Search

Purpose:BRAF V600E mutant metastatic colorectal cancer represents a significant clinical problem, with combination approaches being developed clinically with oral BRAF inhibitors combined with EGFR-targeting antibodies. While compelling preclinical data have highlighted the effectiveness of combination therapy with vemurafenib and small-molecule EGFR inhibitors, gefitinib or erlotinib, in colorectal cancer, this therapeutic strategy has not been investigated in clinical studies.Patients and Methods:We conducted a phase Ib/II dose-escalation/expansion trial investigating the safety/efficacy of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and EGFR inhibitor erlotinib.Results:Thirty-two patients with BRAF V600E positive metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and 7 patients with other cancers were enrolled. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed in escalation, with vemurafenib 960 mg twice daily with erlotinib 150 mg daily selected as the recommended phase II dose. Among 31 evaluable patients with mCRC and 7 with other cancers, overall response rates were 32% [10/31, 16% (5/31) confirmed] and 43% (3/7), respectively, with clinical benefit rates of 65% and 100%. Early ctDNA dynamics were predictive of treatment efficacy, and serial ctDNA monitoring revealed distinct patterns of convergent genomic evolution associated with acquired treatment resistance, with frequent emergence of MAPK pathway alterations, including polyclonal KRAS, NRAS, and MAP2K1 mutations, and MET amplification.Conclusions:The Erlotinib and Vemurafenib In Combination Trial study demonstrated a safe and novel combination of two oral inhibitors targeting BRAF and EGFR. The dynamic assessment of serial ctDNA was a useful measure of underlying genomic changes in response to this combination and in understanding potential mechanisms of resistance.

The VEGF-A monoclonal antibody bevacizumab is currently recommended for first-line treatment of all metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. Cost-benefit ratio and side-effects however necessitate patient selection. A large retrospective yet nonrandomized study showed that patients with loss of chromosome 18q11.2-q12.1 in the tumor and treated with bevacizumab have 3 months improved median progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefit compared to patients without this loss and/or treatment modality. Implementation for loss of chromosome 18q11.2-q12.1 as a marker in clinical practice mandates evidence in a randomized controlled trial for bevacizumab. Of the trials with randomization of chemotherapy vs chemotherapy with bevacizumab, the AGITG-MAX trial was the only one with tumor materials available. Chromosome 18q11.2-q12.1 copy number status was measured for 256 AGITG-MAX trial patients and correlated with PFS according to a predefined analysis plan with marker-treatment interaction as the primary end-point. Chromosome 18q11.2-q12.1 losses were detected in 71% of patients (181/256) characteristic for mCRC. Consistent with the nonrandomized study, significant PFS benefit of bevacizumab was observed in patients with chromosome 18q11.2-q12.1 loss (P =.009), and not in patients without 18q loss (P =.67). Although significance for marker-treatment interaction was not reached (Pinteraction =.28), hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval of this randomized cohort (HRinteraction = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.39-1.32) shows striking overlap with the nonrandomized study cohorts (HRinteraction = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.32-0.8) supported by a nonsignificant Cochrane χ2 test (P =.11) for heterogeneity. We conclude that post hoc analysis of the AGITG-MAX RCT provides supportive evidence for chromosome 18q11.2-q12.1 as a predictive marker for bevacizumab in mCRC patients.

Supplementary Table 1

Supplementary figure 3 shows combining trametinib with different classes of HDAC inhibitors in COLO 201 cells

The EGFR/RAS/MEK/ERK signaling pathway (ERK/MAPK) is hyperactivated in most colorectal cancers. A current limitation of inhibitors of this pathway is that they primarily induce cytostatic effects in colorectal cancer cells. Nevertheless, these drugs do induce expression of proapoptotic factors, suggesting they may prime colorectal cancer cells to undergo apoptosis. As histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACis) induce expression of multiple proapoptotic proteins, we examined whether they could synergize with ERK/MAPK inhibitors to trigger colorectal cancer cell apoptosis. Combined MEK/ERK and HDAC inhibition synergistically induced apoptosis in colorectal cancer cell lines and patient-derived tumor organoids in vitro, and attenuated Apc-initiated adenoma formation in vivo. Mechanistically, combined MAPK/HDAC inhibition enhanced expression of the BH3-only proapoptotic proteins BIM and BMF, and their knockdown significantly attenuated MAPK/HDAC inhibitor–induced apoptosis. Importantly, we demonstrate that the paradigm of combined MAPK/HDAC inhibitor treatment to induce apoptosis can be tailored to specific MAPK genotypes in colorectal cancers, by combining an HDAC inhibitor with either an EGFR, KRASG12C or BRAFV600 inhibitor in KRAS/BRAFWT; KRASG12C, BRAFV600E colorectal cancer cell lines, respectively. These findings identify a series of ERK/MAPK genotype-tailored treatment strategies that can readily undergo clinical testing for the treatment of colorectal cancer.

