Search

Simple Summary The BRAFV600E mutation accounts for 8–10% of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients and it is an established prognostic factor. Median overall survival of this subset of patients is indeed so poor that it is similar to first line PFS of patients without this molecular alteration. An exception is represented by patients displaying concomitant MSI-H status who can benefit from immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs). Recently, a targeted therapy with the combination of encorafenib and cetuximab provided for the first time a survival gain and thus translation in the clinic, even though acquired resistance limits the possibility of more than an incremental benefit. Many studies exploiting other different strategies are ongoing. In this review we present current therapies specifically headed to BRAFV600E mutant mCRC and systematically review ongoing clinical trials identifying different approaches under investigations: targeting MAPK pathway (monotherapy or combinations), targeting MAPK pathway combined with cytotoxic agents, intensive cytotoxic regimen combinations, targeted agents combined with CPIs, oxidative stress induction, and cytotoxic agents combined with antiangiogenic drugs and CPIs. Abstract The BRAFV600E mutation is found in 8–10% of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients and it is recognized as a poor prognostic factor with a median overall survival inferior to 20 months. At present, besides immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) for those tumors with concomitant MSI-H status, recommended treatment options include cytotoxic chemotherapy + anti-VEGF in the first line setting, and a combination of EGFR and a BRAF inhibitor (cetuximab plus encorafenib) in second line. However, even with the latter targeted approach, acquired resistance limits the possibility of more than an incremental benefit and survival is still dismal. In this review, we discuss current treatment options for this subset of patients and perform a systematic review of ongoing clinical trials. Overall, we identified six emerging strategies: targeting MAPK pathway (monotherapy or combinations), targeting MAPK pathway combined with cytotoxic agents, intensive cytotoxic regimen combinations, targeted agents combined with CPIs, oxidative stress induction, and cytotoxic agents combined with antiangiogenic drugs and CPIs. In the future, the integration of new therapeutic strategies targeting key players in the BRAFV600E oncogenic pathways with current treatment approach based on cytotoxic chemotherapy and surgery is likely to redefine the treatment landscape of these CRC patients.

Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) refractory to standard therapies have a poor prognosis. In this setting, recruitment into clinical trials is warranted, and studies driven by selection according to individual tumor molecular characteristics are expected to provide added value. We retrospectively analyzed data from patients with mCRC refractory to or following failure of standard therapies who were enrolled into phase I/II clinical studies at the Niguarda Cancer Center based on the presence of a specific molecular profile expected to represent the target of susceptibility to the experimental drug(s). From June 2011 to May 2016, 2044 patients with mCRC underwent molecular screening. Eighty patients (3.9%) were enrolled in ad hoc studies; the median age was 60 years (range 36–86) and the median number of previous treatment lines was five (range 2–8). Molecular characteristics exploited within these studies were MGMT promoter hypermethylation (48.7%), HER2 amplification (28.8%), BRAF V600E mutation (20%), and novel gene fusions involving ALK or NTRK (2.5%). One patient (1%) had RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors) complete response (CR), 13 patients (16.5%) experienced a partial response (PR), and 28 (35%) stable disease (SD). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.8 months (range 2.63–3.83), with 24% of patients displaying PFS >5 months. Median growth modulation index (GMI) was 0.85 (range 0–15.61) and 32.5% of patients had GMI >1.33. KRAS exon 2 mutations were found in 38.5% of patients, and among the 78 patients with known KRAS status, those with wild-type tumors had longer PFS than those with mutated tumors (3.80 [95% CI 2.80–5.03] vs. 2.13 months [95% CI 1.77–2.87], respectively, p = 0.001). Median overall survival (OS) was 7.83 months (range 7.17–9.33) for all patients, and patients with KRAS wild-type tumors had longer OS than those with mutated tumors (7.83 [95% CI 7.33–10.80] vs. 7.18 months [95% CI 5.63–9.33], respectively, p = 0.06). This single-institution retrospective study indicates that in a heavily pretreated population approximately 4% of mCRC tumors display a potential actionable molecular context suitable for therapeutic intervention. Application of molecular selection is challenging but improves clinical outcome even in later lines of treatment.

