RAS Mutations Beyond KRAS Exon 2: A Review and Discussion of Clinical Trial Data

被引:0
作者
Timothy L. Cannon
Megan A. Kokon
Sara Shafqat
John F. Deeken
机构
[1] INOVA Medical Group,
[2] Virginia Commonwealth University,undefined
来源
Current Treatment Options in Oncology | 2015年 / 16卷
关键词
Colorectal cancer; Other RAS mutations; Extended RAS; Review; EGFR inhibitors; Cetuximab; Panitumumab; RAS; KRAS; NRAS; Survival;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The addition of targeted therapy to a 5-FU chemotherapy backbone is now a standard of care in metastatic colorectal cancer. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors have been demonstrated to improve progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the first line for patients with tumors that do not harbor KRAS exon 2 mutations. Eligibility criteria for most clinical trials involving EGFR inhibitors in recent years have used the absence of KRAS exon 2 mutation as the sole criteria for entry, as this specific mutation has been consistently shown to be predictive of a poor response to EGFR inhibitors. However, expanded analyses of first-line metastatic trials reveal that other RAS mutations, such as other KRAS mutations in exons 3 and 4, along with NRAS mutations, are predictive of poor responses to EGFR inhibitors as well. Testing for a full panel of these RAS mutations should be done prior to initiating treatment with an EGFR inhibitor. Further clinical trials are required to determine the predictive impact of each of these individual mutations. To date, they have been analyzed in the aggregate. The addition of targeted therapy, bevacizumab or an EGFR inhibitor, to a chemotherapy backbone should be considered for all appropriate patients. The relevant clinical trials that evaluated patients without any RAS mutation and compared an EGFR inhibitor to chemotherapy alone show a distinct advantage in overall survival and progression-free survival to the groups that received EGFR inhibition. The largest trial that compared bevacizumab with an EGFR inhibitor in the first line, CALGB/SWOG 80405, did not show a statistically significant difference between the two groups, making the use of bevacizumab, cetuximab, or panitumumab reasonable in the first line.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 140 条
  • [1] Raskov H(2014)Colorectal carcinogenesis—update and perspectives World J Gastroentrol 20 18151-18164
  • [2] Pommergaard HC(2007)Cetuximab for the treatment of colorectal cancer N Engl J Med 357 2040-2048
  • [3] Burcharth J(2004)Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer N Engl J Med 351 337-345
  • [4] Rosenberg J(2000)Expression of the tyrosine kinase activity growth factor receptors (EGFR, ERB B2, ERB B3) in colorectal adenocarcinomas and adenomas Tumor Biol 21 105-115
  • [5] Jonker DJ(2009)Medical treatment of advanced colorectal cancer in 2009 Ther Adv Med Oncol 1 55-68
  • [6] O’Callaghan CJ(2008)KRAS mutations as an independent prognostic factor in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab J Clin Oncol 26 374-379
  • [7] Karapetis CS(2004)Phase II trial of cetuximab in patients with refractory colorectal cancer that expresses the epidermal growth factor receptor J Clin Oncol 22 1201-1208
  • [8] Cunningham D(2008)K- N Engl J Med 359 177-1765
  • [9] Humblet Y(2009) mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer N Engl J Med 360 1408-1417
  • [10] Siena S(2008)Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer Ann Oncol 20 469-474