Supplementary Figure 4

Supplementary table 1

Supplementary material

Supplementary Fig 2. Change in overall (A) and specific (B) plasma antibody titres against tumour antigens from baseline (D0) to 6 weeks of treatment (6W), n=8 patients.

Supplementary Table 1 Sequencing Primers used for FcGR 2a ( H/R,rs1801274) and FcGR3a (F/V;rs396991) polymorphisms genotyping

PDF file - 22K, Supplemental Fig. S3. Effect of cytoplasmic MET immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining on objective response rate in patients treated with panitumumab (pmab) plus rilotumumab (AMG 102) versus pmab plus placebo.

PDF file - 37K, Supplemental Fig. S4. The effect of baseline IGF and IGF-related protein expression on overall survival.

PDF file - 76K, Supplemental Fig. S1. (A) Randomized phase Ib/II trial of panitumumab plus rilotumumab (AMG 102) or ganitumab (AMG 479). (B) CONSORT diagram for part 2. *Panitumumab 6 mg/kg; rilotumumab 10 mg/kg with dose de-escalation to 5 mg/kg as necessary. �Panitumumab 6 mg/kg; rilotumumab 10 mg/kg; ganitumab 12 mg/kg. �Rilotumumab 10 mg/kg; ganitumab 12 mg/kg.

Supplementary Fig 3. Hierarchical clustering of plasma antibody profiles after 6 weeks of study treatment, using the Spearman rank correlation method with average linkage. Patient ID (0n) at the 6-week time point (best tumour response, PFS).

Supplementary tables 1-3

Supplementary Table from Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Study of Paclitaxel ± Napabucasin in Pretreated Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma

PDF file - 38K, Supplemental Fig. S5. The effect of baseline IGF and IGF-related protein expression on objective response rate.

PDF file - 38K, Supplemental Fig. S2. Best percent change of the sum of longest diameters of target lesions from baseline to post-baseline. (A) Panitumumab plus rilotumumab.(B) Panitumumab plus ganitumab. (C) Panitumumab alone.

Purpose: Panitumumab, a fully human anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody (mAb), has demonstrated efficacy in patients with wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Rilotumumab and ganitumab are investigational, fully human mAbs against hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/scatter factor and IGF1R, respectively. Here we evaluate combining rilotumumab or ganitumab with panitumumab in previously treated patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC.Experimental Design: Part 1 was a phase Ib dose-finding study of panitumumab plus rilotumumab. The primary endpoint was the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities (DLT). Part 2 was a randomized phase II trial of panitumumab in combination with rilotumumab, ganitumab, or placebo. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were secondary endpoints. Archival tissue specimens were collected for exploratory correlative work.Results: In part 1, no DLTs were reported. A recommended phase II dose of 10 mg/kg rilotumumab was selected. In part 2, for the panitumumab plus rilotumumab (n = 48), panitumumab plus ganitumab (n = 46), and panitumumab plus placebo arms (n = 48), the ORRs were 31%, 22%, and 21%, respectively. The median PFS was 5.2, 5.3, and 3.7 months and median OS 13.8, 10.6, and 11.6 months, respectively. Adverse events were tolerable. Exploratory biomarker analyses, including MET and IGF-related protein expression, failed to indicate conclusive predictive evidence on efficacy endpoints.Conclusions: Panitumumab plus rilotumumab met the prespecified criterion for improvement in ORR whereas ganitumab did not. This is the first study to suggest a benefit for combining an HGF inhibitor (rilotumumab) with panitumumab in previously treated patients with wild-type KRAS mCRC. Clin Cancer Res; 20(16); 4240–50. ©2014 AACR.

Supplementary Data from Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Study of Paclitaxel ± Napabucasin in Pretreated Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma

