Nanofluidic Digital PCR and Extended Genotyping of RAS and BRAF for Improved Selection of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients for Anti-EGFR Therapies

被引:13
|
作者
Azuara, Daniel [1 ]
Santos, Cristina [1 ,2 ]
Lopez-Doriga, Adriana [3 ]
Grasselli, Julieta [2 ,4 ,5 ]
Nadal, Marga [1 ]
Sanjuan, Xavier [6 ]
Marin, Fatima [1 ]
Vidal, Joana [7 ]
Montal, Robert [2 ]
Moreno, Victor [3 ]
Bellosillo, Beatriz [8 ]
Argiles, Guillem [4 ,5 ]
Elez, Elena [4 ,5 ]
Dienstmann, Rodrigo [4 ,5 ]
Montagut, Clara [7 ]
Tabernero, Josep [4 ,5 ]
Capella, Gabriel [1 ]
Salazar, Ramon [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Bellvitge Biomed Res Inst IDIBELL, ICO, Translat Res Lab, Barcelona, Spain
[2] Bellvitge Biomed Res Inst IDIBELL, ICO, Dept Med Oncol, Barcelona, Spain
[3] Bellvitge Biomed Res Inst IDIBELL, ICO, Unit Biomarkers & Susceptibil, Barcelona, Spain
[4] Vall dHebron Univ Hosp, Dept Med Oncol, Barcelona, Spain
[5] Univ Autonoma Barcelona, Inst Oncol VHIO, E-08193 Barcelona, Spain
[6] Univ Hosp Bellvitge HUB IDIBELL, Dept Pathol, Barcelona, Spain
[7] Hosp Univ del Mar, Dept Med Oncol, Barcelona, Spain
[8] Hosp Univ del Mar, Dept Pathol, Barcelona, Spain
关键词
MUTATION DETECTION; 1ST-LINE TREATMENT; PHASE-III; WILD-TYPE; COLD-PCR; KRAS; FLUOROURACIL; CETUXIMAB; LEUCOVORIN; PANITUMUMAB;
D O I
10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-15-0820
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
The clinical significance of low-frequent RAS pathway-mutated alleles and the optimal sensitivity cutoff value in the prediction of response to anti-EGFR therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients remains controversial. We aimed to evaluate the added value of genotyping an extended RAS panel using a robust nanofluidic digital PCR (dPCR) approach. A panel of 34 hotspots, including RAS (KRAS and NRAS exons 2/3/4) and BRAF (V600E), was analyzed in tumor FFPE samples from 102 mCRC patients treated with anti-EGFR therapy. dPCR was compared with conventional quantitative PCR (qPCR). Response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were correlated to the mutational status and the mutated allele fraction. Tumor response evaluations were not available in 9 patients and were excluded for response rate analysis. Twenty-two percent of patients were positive for one mutation with qPCR (mutated alleles ranged from 2.1% to 66.6%). Analysis by dPCR increased the number of positive patients to 47%. Mutated alleles for patients only detected by dPCR ranged from 0.04% to 10.8%. An inverse correlation between the fraction of mutated alleles and radiologic response was observed. ROC analysis showed that a fraction of 1% or higher of any mutated alleles offered the best predictive value for all combinations of RAS and BRAF analysis. In addition, this threshold also optimized prediction both PFS and OS. We conclude that mutation testing using an extended gene panel, including RAS and BRAF with a threshold of 1% improved prediction of response to anti-EGFR therapy. (C) 2016 AACR.
引用
收藏
页码:1106 / 1112
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Best practices in the management of toxicities related to anti-EGFR agents for metastatic colorectal cancer
    Ouwerkerk, Jan
    Boers-Doets, Christine
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY NURSING, 2010, 14 (04) : 337 - 349
  • [22] Prognostic and predictive biomarkers in metastatic colorectal cancer anti-EGFR therapy
    Lo Nigro, Cristiana
    Ricci, Vincenzo
    Vivenza, Daniela
    Granetto, Cristina
    Fabozzi, Teresa
    Miraglio, Emanuela
    Merlano, Marco C.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2016, 22 (30) : 6944 - 6954
  • [23] An Update on the Role of Anti-EGFR in the Treatment of Older Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
    Rosati, Gerardo
    Montrone, Michele
    Pacilio, Carmen
    Colombo, Alfredo
    Cicero, Giuseppe
    Paragliola, Fernando
    Vaia, Angelo
    Annunziata, Luigi
    Bilancia, Domenico
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2022, 11 (23)
  • [24] Retreatment with anti-EGFR based therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer: impact of intervening time interval and prior anti-EGFR response
    Liu, X.
    George, G. C.
    Tsimberidou, A. M.
    Naing, A.
    Wheler, J. J.
    Kopetz, S.
    Fu, S.
    Piha-Paul, S. A.
    Eng, C.
    Falchook, G. S.
    Janku, F.
    Garrett, C.
    Karp, D.
    Kurzrock, R.
    Zinner, R.
    Raghav, K.
    Subbiah, V.
    Hess, K.
    Meric-Bernstam, F.
    Hong, D. S.
    Overman, M. J.
    BMC CANCER, 2015, 15
  • [25] Response to Anti-EGFR Therapy in Patients with BRAF non-V600-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
    Yaeger, Rona
    Kotani, Daisuke
    Mondaca, Sebastian
    Parikh, Aparna R.
    Bando, Hideaki
    Van Seventer, Emily E.
    Taniguchi, Hiroya
    Zhao, HuiYong
    Thant, Claire N.
    de Stanchina, Elisa
    Rosen, Neal
    Corcoran, Ryan B.
    Yoshino, Takayuki
    Yao, Zhan
    Ebi, Hiromichi
    CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH, 2019, 25 (23) : 7089 - 7097
  • [26] Anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancer: time for an individualized approach?
    Fakih, Marwan
    EXPERT REVIEW OF ANTICANCER THERAPY, 2008, 8 (09) : 1471 - 1480
  • [27] Beyond KRAS status and response to anti-EGFR therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer
    Perkins, Geraldine
    Pilati, Camilla
    Blons, Helene
    Laurent-Puig, Pierre
    PHARMACOGENOMICS, 2014, 15 (07) : 1043 - 1052
  • [28] The pathologist's involvement in anti-EGFR antibody therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer
    Sacoun, Esther
    ANNALES DE PATHOLOGIE, 2010, 30 (04) : VII - X
  • [29] Meta-analysis of BRAF mutation as a predictive biomarker of benefit from anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy for RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer
    Rowland, A.
    Dias, M. M.
    Wiese, M. D.
    Kichenadasse, G.
    McKinnon, R. A.
    Karapetis, C. S.
    Sorich, M. J.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2015, 112 (12) : 1888 - 1894
  • [30] Anti-MEK and Anti-EGFR mAbs in RAS-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Case Series and Rationale
    Ledys, Fanny
    Derangere, Valentin
    Reda, Manon
    Guion, Jean-Florian
    Milliex, Romily
    Roux, Valerie
    Limagne, Emeric
    Arnould, Laurent
    Bengrine, Leila
    Ghiringhelli, Francois
    Rebe, Cedric
    ADVANCES IN THERAPY, 2019, 36 (06) : 1480 - 1484