The Role of Predictive Molecular Biomarkers for the Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Current Colorectal Cancer Reports

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 395-402

  Lee, James J ^a   Chu, Edward ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Angiogenesis; BRAF; Circulating tumor DNA; Colorectal cancer; Immunologic markers; KRAS; Liquid biopsies; Microsatellite instability; Molecular biomarkers; Next generation sequencing; NRAS; PI3K; Predictive marker; Prognostic marker; VEGF; Whole exome sequencing; Whole genome sequencing

Indexed keywords

ANGIOGENESIS INHIBITOR; B RAF KINASE; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; CD3 ANTIGEN; CD45RO ANTIGEN; CIRCULATING TUMOR DNA; DNA; FIBROBLAST GROWTH FACTOR 2; K RAS PROTEIN; MONOCYTE CHEMOTACTIC PROTEIN 1; NEUROPILIN 1; PHOSPHATIDYLINOSITOL 4,5 BISPHOSPHATE 3 KINASE; PHOSPHATIDYLINOSITOL 4,5 BISPHOSPHATE 3 KINASE CATALYTIC SUBUNIT ALPHA; PLACENTAL GROWTH FACTOR; SCATTER FACTOR; STROMAL CELL DERIVED FACTOR 1; TUMOR MARKER; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; VASCULOTROPIN A; VASCULOTROPIN RECEPTOR 1; VASCULOTROPIN RECEPTOR 2;

CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DNA SEQUENCE; GENE MUTATION; GENE SEQUENCE; HUMAN; MEMORY T LYMPHOCYTE; METASTATIC COLORECTAL CANCER; MICROSATELLITE INSTABILITY; NEXT GENERATION SEQUENCING; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; REVIEW; WHOLE GENOME SEQUENCING;