Supplementary Legend

Purpose: Two germline Fc-γ receptor (FCGR) polymorphisms, rs1801274 [FCGR2A;His(H)131Arg(R)] and rs396991 [FCGR3A;Phe(F)158Val(V)] produce altered proteins through amino acid substitutions; both are reported to be associated with cetuximab-related outcomes. We performed a validation of these polymorphisms in NCIC CTG CO.17, a randomized trial of cetuximab monotherapy in refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer expressing EGFR.Experimental Design: DNA extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue was genotyped. In addition to log-rank tests, Cox proportional hazard models assessed their relationships with overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), adjusting for clinically important prognostic factors, along with a polymorphism–treatment arm interaction term.Results: Somatic KRAS status was wild-type for exon 2 in 153 (52%) of 293 patients, from whom tumor DNA was available. For FCGR2A H/H, a genotype–treatment interaction for KRAS wild-type patients was observed for OS (P = 0.03). In KRAS wild-type patients carrying FCGR2A H/H, cetuximab (vs. no cetuximab) improved survival substantially, with adjusted HRs (aHR) of 0.36 (OS) and 0.19 (PFS) and absolute benefits of 5.5 months (OS; P = 0.003) and 3.7 months (PFS; P = 0.02). In contrast, patients carrying FCGR2A R alleles (H/R or R/R) had aHRs of only 0.78 (OS; 2.8-month benefit) and 0.53 (PFS; 1.6-month benefit). No relationships were found for rs396991 (FCGR3A).Conclusions: In the CO.17 trial, cetuximab worked best for patients with KRAS wild-type colorectal cancers carrying FCGR2A H/H genotypes. Significantly lower benefits were observed in patients carrying germline FCGR2A R alleles. Clin Cancer Res; 22(10); 2435–44. ©2016 AACR.

Supplementary Fig 1. (A) PFS in plasma VEGF-C subgroups, (B) OS in plasma Ang-2 subgroups.

Supplementary Figure from Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Study of Paclitaxel ± Napabucasin in Pretreated Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma

Purpose:To compare napabucasin (generator of reactive oxygen species) plus paclitaxel with paclitaxel only in patients with second-line advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma.Patients and Methods:In the double-blind, phase III BRIGHTER study (NCT02178956), patients were randomized (1:1) to napabucasin (480 mg orally twice daily) plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 i.v. weekly for 3 of 4 weeks) or placebo plus paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety.Results:Overall, 714 patients were randomized (napabucasin plus paclitaxel, n = 357; placebo plus paclitaxel, n = 357). 72.1% were male, 74.6% had gastric adenocarcinoma, and 46.2% had peritoneal metastases. The study was unblinded following an interim analysis at 380 deaths. The final efficacy analysis was performed on 565 deaths (median follow-up, 6.8 months). No significant differences were observed between napabucasin plus paclitaxel and placebo plus paclitaxel for OS (6.93 vs. 7.36 months), PFS (3.55 vs. 3.68 months), ORR (16% vs. 18%), or DCR (55% vs. 58%). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 69.5% and 59.7% of patients administered napabucasin plus paclitaxel and placebo plus paclitaxel, respectively, with grade ≥3 diarrhea reported in 16.2% and 1.4%, respectively.Conclusions:Adding napabucasin to paclitaxel did not improve survival in patients with pretreated advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. Consistent with previous reports, the safety profile of napabucasin was driven by manageable gastrointestinal events; grade ≥3 diarrhea occurred at a higher frequency with napabucasin plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel.

PDF file - 86K

Purpose: To compare napabucasin (generator of reactive oxygen species) plus paclitaxel with paclitaxel only in patients with second-line advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. Patients and Methods: In the double-blind, phase III BRIGHTER study (NCT02178956), patients were randomized (1:1) to napabucasin (480 mg orally twice daily) plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 i.v. weekly for 3 of 4 weeks) or placebo plus paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Results: Overall, 714 patients were randomized (napabucasin plus paclitaxel, n = 357; placebo plus paclitaxel, n = 357). 72.1% were male, 74.6% had gastric adenocarcinoma, and 46.2% had peritoneal metastases. The study was unblinded following an interim analysis at 380 deaths. The final efficacy analysis was performed on 565 deaths (median follow-up, 6.8 months). No significant differences were observed between napabucasin plus paclitaxel and placebo plus paclitaxel for OS (6.93 vs. 7.36 months), PFS (3.55 vs. 3.68 months), ORR (16% vs. 18%), or DCR (55% vs. 58%). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 69.5% and 59.7% of patients administered napabucasin plus paclitaxel and placebo plus paclitaxel, respectively, with grade ≥3 diarrhea reported in 16.2% and 1.4%, respectively. Conclusions: Adding napabucasin to paclitaxel did not improve survival in patients with pretreated advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. Consistent with previous reports, the safety profile of napabucasin was driven by manageable gastrointestinal events; grade ≥3 diarrhea occurred at a higher frequency with napabucasin plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel.

