristics. Extensive literature has investigated the host immune response against cancer and demonstrated the prognostic impact of the in situ immune cell infiltrate in tumours. A methodology named 'Immunoscore' has been defined to quantify the in situ immune infiltrate. In colorectal cancer, the Immunoscore may add to the significance of the current AJCC/UICC TNM classification, since it has been demonstrated to be a prognostic factor superior to the AJCC/UICC TNM classification. An international consortium has been initiated to validate and promote the Immunoscore in routine clinical settings. The results of this international consortium may result in the implementation of the Immunoscore as a new component for the classification of cancer, designated TNM-I (TNM-Immune).

Contains fulltext : 137112.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), The American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (AJCC/UICC) TNM staging system provides the most reliable guidelines for the routine prognostication and treatment of colorectal carcinoma. This traditional tumour staging summarizes data on tumour burden (T), the presence of cancer cells in draining and regional lymph nodes (N) and evidence for distant metastases (M). However, it is now recognized that the clinical outcome can vary significantly among patients within the same stage. The current classification provides limited prognostic information and does not predict response to therapy. Multiple ways to classify cancer and to distinguish different subtypes of colorectal cancer have been proposed, including morphology, cell origin, molecular pathways, mutation status and gene expression-based stratification. These parameters rely on tumour-cell characteristics. Extensive literature has investigated the host immune response against cancer and demonstrated the prognostic impact of the in situ immune cell infiltrate in tumours. A methodology named 'Immunoscore' has been defined to quantify the in situ immune infiltrate. In colorectal cancer, the Immunoscore may add to the significance of the current AJCC/UICC TNM classification, since it has been demonstrated to be a prognostic factor superior to the AJCC/UICC TNM classification. An international consortium has been initiated to validate and promote the Immunoscore in routine clinical settings. The results of this international consortium may result in the implementation of the Immunoscore as a new component for the classification of cancer, designated TNM-I (TNM-Immune).

The functional roles of SNPs within the 8q24 gene desert in the cancer phenotype are not yet well understood. Here, we report that CCAT2, a novel long noncoding RNA transcript (lncRNA) encompassing the rs6983267 SNP, is highly overexpressed in microsatellite-stable colorectal cancer and promotes tumor growth, metastasis, and chromosomal instability. We demonstrate that MYC, miR-17-5p, and miR-20a are up-regulated by CCAT2 through TCF7L2-mediated transcriptional regulation. We further identify the physical interaction between CCAT2 and TCF7L2 resulting in an enhancement of WNT signaling activity. We show that CCAT2 is itself a WNT downstream target, which suggests the existence of a feedback loop. Finally, we demonstrate that the SNP status affects CCAT2 expression and the risk allele G produces more CCAT2 transcript. Our results support a new mechanism of MYC and WNT regulation by the novel lncRNA CCAT2 in colorectal cancer pathogenesis, and provide an alternative explanation of the SNP-conferred cancer risk.

The functional roles of SNPs within the 8q24 gene desert in the cancer phenotype are not yet well understood. Here, we report that CCAT2, a novel long noncoding RNA transcript (IncRNA) encompassing the rs6983267 SNP, is highly over-expressed in microsatellite-stable colorectal cancer and promotes tumor growth, metastasis, and chromosomal instability. We demonstrate that MY, miR-17-5p, and miR-20a are up-regulated by CCAT2 through TCF7L2-mediated transcriptional regulation. We further identify the physical interaction between CC4T2 and TCF7L2 resulting in an enhancement of WNT signaling activity. We show that CCAT2 is itself a WNT downstream target, which suggests the existence of a feedback loop. Finally, we demonstrate that the SNP status affects CC4T2 expression and the risk allele G produces more CCAT2 transcript. Our results support a new mechanism of MYC and WNT regulation by the novel IncRNA CCAT2 in colorectal cancer pathogenesis, and provide an alternative explanation of the SNP-conferred cancer risk.

Prediction of clinical outcome in cancer is usually achieved by histopathological evaluation of tissue samples obtained during surgical resection of the primary tumor. Traditional tumor staging (AJCC/UICC-TNM classification) summarizes data on tumor burden (T), presence of cancer cells in draining and regional lymph nodes (N) and evidence for metastases (M). However, it is now recognized that clinical outcome can significantly vary among patients within the same stage. The current classification provides limited prognostic information, and does not predict response to therapy. Recent literature has alluded to the importance of the host immune system in controlling tumor progression. Thus, evidence supports the notion to include immunological biomarkers, implemented as a tool for the prediction of prognosis and response to therapy. Accumulating data, collected from large cohorts of human cancers, has demonstrated the impact of immune-classification, which has a prognostic value that may add to the significance of the AJCC/UICC TNM-classification. It is therefore imperative to begin to incorporate the 'Immunoscore' into traditional classification, thus providing an essential prognostic and potentially predictive tool. Introduction of this parameter as a biomarker to classify cancers, as part of routine diagnostic and prognostic assessment of tumors, will facilitate clinical decision-making including rational stratification of patient treatment. Equally, the inherent complexity of quantitative immunohistochemistry, in conjunction with protocol variation across laboratories, analysis of different immune cell types, inconsistent region selection criteria, and variable ways to quantify immune infiltration, all underline the urgent requirement to reach assay harmonization. In an effort to promote the Immunoscore in routine clinical settings, an international task force was initiated. This review represents a follow-up of the announcement of this initiative, and of the J Tr