EID: 85027916670     PISSN: 15563790     EISSN: 15563804     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11888-014-0246-1     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, et al. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:9–29.
2. Amado RG, Wolf M, Peeters M, et al. Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1626–34.
3. Douillard J-Y, Siena S, Cassidy J, et al. Randomized, phase III trial of panitumumab with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as first-line treatment in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: the PRIME study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4697–705.
4. Peeters M, Price TJ, Cervantes A, et al. Randomized phase III study of panitumumab with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) compared with FOLFIRI alone as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4706–13.
5. Van Cutsem E, Kohne CH, Hitre E, et al. Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1408–17.
6. Bokemeyer C, Bondarenko I, Hartmann JT, et al. Efficacy according to biomarker status of cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: the OPUS study. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:1535–46.
7. Peeters M, Oliner KS, Parker A, et al. Massively parallel tumor multigene sequencing to evaluate response to panitumumab in a randomized phase III study of metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:1902–12.
8. De Roock W, Jonker DJ, Di Nicolantonio F, et al. Association of KRAS G13D mutation with outcome in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. JAMA. 2010;304:1812–20.
9. Peeters M, Douillard JY, Van Cutsem E, et al. Mutant KRAS codon 12 and 13 alleles in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: assessment as prognostic and predictive biomarkers of response to panitumumab. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:759–65.
10. Andre T, Blons H, Mabro M, et al. Panitumumab combined with irinotecan for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard chemotherapy: a GERCOR efficacy, tolerance, and translational molecular study. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:412–9.
11. Loupakis F, Ruzzo A, Cremolini C, et al. KRAS codon 61, 146 and BRAF mutations predict resistance to cetuximab plus irinotecan in KRAS codon 12 and 13 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2009;101:715–21.
12. De Roock W, Claes B, Bernasconi D, et al. Effects of KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations on the efficacy of cetuximab plus chemotherapy in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective consortium analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:753–62. This large retrospective analysis showed that the presence of BRAF mutations is associated with poor response to anti-EGFR therapy in mCRC.
13. Karnoub AE, Weinberg RA. Ras oncogenes: split personalities. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2008;9:517–31.
14. Fernandez-Medarde A, Santos E. Ras in cancer and developmental diseases. Genes Cancer. 2011;2:344–58.
15. Douillard JY, Oliner KS, Siena S, et al. Panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1023–34. The authors showed that patients with tumors expressing any activating RAS mutations do not benefit from the addition of panitumumab.
16. Heinemann V, Fischer von Weikersthal L, Decker T, et al. Randomized comparison of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment of KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: German AIO study KRK-0306 (FIRE-3). ASCO Meeting Abstracts 31:LBA3506, 2013.
17. Stintzing S, Jung A, Rossius L, et al. Mutations within the EGFR signaling pathway: influence on efficacy in FIRE-3—a randomized phase III study of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab as first-line treatment for wild-type (WT) KRAS (exon 2) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. ASCO Meeting Abstracts 32:445, 2014. The authors showed that patients with tumors expressing any activating RAS mutations do not benefit from the addition of cetuximab.
18. Bokemeyer C, Kohne C-H, Ciardiello F, et al. Treatment outcome according to tumor RAS mutation status in OPUS study patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) randomized to FOLFOX4 with/without cetuximab. ASCO Meeting Abstracts 32:3505, 2014. The authors showed that patients with tumors expressing any activating RAS mutations do not benefit from the addition of cetuximab.
19. DiNicolantonio F, Martini M, Molinari F, et al. Wild-type BRAF is required for response to panitumumab or cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5705–12.
20. Van Cutsem E, Kohne CH, Lang I, et al. Cetuximab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: updated analysis of overall survival according to tumor KRAS and BRAF mutation status. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2011–9.
21. Seymour MT, Brown SR, Middleton G, et al. Panitumumab and irinotecan versus irinotecan alone for patients with KRAS wild-type, fluorouracil-resistant advanced colorectal cancer (PICCOLO): a prospectively stratified randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:749–59.
22. Sartore-Bianchi A, Martini M, Molinari F, et al. PIK3CA mutations in colorectal cancer are associated with clinical resistance to EGFR-targeted monoclonal antibodies. Cancer Res. 2009;69:1851–7.
23. Loupakis F, Pollina L, Stasi I, et al. PTEN expression and KRAS mutations on primary tumors and metastases in the prediction of benefit from cetuximab plus irinotecan for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2622–9.
24. Tol J, Dijkstra JR, Klomp M, et al. Markers for EGFR pathway activation as predictor of outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with or without cetuximab. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:1997–2009.