The EGFR/RAS/MEK/ERK signaling pathway (ERK/MAPK) is hyperactivated in most colorectal cancers. A current limitation of inhibitors of this pathway is that they primarily induce cytostatic effects in colorectal cancer cells. Nevertheless, these drugs do induce expression of proapoptotic factors, suggesting they may prime colorectal cancer cells to undergo apoptosis. As histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACis) induce expression of multiple proapoptotic proteins, we examined whether they could synergize with ERK/MAPK inhibitors to trigger colorectal cancer cell apoptosis. Combined MEK/ERK and HDAC inhibition synergistically induced apoptosis in colorectal cancer cell lines and patient-derived tumor organoids in vitro, and attenuated Apc-initiated adenoma formation in vivo. Mechanistically, combined MAPK/HDAC inhibition enhanced expression of the BH3-only proapoptotic proteins BIM and BMF, and their knockdown significantly attenuated MAPK/HDAC inhibitor–induced apoptosis. Importantly, we demonstrate that the paradigm of combined MAPK/HDAC inhibitor treatment to induce apoptosis can be tailored to specific MAPK genotypes in colorectal cancers, by combining an HDAC inhibitor with either an EGFR, KRASG12C or BRAFV600 inhibitor in KRAS/BRAFWT; KRASG12C, BRAFV600E colorectal cancer cell lines, respectively. These findings identify a series of ERK/MAPK genotype-tailored treatment strategies that can readily undergo clinical testing for the treatment of colorectal cancer.

Epigenetics; Tumour-suppressor proteins Epigenética; Proteínas supresoras de tumores Epigenètica; Proteïnes supresores de tumors Colorectal cancers (CRCs) often display histological features indicative of aberrant differentiation but the molecular underpinnings of this trait and whether it directly drives disease progression is unclear. Here, we identify co-ordinate epigenetic inactivation of two epithelial-specific transcription factors, EHF and CDX1, as a mechanism driving differentiation loss in CRCs. Re-expression of EHF and CDX1 in poorly-differentiated CRC cells induced extensive chromatin remodelling, transcriptional re-programming, and differentiation along the enterocytic lineage, leading to reduced growth and metastasis. Strikingly, EHF and CDX1 were also able to reprogramme non-colonic epithelial cells to express colonic differentiation markers. By contrast, inactivation of EHF and CDX1 in well-differentiated CRC cells triggered tumour de-differentiation. Mechanistically, we demonstrate that EHF physically interacts with CDX1 via its PNT domain, and that these transcription factors co-operatively drive transcription of the colonic differentiation marker, VIL1. Compound genetic deletion of Ehf and Cdx1 in the mouse colon disrupted normal colonic differentiation and significantly enhanced colorectal tumour progression. These findings thus reveal a novel mechanism driving epithelial de-differentiation and tumour progression in CRC. This project was supported by NHMRC project grant (1107831), a Cancer Council Victoria Grant (1164674) and the Operational Infrastructure Support Programme, Victorian Government, Australia. JMM was supported by a NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship (1046092). IYL was supported by F J Fletcher Research Scholarship and Randal and Louisa Alcock Scholarship from the University of Melbourne. LJJ was supported by La Trobe University Australian Postgraduate Awards. IN was supported by La Trobe University Postgraduate Research Scholarship. JWTT was supported by the University of Melbourne Australian Postgraduate Awards. OMS is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Research Fellow (APP1136119). Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

Amplification or overexpression of the FGFR family of receptor tyrosine kinases occurs in a significant proportion of gastric cancers. Regorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor of angiogenic and oncogenic kinases, including FGFR, which showed activity in the randomized phase II INTEGRATE clinical trial in advanced gastric cancer. There are currently no biomarkers that predict response to this agent, and whether regorafenib is preferentially active in FGFR-driven cancers is unknown. Through screening 25 gastric cancer cell lines, we identified five cell lines that were exquisitely sensitive to regorafenib, four of which harbored amplification or overexpression of FGFR family members. These four cell lines were also sensitive to the FGFR-specific inhibitors, BGJ398, erdafitinib, and TAS-120. Regorafenib inhibited FGFR-driven MAPK signaling in these cell lines, and knockdown studies confirmed their dependence on specific FGFRs for proliferation. In the INTEGRATE trial cohort, amplification or overexpression of FGFRs 1–4 was detected in 8%–19% of cases, however, this was not associated with improved progression-free survival and no objective responses were observed in these cases. Further preclinical analyses revealed FGFR-driven gastric cancer cell lines rapidly reactivate MAPK/ERK signaling in response to FGFR inhibition, which may underlie the limited clinical response to regorafenib. Importantly, combination treatment with an FGFR and MEK inhibitor delayed MAPK/ERK reactivation and synergistically inhibited proliferation of FGFR-driven gastric cancer cell lines. These findings suggest that upfront combinatorial inhibition of FGFR and MEK may represent a more effective treatment strategy for FGFR-driven gastric cancers.

