Impact of the Specific Mutation in KRAS Codon 12 Mutated Tumors on Treatment Efficacy in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Receiving Cetuximab-Based First-Line Therapy: A Pooled Analysis of Three Trials

Purpose: This study investigated the impact of specific mutations in codon 12 of the Kirsten-ras (KRAS) gene on treatment efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients: Overall, 119 patients bearing a KRAS mutation in codon 12 were evaluated. All patients received cetuximab-based first-line chemotherapy within the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group (CECOG), AIO KRK-0104 or AIO KRK-0306 trials. Results: Patients with KRAS codon 12 mutant mCRC showed a broad range of outcome when treated with cetuximab-based first-line regimens. Patients with tumors bearing a KRAS p.G12D mutation showed a strong trend to a more favorable outcome compared to other mutations (overall survival 23.3 vs. 14-18 months; hazard ratio 0.66, range 0.43-1.03). An interaction model illustrated that KRAS p.G12C was associated with unfavorable outcome when treated with oxaliplatin plus cetuximab. Conclusion: The present analysis suggests that KRAS codon 12 mutation may not represent a homogeneous entity in mCRC when treated with cetuximab-based first-line therapy. Copyright (C) 2012 S. Karger AG, Base

Outcomes of patients with advanced cancer and KRAS mutations in phase I clinical trials.

BackgroundKRAS mutation is common in human cancer. We assessed the clinical factors, including type of KRAS mutation and treatment, of patients with advanced cancer and tumor KRAS mutations and their association with treatment outcomes.MethodsPatients referred to the Phase I Clinic for treatment who underwent testing for KRAS mutations were analyzed.ResultsOf 1,781 patients, 365 (21%) had a KRAS mutation. The G12D mutation was the most common mutation (29%). PIK3CA mutations were found in 24% and 10% of patients with and without KRAS mutations (p<0.0001). Of 223 patients with a KRAS mutation who were evaluable for response, 56 were treated with a MEK inhibitor-containing therapy and 167 with other therapies. The clinical benefit (partial response and stable disease lasting ≥6 months) rates were 23% and 9%, respectively, for the MEK inhibitor versus other therapies (p=0.005). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.3 and 2.2 months, respectively (p=0.09). The respective median overall survival was 8.4 and 7.0 months (p=0.38). Of 66 patients with a KRAS mutation and additional alterations, higher rates of clinical benefit (p=0.04), PFS (p=0.045), and overall survival (p=0.02) were noted in patients treated with MEK inhibitor-containing therapy (n=9) compared to those treated with targeted therapy matched to the additional alterations (n=24) or other therapy (n=33).ConclusionsMEK inhibitors in patients with KRAS-mutated advanced cancer were associated with higher clinical benefit rates compared to other therapies. Therapeutic strategies that include MEK inhibitors or novel agents combined with other targeted therapies or chemotherapy need further investigation

KRAS-mutation incidence and prognostic value are metastatic site-specific in lung adenocarcinoma: poor prognosis in patients with KRAS-mutation and bone metastasis

Current guidelines lack comprehensive information on the metastatic site-specific role of KRAS mutation in lung adenocarcinoma (LADC). We investigated the effect of KRAS mutation on overall survival (OS) in this setting. In our retrospective study, 500 consecutive Caucasian metastatic LADC patients with known KRAS mutational status were analyzed after excluding 32 patients with EGFR mutations. KRAS mutation incidence was 28.6%. The most frequent metastatic sites were lung (45.6%), bone (26.2%), adrenal gland (17.4%), brain (16.8%), pleura (15.6%) and liver (11%). Patients with intrapulmonary metastasis had significantly increased KRAS mutation frequency compared to those with extrapulmonary metastases (35% vs 26.5%, p=0.0125). In contrast, pleural dissemination and liver involvement were associated with significantly decreased KRAS mutation incidence (vs all other metastatic sites; 17% (p<0.001) and 16% (p=0.02) vs 33%, respectively). Strikingly, we found a significant prognostic effect of KRAS status only in the bone metastatic subcohort (KRAS-wild-type vs KRAS-mutant; median OS 9.7v 3.7 months; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.79; p =0.003). Our study suggests that KRAS mutation frequency in LADC patients shows a metastatic site dependent variation and, moreover, that the presence of KRAS mutation is associated with significantly worse outcome in bone metastatic cases.(VLID)469049