25. Laurent-Puig P, Cayre A, Manceau G, et al. Analysis of PTEN, BRAF, and EGFR status in determining benefit from cetuximab therapy in wild-type KRAS metastatic colon cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5924–30.
26. Ulivi P, Capelli L, Valgiusti M, et al. Predictive role of multiple gene alterations in response to cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer: a single center study. J Transl Med. 2012;10:87.
27. Prenen H, De Schutter J, Jacobs B, et al. PIK3CA mutations are not a major determinant of resistance to the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:3184–8.
28. Karapetis CS, Jonker D, Daneshmand M, et al. PIK3CA, BRAF, and PTEN status and benefit from cetuximab in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer—results from NCIC CTG/AGITG CO.17. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:744–53.
29. Sridharan M, Hubbard JM, Grothey A. Colorectal cancer: how emerging molecular understanding affects treatment decisions. Oncology (Williston Park). 2014;28:110–8.
30. Molinari F, Frattini M. Functions and regulation of the PTEN gene in colorectal cancer. Front Oncol. 2013;3:326.
31. Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer. Nature 487:330–7, 2012. The authors reported detailed genomic profiling of colorectal cancer.
32. Hampel H, Frankel WL, Martin E, et al. Feasibility of screening for Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5783–8.
33. Sinicrope FA, Foster NR, Thibodeau SN, et al. DNA mismatch repair status and colon cancer recurrence and survival in clinical trials of 5-fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:863–75.
34. Alexander J, Watanabe T, Wu TT, et al. Histopathological identification of colon cancer with microsatellite instability. Am J Pathol. 2001;158:527–35.
35. Ogino S, Galon J, Fuchs CS, et al. Cancer immunology-analysis of host and tumor factors for personalized medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011;8:711–9.
36. Ogino S, Nosho K, Irahara N, et al. Lymphocytic reaction to colorectal cancer is associated with longer survival, independent of lymph node count, microsatellite instability, and CpG island methylator phenotype. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:6412–20.
37. Ling A, Edin S, Wikberg ML, et al. The intratumoural subsite and relation of CD8(+) and FOXP3(+) T lymphocytes in colorectal cancer provide important prognostic clues. Br J Cancer. 2014;110:2551–9.
38. Galon J, Costes A, Sanchez-Cabo F, et al. Type, density, and location of immune cells within human colorectal tumors predict clinical outcome. Science. 2006;313:1960–4.
39. Pages F, Berger A, Camus M, et al. Effector memory T cells, early metastasis, and survival in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2654–66.
40. Galon J, Pages F, Marincola FM, et al. The immune score as a new possible approach for the classification of cancer. J Transl Med 10, 2012.
41. Misale S, Yaeger R, Hobor S, et al. Emergence of KRAS mutations and acquired resistance to anti-EGFR therapy in colorectal cancer. Nature. 2012;486:532–6. The authors reported that ctDNA may play a critical roel in the development of molecular biomarkers by showing the detection of KRAS mutations in ctDNA several months prior to radiographic evidence of disease progression in mCRC patients treated with anti-EGFR therapy.
42. Diaz Jr LA, Williams RT, Wu J, et al. The molecular evolution of acquired resistance to targeted EGFR blockade in colorectal cancers. Nature. 2012;486:537–40. The authors reported that ctDNA may play a critical role in the development of molecular biomarkers by showing the detection of KRAS mutations in ctDNA several months prior to radiographic evidence of disease progression in mCRC patients treated with anti-EGFR therapy.
43. Newman AM, Bratman SV, To J, et al. An ultrasensitive method for quantitating circulating tumor DNA with broad patient coverage. Nat Med. 2014;20:548–54.
44. Leary RJ, Sausen M, Kinde I, et al. Detection of chromosomal alterations in the circulation of cancer patients with whole-genome sequencing. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4:162ra154.
45. Sausen M, Parpart S, Diaz Jr LA. Circulating tumor DNA moves further into the spotlight. Genome Med. 2014;6:35.
46. Lambrechts D, Lenz HJ, de Haas S, et al. Markers of response for the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1219–30.
47. Custodio A, Barriuso J, de Castro J, et al. Molecular markers to predict outcome to antiangiogenic therapies in colorectal cancer: current evidence and future perspectives. Cancer Treat Rev. 2013;39:908–24.
48. Van Cutsem E, de Haas S, Kang YK, et al. Bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy in advanced gastric cancer: a biomarker evaluation from the AVAGAST randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2119–27.
49. Kopetz S, Hoff PM, Morris JS, et al. Phase II trial of infusional fluorouracil, irinotecan, and bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer: efficacy and circulating angiogenic biomarkers associated with therapeutic resistance. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:453–9.
50. Raffan E, Semple RK. Next-generation sequencing—implications for clinical practice. Br Med Bull. 2011;99:53–71.
51. Johansen Taber KA, Dickinson BD, Wilson M. The promise and challenges of next-generation genome sequencing for clinical care. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:275–80.
52. Scuffham PA, Nikles J, Mitchell GK, et al. Using N-of-1 trials to improve patient management and save costs. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25:906–13.
53. Mahon J, Laupacis A, Donner A, et al. Randomised study of N of 1 trials versus standard practice. BMJ. 1996;312:1069–74.
54. Lillie EO, Patay B, Diamant J, et al. The N-of-1 clinical trial: the ultimate strategy for individualizing medicine? Per Med. 2011;8:161–73.