PURPOSE The PETACC 6 trial investigates whether the addition of oxaliplatin to preoperative capecitabine-based chemoradiation and postoperative capecitabine improves disease-free survival (DFS) in locally advanced rectal cancer. METHODS Between November 2008 and September 2011, patients with rectal adenocarcinoma within 12 cm from the anal verge, T3/4 and/or node positive, were randomly assigned to 5 weeks preoperative capecitabine-based chemoradiation (45-50.4 Gy) followed by six cycles of adjuvant capecitabine, both without (control arm, 1) or with (experimental arm, 2) oxaliplatin. The primary end point was improvement of 3-year DFS by oxaliplatin from 65% to 72% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.763). RESULTS A total of 1,094 patients were randomly assigned (intention to treat), and 1,068 eligible patients started their allocated treatment (arm 1, 543; arm 2, 525), with completion of protocol treatment in 68% (arm 1) v 54% (arm 2). A higher rate of grade 3/4 adverse events was reported in the experimental arm (14.4% v 37.3% and 23.4% v 46.6% for neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment, respectively). At a median follow-up of 68 months (interquartile range, 58-74 months), 157 and 156 DFS events were observed in arms 1 and 2, respectively (adjusted HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.28; P = .835). Three-year DFS rate was not different, with 76.5% (95% CI, 72.7% to 79.9%) in arm 1, which is higher than anticipated, and 75.8% (95% CI, 71.9% to 79.3%) in arm 2. The 7-year DFS and overall survival (OS) rates were not different as well, with DFS of 66.1% v 65.5% (HR, 1.02) and OS of 73.5% v 73.7% (HR, 1.19) in arms 1 and 2, respectively. Subgroup analyses revealed heterogeneity in treatment effect according to German versus non-German site location, without detectable confounding factors in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION The addition of oxaliplatin to preoperative capecitabine-based chemoradiation and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy impairs tolerability and feasibility and does not improve efficacy.

To compare napabucasin (generator of reactive oxygen species) plus paclitaxel with paclitaxel only in patients with second-line advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma.In the double-blind, phase III BRIGHTER study (NCT02178956), patients were randomized (1:1) to napabucasin (480 mg orally twice daily) plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 intravenously weekly for 3 of 4 weeks) or placebo plus paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety.Overall, 714 patients were randomized (napabucasin plus paclitaxel, n = 357; placebo plus paclitaxel, n = 357). 72.1% were male, 74.6% had gastric adenocarcinoma, and 46.2% had peritoneal metastases. The study was unblinded following an interim analysis at 380 deaths. The final efficacy analysis was performed on 565 deaths (median follow-up, 6.8 months). No significant differences were observed between napabucasin plus paclitaxel and placebo plus paclitaxel for OS (6.93 vs. 7.36 months), PFS (3.55 vs. 3.68 months), ORR (16% vs. 18%), or DCR (55% vs. 58%). Grade {greater than or equal to}3 adverse events occurred in 69.5% and 59.7% of patients administered napabucasin plus paclitaxel and placebo plus paclitaxel, respectively, with grade {greater than or equal to}3 diarrhea reported in 16.2% and 1.4%, respectively.Adding napabucasin to paclitaxel did not improve survival in patients with pretreated advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. Consistent with previous reports, the safety profile of napabucasin was driven by manageable gastrointestinal events; grade {greater than or equal to}3 diarrhea occurred at a higher frequency with napabucasin plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel.

Studies in multiple solid tumor types have demonstrated the prognostic significance of ctDNA analysis after curative intent surgery. A combined analysis of data across completed studies could further our understanding of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) as a prognostic marker and inform future trial design. We combined individual patient data from three independent cohort studies of nonmetastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Plasma samples were collected 4 to 10 weeks after surgery. Mutations in ctDNA were assayed using a massively parallel sequencing technique called SafeSeqS. We analyzed 485 CRC patients (230 Stage II colon, 96 Stage III colon, and 159 locally advanced rectum). ctDNA was detected after surgery in 59 (12%) patients overall (11.0%, 12.5% and 13.8% for samples taken at 4–6, 6–8 and 8–10 weeks; P = .740). ctDNA detection was associated with poorer 5-year recurrence-free (38.6% vs 85.5%; P < .001) and overall survival (64.6% vs 89.4%; P < .001). The predictive accuracy of postsurgery ctDNA for recurrence was higher than that of individual clinicopathologic risk features. Recurrence risk increased exponentially with increasing ctDNA mutant allele frequency (MAF) (hazard ratio, 1.2, 2.5 and 5.8 for MAF of 0.1%, 0.5% and 1%). Postsurgery ctDNA was detected in 3 of 20 (15%) patients with locoregional and 27 of 60 (45%) with distant recurrence (P = .018). This analysis demonstrates a consistent long-term impact of ctDNA as a prognostic marker across nonmetastatic CRC, where ctDNA outperforms other clinicopathologic risk factors and MAF further stratifies recurrence risk. ctDNA is a better predictor of distant vs locoregional recurrence.