KRAS driven expression signature has prognostic power superior to mutation status in non-small cell lung cancer

KRAS is the most frequently mutated oncogene in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the prognostic role of KRAS mutation status in NSCLC still remains controversial. We hypothesize that the expression changes of genes affected by KRAS mutation status will have the most prominent effect and could be used as a prognostic signature in lung cancer. We divided NSCLC patients with mutation and RNA-seq data into KRAS mutated and wild type groups. Mann-Whitney test was used to identify genes showing altered expression between these cohorts. Mean expression of the top five genes was designated as a "transcriptomic fingerprint" of the mutation. We evaluated the effect of this signature on clinical outcome in 2,437 NSCLC patients using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis. Mutation of KRAS was most common in adenocarcinoma. Mutation status and KRAS expression were not correlated to prognosis. The transcriptomic fingerprint of KRAS include FOXRED2, KRAS, TOP1, PEX3 and ABL2. The KRAS signature had a high prognostic power. Similar results were achieved when using the second and third set of strongest genes. Moreover, all cutoff values delivered significant prognostic power (p < 0.01). The KRAS signature also remained significant (p < 0.01) in a multivariate analysis including age, gender, smoking history and tumor stage. We generated a "surrogate signature" of KRAS mutation status in NSCLC patients by computationally linking genotype and gene expression. We show that secondary effects of a mutation can have a higher prognostic relevance than the primary genetic alteration itself

EGFR inhibitor as second-line therapy in a patient with mutant RAS metastatic colorectal cancer: circulating tumor DNA to personalize treatment

A 47-year-old male patient presented in March 2016 to our unit with a palpable painless left supraclavicular mass. A whole-body contrastenhanced computed tomography (CT) scan revealed a left supraclavicular lymphadenopathy, transverse colon thickening (3 cm), multiple chest and abdominal lymphadenopathies, and peritoneal carcinomatosis. Colonoscopy revealed a bleeding area at 15 cm from the anal verge; biopsy was performed, and the result was negative for a primary cancer

An integrated genomic analysis of lung cancer reveals loss of DUSP4 in EGFR-mutant tumors.

To address the biological heterogeneity of lung cancer, we studied 199 lung adenocarcinomas by integrating genome-wide data on copy number alterations and gene expression with full annotation for major known somatic mutations in this cancer. This showed non-random patterns of copy number alterations significantly linked to EGFR and KRAS mutation status and to distinct clinical outcomes, and led to the discovery of a striking association of EGFR mutations with underexpression of DUSP4, a gene within a broad region of frequent single-copy loss on 8p. DUSP4 is involved in negative feedback control of EGFR signaling, and we provide functional validation for its role as a growth suppressor in EGFR-mutant lung adenocarcinoma. DUSP4 loss also associates with p16/CDKN2A deletion and defines a distinct clinical subset of lung cancer patients. Another novel observation is that of a reciprocal relationship between EGFR and LKB1 mutations. These results highlight the power of integrated genomics to identify candidate driver genes within recurrent broad regions of copy number alteration and to delineate distinct oncogenetic pathways in genetically complex common epithelial cancers

Analyses of clinicopathological, molecular, and prognostic associations of KRAS codon 61 and codon 146 mutations in colorectal cancer: cohort study and literature review