Background Objective response to dacarbazine, the intravenous form of temozolomide (TMZ), in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is confined to tumors harboring O(6)-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter hypermethylation. We conducted a phase II study of TMZ enriched by MGMT hypermethylation in archival tumor (AT), exploring dynamic of this biomarker in baseline tumor (BT) biopsy and plasma (liquid biopsy). Patients and methods We screened 150 mCRC patients for MGMT hypermethylation with methylation-specific PCR on AT from FFPE specimens. Eligible patients (n = 29) underwent BT biopsy and then received TMZ 200 mg/m2 days 1–5 q28 until progression. A Fleming single-stage design was used to determine whether progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 12 weeks would be ≥35% [H0 ≤ 15%, type I error=0.059 (one-sided), power=0.849]. Exploratory analyses included comparison between MGMT hypermethylation in AT and BT, and MGMT methylation testing by MethylBEAMing in solid (AT, BT) and LB with regard to tumor response. Results The PFS rate at 12 weeks was 10.3% [90% confidence interval (CI) 2.9–24.6]. Objective response rate was 3.4% (90% CI 0.2–15.3), disease control rate 48.3% (90% CI 32.0–64.8), median OS 6.2 months (95% CI 3.8–7.6), and median PFS 2.6 months (95% CI 1.4–2.7). We observed the absence of MGMT hypermethylation in BT in 62.7% of tumors. Conclusion Treatment of mCRC with TMZ driven by MGMT promoter hypermethylation in AT samples did not provide meaningful PFS rate at 12 weeks. This biomarker changed from AT to BT, indicating that testing BT biopsy or plasma is needed for refined target selection.

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients carrying KRAS mutated tumors do not benefit from epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted cetuximab- or panitumumab-based therapies. Indeed, the mutational status of KRAS is currently a validated predictive biomarker employed to select mCRC patients for EGFR targeted drugs. When patients fail standard 5-fluorouracil-, oxaliplatin-, irinotecan- and bevacizumab-based therapies, EGFR-targeted salvage therapy can be prescribed only for those individuals with KRAS wild-type cancer. Thus, clinicians are now facing the urgent issue of better understanding the biology of KRAS mutant disease, in order to devise novel effective therapies in such defined genetic setting. In addition to KRAS, recent data point out that BRAF and PIK3CA exon 20 mutations hamper response to EGFR-targeted treatment in mCRC, potentially excluding from treatment also patients with these molecular alterations in their tumor. This review will focus on current knowledge regarding the molecular landscape of mCRC including and beyond KRAS, and will summarize novel rationally-developed combinatorial regimens that are being evaluated in early clinical trials.

Background KRAS mutations occur in 35–45% of metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRC) and preclude responsiveness to EGFR-targeted therapy with cetuximab or panitumumab. However, less than 20% patients displaying wild-type KRAS tumors achieve objective response. Alterations in other effectors downstream of the EGFR, such as BRAF, and deregulation of the PIK3CA/PTEN pathway have independently been found to give rise to resistance. We present a comprehensive analysis of KRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA mutations, and PTEN expression in mCRC patients treated with cetuximab or panitumumab, with the aim of clarifying the relative contribution of these molecular alterations to resistance. Methodology/Principal Findings We retrospectively analyzed objective tumor response, progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) together with the mutational status of KRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA and expression of PTEN in 132 tumors from cetuximab or panitumumab treated mCRC patients. Among the 106 non-responsive patients, 74 (70%) had tumors with at least one molecular alteration in the four markers. The probability of response was 51% (22/43) among patients with no alterations, 4% (2/47) among patients with 1 alteration, and 0% (0/24) for patients with ≥2 alterations (p

9007 Background: MEKi addition to BRAFi therapy has been reported to increase response rate (RR) and duration of response. The BRAFi ENCO (LGX818) and MEKi BINI (MEK162) have each shown promising s...

6003 Background: This is the first phase III study directly comparing CRT vs CET/RT in LASCCHN. Primary endpoints of this study were to compare: 1) overall survival (OS) of induction vs. no induction arms; 2) Grade 3-4 in-field toxicity of CRT vs. CET/RT. Preliminary toxicity results of concomitant treatments (primary endpoint for this comparison) were reported at the 2012 ASCO meeting. Here we present response rate and survival data for the two concomitant treatments (CRT vs. CET/RT), irrespective of induction chemotherapy. Methods: Untreated patients with unresectable LASCCHN, stage III-IV, ECOG PS 0–1 were randomized to a 2x2 factorial design: Arm A1: CRT (2 cycles of cisplatin/5fluorouracil concomitant to RT); Arm A2: CET/RT; Arm B1: 3 cycles of TPF followed by the same CRT; Arm B2:3 cycles of TPF followed by CET/RT. Results: A total of421 patients were randomized: 261 received CRT (131 Arm A1+ 130 Arm B1) and 160 received CET/RT (80 Arm A2+ 80 Arm B2). 82% were male; median age was 60y; PS of 0 (79%) or 1 (21%). Stage was III (32%) or IV (68%). Sites of disease were: oral cavity 20%, oropharynx 57%, hypopharynx: 23%. No significant differences were observed in patients’ characteristics distribution. At a median follow-up of 32.9 months, a total of 174 deaths occurred (204 required for final OS analysis). Data on activity and efficacy of CRT and CET/RT are shown in the Table. Conclusions: No significant differences were observed in response rate, progression free survival and OS between CRT and CET/RT. Pts are still being followed-up to assess OS of induction vs. no induction arms. Clinical trial information: NCT01086826. [Table: see text]