Introduction: Outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer are improving, due to the tailoring of therapy enabled by better understanding of clinical behavior according to molecular subtype. Areas covered: A review of the literature and recent conference presentations was undertaken on the topic of systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. This review summarizes expert discussion of the current evidence for therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on molecular subgrouping. Expert opinion: EGFR-targeted and VEGF-targeted antibodies are now routinely incorporated into treatment strategies for mCRC. EGFR-targeted antibodies are restricted to patients with extended RAS wild-type profiles, with evidence that they should be further restricted to patients with left-sided tumors. Clinically distinct treatment pathways based on tumor RAS, BRAF, HER2 and MMR status, are now clinically applicable. Evidence suggests therapy for additional subgroups will soon be defined; the most advanced being for patients with KRAS G12 C mutation and gene TRK fusion defects.

TP53 mutations drive colorectal cancer development, with missense mutations frequently leading to accumulation of abnormal TP53 protein. TP53 alterations have been associated with poor prognosis and chemotherapy resistance, but data remain controversial. Here, we examined the predictive utility of TP53 overexpression in the context of current adjuvant treatment practice for patients with stage III colorectal cancer. A prospective cohort of 264 stage III patients was tested for association of TP53 expression with 5-year disease-free survival, grouped by adjuvant treatment. Findings were validated in an independent retrospective cohort of 274 stage III patients. Overexpression of TP53 protein (TP53+) was found in 53% and 52% of cases from the prospective and retrospective cohorts, respectively. Among patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, TP53+ status was associated with shorter disease-free survival (p ≤ 0.026 for both cohorts), while no difference in outcomes between TP53+ and TP53- cases was observed for patients treated with surgery alone. Considering patients with TP53- tumors, those receiving adjuvant treatment had better outcomes compared with those treated with surgery alone (p ≤ 0.018 for both cohorts), while no treatment benefit was apparent for patients with TP53+ tumors. Combined cohort-stratified analysis adjusted for clinicopathological variables and DNA mismatch repair status confirmed a significant interaction between TP53 expression and adjuvant treatment for disease-free survival (pinteraction = 0.030). For the combined cohort, the multivariate hazard ratio for TP53 overexpression among patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy was 2.03 (95% confidence interval 1.41-2.95, p

The EGFR/RAS/MEK/ERK signaling pathway (ERK/MAPK) is hyper-activated in most colorectal cancers (CRCs). A current limitation of inhibitors of this pathway is that they primarily induce cytostatic effects in CRC cells. Nevertheless, these drugs do induce expression of pro-apoptotic factors, suggesting they may prime CRC cells to undergo apoptosis. As histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) induce expression of multiple pro-apoptotic proteins, we examined whether they could synergize with ERK/MAPK inhibitors to trigger CRC cell apoptosis. Combined MEK/ERK and HDAC inhibition synergistically induced apoptosis in CRC cell lines and patient-derived tumor organoids in vitro,and attenuated Apc-initiated adenoma formation in vivo. Mechanistically, combined MAPK/HDAC inhibition enhanced expression of the BH3-only pro-apoptotic proteins BIM and BMF, and their knockdown significantly attenuated MAPK/HDAC inhibitor-induced apoptosis. Importantly, we demonstrate that the paradigm of combined MAPK/HDAC inhibitor treatment to induce apoptosis can be tailored to specific MAPK genotypes in CRCs, by combining a HDAC inhibitor with either an EGFR, KRASG12C or BRAFV600 inhibitor in KRAS/BRAFWT ; KRASG12C , BRAFV600E CRC cell lines respectively. These findings identify a series of ERK/MAPK genotype tailored treatment strategies that can readily undergo clinical testing for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Citation Format: Laura J. Jenkins, Ian Y. Luk, Walter D. Fairlie, Erinna F. Lee, Michelle Palmieri, Kael L. Schoffer, Tao Tan, Irvin Ng, Natalia Vukelic, Sharon Tran, Janson Tse, Rebecca Nightingale, Zakia Alam, Fiona Chionh, George Iatropoulos, Matthias Ernst, Shoukat Afshar-Sterle, Jayesh Desai, Peter Gibbs, Oliver M. Sieber, Amardeep S. Dhillon, Niall C. Tebbutt, John M. Mariadason. Genotype-tailored ERK/MAPK pathway and HDAC inhibition rewires the apoptotic rheostat to trigger colorectal cancer cell death [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Colorectal Cancer; 2022 Oct 1-4; Portland, OR. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(23 Suppl_1):Abstract nr B014.