Background: KRAS mutations in codons 12 and 13 are established predictive biomarkers for anti-EGFR therapy in colorectal cancer. Previous studies suggest that KRAS codon 61 and 146 mutations may also predict resistance to anti-EGFR therapy in colorectal cancer. However, clinicopathological, molecular, and prognostic features of colorectal carcinoma with KRAS codon 61 or 146 mutation remain unclear. Methods: We utilized a molecular pathological epidemiology database of 1267 colon and rectal cancers in the Nurse’s Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. We examined KRAS mutations in codons 12, 13, 61 and 146 (assessed by pyrosequencing), in relation to clinicopathological features, and tumor molecular markers, including BRAF and PIK3CA mutations, CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP), LINE-1 methylation, and microsatellite instability (MSI). Survival analyses were performed in 1067 BRAF-wild-type cancers to avoid confounding by BRAF mutation. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compute mortality hazard ratio, adjusting for potential confounders, including disease stage, PIK3CA mutation, CIMP, LINE-1 hypomethylation, and MSI. Results: KRAS codon 61 mutations were detected in 19 cases (1.5%), and codon 146 mutations in 40 cases (3.2%). Overall KRAS mutation prevalence in colorectal cancers was 40% (=505/1267). Of interest, compared to KRAS-wild-type, overall, KRAS-mutated cancers more frequently exhibited cecal location (24% vs. 12% in KRAS-wild-type; P < 0.0001), CIMP-low (49% vs. 32% in KRAS-wild-type; P < 0.0001), and PIK3CA mutations (24% vs. 11% in KRAS-wild-type; P < 0.0001). These trends were evident irrespective of mutated codon, though statistical power was limited for codon 61 mutants. Neither KRAS codon 61 nor codon 146 mutation was significantly associated with clinical outcome or prognosis in univariate or multivariate analysis [colorectal cancer-specific mortality hazard ratio (HR) = 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.29-2.26 for codon 61 mutation; colorectal cancer-specific mortality HR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.42-1.78 for codon 146 mutation]. Conclusions: Tumors with KRAS mutations in codons 61 and 146 account for an appreciable proportion (approximately 5%) of colorectal cancers, and their clinicopathological and molecular features appear generally similar to KRAS codon 12 or 13 mutated cancers. To further assess clinical utility of KRAS codon 61 and 146 testing, large-scale trials are warranted

RAS mutation status predicts survival and patterns of recurrence in patients undergoing hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases.

ObjectiveTo determine the impact of RAS mutation status on survival and patterns of recurrence in patients undergoing curative resection of colorectal liver metastases (CLM) after preoperative modern chemotherapy.BackgroundRAS mutation has been reported to be associated with aggressive tumor biology. However, the effect of RAS mutation on survival and patterns of recurrence after resection of CLM remains unclear.MethodsSomatic mutations were analyzed using mass spectroscopy in 193 patients who underwent single-regimen modern chemotherapy before resection of CLM. The relationship between RAS mutation status and survival outcomes was investigated.ResultsDetected somatic mutations included RAS (KRAS/NRAS) in 34 (18%), PIK3CA in 13 (7%), and BRAF in 2 (1%) patients. At a median follow-up of 33 months, 3-year overall survival (OS) rates were 81% in patients with wild-type versus 52.2% in patients with mutant RAS (P = 0.002); 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were 33.5% with wild-type versus 13.5% with mutant RAS (P = 0.001). Liver and lung recurrences were observed in 89 and 83 patients, respectively. Patients with RAS mutation had a lower 3-year lung RFS rate (34.6% vs 59.3%, P &lt; 0.001) but not a lower 3-year liver RFS rate (43.8% vs 50.2%, P = 0.181). In multivariate analyses, RAS mutation predicted worse OS [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.3, P = 0.002), overall RFS (HR = 1.9, P = 0.005), and lung RFS (HR = 2.0, P = 0.01), but not liver RFS (P = 0.181).ConclusionsRAS mutation predicts early lung recurrence and worse survival after curative resection of CLM. This information may be used to individualize systemic and local tumor-directed therapies and follow-up strategies

Transient disappearance of RAS mutant clones in plasma: A counterintuitive clinical use of EGFR inhibitors in RAS mutant metastatic colorectal cancer

Genomic studies performed through liquid biopsies widely elucidated the evolutionary trajectory of RAS mutant clones under the selective pressure of EGFR inhibitors in patients with wild type RAS primary colorectal tumors. Similarly, the disappearance of RAS mutant clones in plasma has been more recently reported in some patients with primary RAS mutant cancers, supporting for the first time an unexpected negative selection of RAS mutations during the clonal evolution of mCRC. To date, the extent of conversion to RAS wild type disease at the time of progression has not been clarified yet. As a proof of concept, we prospectively enrolled mCRC patients progressing under anti-VEGF based treatments. Idylla™system was used to screen RAS mutations in plasma and the wild type status of RAS was further confirmed through IT-PGM (Ion Torrent Personal Genome Machine) sequencing. RAS was found mutant in 55% of cases, retaining the same plasma mutation as in the primary tumor at diagnosis, while it was found wild-type in 45%. Four patients testing negative for RAS mutations in plasma at the time of progression of disease (PD) were considered eligible for treatment with EGFR inhibitors and treated accordingly, achieving a clinical benefit. We here propose a hypothetical algorithm that accounts for the transient disappearance of RAS mutant clones over time, which might extend the continuum of care of mutant RAS colorectal cancer patients through the delivery of a further line of therapy