Gemcitabine or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) based treatments can be selected for pancreatic cancer. Equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (hENT1) predicts adjuvant gemcitabine treatment benefit over 5-FU. Cytidine deaminase (CDA), inside or outside of the cancer cell, will deaminate gemcitabine, altering transporter affinity. ESPAC-3(v2) was a pancreatic cancer trial comparing adjuvant gemcitabine and 5-FU. Tissue microarray sections underwent in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry. Analysis of both CDA and hENT1 was possible with 277 patients. The transcript did not correlate with protein levels for either marker. High hENT1 protein was prognostic with gemcitabine, median overall survival was 26.0 v 16.8 months (p = 0.006). Low CDA transcript was prognostic regardless of arm, 24.8 v 21.2 months with gemcitabine (p = 0.02) and 26.4 v 14.6 months with 5-FU (p = 0.02). Patients with low hENT1 protein did better with 5-FU, but only if the CDA transcript was low (median survival of 5-FU v gemcitabine, 29.3 v 18.3 months, compared with 14.2 v 14.6 with high CDA). CDA mRNA is an independent prognostic biomarker. When added to hENT1 protein status, it may also provide treatment-specific predictive information and, within the frame of a personalized treatment strategy, guide to either gemcitabine or 5FU for the individual patient.

Background Unplanned subgroup analyses from several studies have suggested primary tumor sidedness (PTS) as a potential prognostic and predictive parameter in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to investigate the impact of PTS on outcomes of mCRC patients. Methods PTS data of 9277 mCRC patients from 12 first-line randomized trials in the ARCAD database were pooled. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox models adjusting for age, sex, performance status, prior radiation/chemotherapy, and stratified by treatment arm. Predictive value was tested by interaction term between PTS and treatment (cetuximab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone). All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results Compared with right-sided metastatic colorectal cancer patients (n = 2421, 26.1%), left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer patients (n = 6856, 73.9%) had better OS (median = 21.6 vs 15.9 months; adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj] = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.67 to 0.76; P < .001) and PFS (median = 8.6 vs 7.5 months; HRadj = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.84; P < .001). Interaction between PTS and KRAS mutation was statistically significant (Pinteraction < .001); left-sidedness was associated with better prognosis among KRAS wild-type (WT) (OS HRadj = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.66; PFS HRadj =0.68, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.75) but not among KRAS mutated tumors. Among KRAS-WT tumors, survival benefit from anti-EGFR was confirmed for left-sidedness (OS HRadj = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.97; P = .01; PFS HRadj = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.88; P < .001) but not for right-sidedness. Conclusions The prognostic value of PTS is restricted to the KRAS-WT population. PTS is predictive of anti-EGFR efficacy, with a statistically significant improvement of survival for left-sidedness mCRC patients. These results suggest treatment choice in mCRC should be based on both PTS and KRAS status.

Impact of geography on prognostic outcomes of 21,509 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer enrolled in clinical trials: an ARCAD database analysis\ud Show less\ud Jun Yin*, Shaheenah Dawood*, Romain Cohen, Jeff Meyers, John Zalcberg, Takayuki Yoshino, Matthew Seymour, Tim Maughan, Leonard Saltz, Eric Van Cutsem, Alan Venook, Hans-Joachim Schmoll, Richard Goldberg, Paulo Hoff, J. Randolph Hecht, Herbert Hurwitz, Cornelis Punt, Eduard Diaz Rubio, Miriam Koopman, Chiara Cremolini, Volker Heinemann, Christophe Tournigard, Carsten Bokemeyer, Charles Fuchs, Niall Tebbutt, John Souglakos, Jean-Yves Doulliard, Fairooz Kabbinavar, Benoist Chibaudel, Aimery de Gramont, Qian Shi, Axel Grothey, Richard AdamsFirst Published June 30, 2021 Research Article\ud https://doi.org/10.1177/17588359211020547\ud Article information \ud Article has an altmetric score of 7 Open AccessCreative Commons Attribution, Non Commercial 4.0 License\ud Article Information\ud Volume: 13\ud Article first published online: June 30, 2021; Issue published: January 1, 2021\ud Received: December 29, 2020; Accepted: May 05, 2021\ud Jun Yin*\ud Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street, SW Rochester, MN 55905, USA\ud Shaheenah Dawood*\ud Mediclinic City Hospital: North Wing, Dubai Health Care City, Dubai UAE\ud Romain Cohen\ud Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA\ud Jeff Meyers\ud Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA\ud John Zalcberg\ud School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia\ud Takayuki Yoshino\ud Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Chiba, Japan\ud Matthew Seymour\ud NIHR Clinical Research Network, Leeds, UK\ud Tim Maughan\ud CRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, Oxford, UK\ud Leonard Saltz\ud Memory Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA\ud Eric Van Cutsem\ud Digestive Oncology, University Hospitals Gasthuisberg Leuven and KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium\ud Alan Venook\ud Department of Medicine, The University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA\ud Hans-Joachim Schmoll\ud Klinik fur Innere Med IV, University Clinic Halle, Saale, Germany\ud Richard Goldberg\ud Department of Oncology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA\ud Paulo Hoff\ud Centro de Oncologia de Brasilia do Sirio Libanes: Unidade Lago Sul, Siro Libanes, Brazil\ud J. Randolph Hecht\ud Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, UCLS Medical Center, Santa Monica, CA, USA\ud Herbert Hurwitz\ud Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA\ud Cornelis Punt\ud Department of Medical Oncology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands\ud Eduard Diaz Rubio\ud Department Oncology, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain\ud Miriam Koopman\ud Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands\ud Chiara Cremolini\ud Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy\ud Volker Heinemann\ud Department of Medical Oncology and Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Munich, Munich, Germany\ud Christophe Tournigard\ud Hopital Henri Mondor, Creteil, France\ud Carsten Bokemeyer\ud Department of Oncology, Hematology and Bone Marrow Transplantation with Section of Pneumology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany\ud Charles Fuchs\ud Director of Yale Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA\ud Niall Tebbutt\ud Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia\ud John Souglakos\ud University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece\ud Jean-Yves Doulliard\ud University of Nantes Medical School, Nantes, France\ud Fairooz Kabbinavar\ud UCLA Medical Center, Santa Monica, CA, USA\ud Benoist Chibaudel\ud Department of Medical Oncology, Franco-British Institute, Levallois-Perret, France\ud Aimery de Gramont\ud Department of Medical Oncology, Franco-British Institute, Levallois-Perret, France\ud Qian Shi\ud Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA\ud Axel Grothey\ud West Cancer Center, Germantown, TN, USA\ud Richard Adams\ud Cardiff University and Velindre Cancer Center, Cardiff, UK\ud \ud Corresponding Author:\ud \ud yin.jun@mayo.edu\ud *Co-first authors.\ud \ud https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).\ud Abstract\ud Background:\ud Benchmarking international cancer survival differences is necessary to evaluate and improve healthcare systems. Our aim was to assess the potential regional differences in outcomes among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) participating in international randomized clinical trials (RCTs).\ud \ud Design:\ud Countries were grouped into 11 regions according to the World Health Organization and the EUROCARE model. Meta-analyses based on individual patient data were used to synthesize data across studies and regions and to conduct comparisons for outcomes in a two-stage random-effects model after adjusting for age, sex, performance status, and time period. We used mCRC patients enrolled in the first-line RCTs from the ARCAD database, which provided enrolling country information. There were 21,509 patients in 27 RCTs included across the 11 regions.\ud \ud Results:\ud Main outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Compared with other regions, patients from the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland were proportionaly over-represented, older, with higher performance status, more frequently male, and more commonly not treated with biological therapies. Cohorts from central Europe and the United States (USA) had significantly longer OS compared with those from UK and Ireland (p = 0.0034 and p

In early-stage pancreatic cancer, there are currently no biomarkers to guide selection of therapeutic options. This prospective biomarker trial evaluated the feasibility and potential clinical utility of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis to inform adjuvant therapy decision making.Patients considered by the multidisciplinary team to have resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma were enrolled. Pre- and post-operative samples for ctDNA analysis were collected. PCR-based-SafeSeqS assays were used to identify mutations at codon 12, 13 and 61 of KRAS in the primary pancreatic tumor and to detect ctDNA. Results of ctDNA analysis were correlated with CA19-9, recurrence-free and overall survival (OS). Patient management was per standard of care, blinded to ctDNA data.Of 112 patients consented pre-operatively, 81 (72%) underwent resection. KRAS mutations were identified in 91% (38/42) of available tumor samples. Of available plasma samples (N = 42), KRAS mutated ctDNA was detected in 62% (23/37) pre-operative and 37% (13/35) post-operative cases. At a median follow-up of 38.4 months, ctDNA detection in the pre-operative setting was associated with inferior recurrence-free survival (RFS) [hazard ratio (HR) 4.1; P = 0.002)] and OS (HR 4.1; P = 0.015). Detectable ctDNA following curative intent resection was associated with inferior RFS (HR 5.4; P 0.0001) and OS (HR 4.0; P = 0.003). Recurrence occurred in 13/13 (100%) patients with detectable ctDNA post-operatively, including in seven that received gemcitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy.ctDNA studies in localized pancreatic cancer are challenging, with a substantial number of patients not able to undergo resection, not having sufficient tumor tissue for analysis or not completing per protocol sample collection. ctDNA analysis, pre- and/or post-surgery, is a promising prognostic marker. Studies of ctDNA guided therapy are justified, including of treatment intensification strategies for patients with detectable ctDNA post-operatively who appear at very high risk of recurrence despite gemcitabine-based adjuvant therapy.