Targeting colorectal cancer with human anti-EGFR monoclonocal antibodies: focus on panitumumab

The human anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody, panitumumab, represents a significant advance in the treatment of colorectal cancer. The strategy to target this receptor is based on sound cancer biology demonstrating its essential role in colorectal carcinogenesis. Panitumumab, unlike its predecessor, cetuximab, is fully human and thus reduces the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions. But, in several clinical trials, unexpected toxicities have become more apparent, raising concerns of how readily panitumumab can succeed cetuximab. This paper reviews the development of this agent and the pivotal clinical trials that help our understanding of its optimal use in colorectal cancer treatment

Management of BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer: a review of treatment options and evidence-based guidelines

BRAF mutation; Metastatic colorectal cancer; Prognostic markersMutación BRAF; Cáncer colorrectal metastásico; Marcadores pronósticosMutació BRAF; Càncer colorectal metastàtic; Marcadors pronòsticsBackground Colorectal cancer (CRC) is still a leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States and worldwide, despite recent improvements in cancer management. CRC, like many malignancies, is a heterogeneous disease, with subtypes characterized by genetic alterations. One common mutation in CRC is in the BRAF gene (most commonly V600E substitution). This occurs in ∼10% of patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) and is a marker of poor prognosis. Design Herein, we review the clinical and translational literature on the role of the BRAF V600E mutation in the pathogenesis of mCRC, its mechanisms as a prognostic marker, and its potential utility as a predictive marker of treatment response. We then summarize the current evidence-based recommendations for management of BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC, with a focus on recent clinical research advances in this setting. Results The current standard therapies for first-line treatment of BRAF-mutated mCRC are chemotherapy with bevacizumab as well as 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) plus bevacizumab in patients with a good performance status. Combination strategies involving mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway blockade have shown promising results for the treatment of patients with BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC. The Binimetinib, Encorafenib, And Cetuximab cOmbiNed to treat BRAF-mutant ColoRectal Cancer (BEACON CRC) study represents the largest study in this population to date and has given strong clinical evidence to support BRAF and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition with the combination of encorafenib plus cetuximab. Conclusions The treatment of BRAF-mutated mCRC has evolved rapidly over the last several years. Recently, combination strategies involving MAPK pathway blockade have shown promising results in BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC, and other potential targets continue to be explored. In addition, a greater understanding of the role of BRAF V600E mutation in the pathogenesis of CRC should also continue to fuel advances in the management of patients with mCRC harboring this genetic aberration.This work was supported by Array BioPharma, which was acquired by Pfizer in July 2019 (no grant number)

Clinical and exploratory biomarker findings from the MODUL trial (Cohorts 1, 3 and 4) of biomarker-driven maintenance therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer

Biomarkers; Colorectal cancer; Maintenance therapyBiomarcadors; Càncer colorectal; Teràpia de mantenimentBiomarcadores; Cáncer colorrectal; Terapia de mantenimientoPurpose MODUL is an adaptable, signal-seeking trial of biomarker-driven maintenance therapy following first-line induction treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We report findings from Cohorts 1 (BRAFmut), 3 (human epidermal growth factor 2 [HER2]+) and 4 (HER2‒/high microsatellite instability, HER2‒/microsatellite stable [MSS]/BRAFwt or HER2‒/MSS/BRAFmut/RASmut). Methods Patients with unresectable, previously untreated mCRC without disease progression following standard induction treatment (5-fluorouracil/leucovorin [5-FU/LV] plus oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab) were randomly assigned to control (fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab) or cohort-specific experimental maintenance therapy (Cohort 1: vemurafenib plus cetuximab plus 5-FU/LV; Cohort 3: capecitabine plus trastuzumab plus pertuzumab; Cohort 4: cobimetinib plus atezolizumab). The primary efficacy end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Results Cohorts 1, 3 and 4 did not reach target sample size because of early study closure. In Cohort 1 (n = 60), PFS did not differ between treatment arms (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence intervals 0.50–1.82; P = 0.872). However, Cohort 1 exploratory biomarker data showed preferential selection for mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway mutations (mainly KRAS, NRAS, MAP2K1 or BRAF) in the experimental arm but not the control arm. In Cohort 3 (n = 5), PFS ranged from 3.6 to 14.7 months versus 4.0 to 5.4 months in the experimental and control arms, respectively. In Cohort 4 (n = 99), PFS was shorter in the experimental arm (hazard ratio, 1.44; 95% confidence intervals 0.90–2.29; P = 0.128). Conclusions Vemurafenib plus cetuximab plus 5-FU/LV warrants further investigation as first-line maintenance treatment for BRAFmut mCRC. MAPK-pathway emergent genomic alterations may offer novel therapeutic opportunities in BRAFmut mCRC. Cobimetinib plus atezolizumab had an unfavourable benefit:risk ratio in HER2‒/MSS/BRAFwt mCRC. New strategies are required to increase the susceptibility of MSS mCRC to immunotherapy.This work was supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd

MODUL cohort 2: an adaptable, randomized, signal-seeking trial of fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab maintenance therapy for BRAFwt metastatic colorectal cancer

Atezolizumab; Bevacizumab; Metastatic colorectal cancerAtezolizumab; Bevacizumab; Cáncer colorrectal metastásicoAtezolizumab; Bevacizumab; Càncer colorectal metastàticBackground MODUL is an adaptable, signal-seeking trial designed to test novel agents in predefined patient subgroups in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients and methods Patients with measurable, unresectable, previously untreated mCRC received induction with ≤8 cycles of FOLFOX + bevacizumab followed by randomization to maintenance treatment comprising control [fluoropyrimidine (FP)/bevacizumab: 5-fluorouracil 1600-2400 mg/m2 46-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion day 1 q2 weeks plus leucovorin 400 mg/m2 2-h infusion i.v. day 1 q2 weeks or capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 b.i.d. orally days 1-14 every 21 days; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg 15-30-min i.v. infusion q2 weeks] or experimental treatment in one of four biomarker-driven cohorts. In patients with BRAF wild-type (BRAFwt) tumors (cohort 2), experimental treatment was FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab (800 mg 60-min i.v. infusion q2 weeks). Primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; intent-to-treat population). Enrollment is complete; efficacy and safety findings from cohort 2 are presented. Results Four hundred and forty-five patients with BRAFwt mCRC were randomized (2 : 1) to maintenance in cohort 2. At a median follow-up of 10.5 months, PFS outcome hypothesis was not met [hazard ratio (HR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-1.17; P = 0.48]; overall survival (OS) was immature. At a median follow-up of 20.3 months (2-year survival follow-up), PFS benefit was also not met (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.77-1.18; P = 0.666); OS HR with nearly two-thirds of patients with events was 0.83 (95% CI 0.65-1.05; P = 0.117). No new safety signals were identified. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) for experimental versus control arms were hypertension (6.1% versus 4.2%), diarrhea (3.1% versus 2.1%), and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (1.0% versus 2.5%). Four patients experienced TEAEs with fatal outcome, two were study treatment-related: hepatic failure (experimental arm) and large intestine perforation (control arm; bevacizumab-related). Conclusions Adding atezolizumab to FP/bevacizumab as first-line maintenance treatment after FOLFOX + bevacizumab induction for BRAFwt mCRC did not improve efficacy outcomes.This work was supported by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd (no grant number). The sponsor was involved in the study design and was responsible for the overall study management (monitoring), drug supply, data management, statistical analysis, and drug safety process. The Trial Master Files are maintained electronically by the sponsor. The sponsor was involved in the writing of this report, alongside the authors, all of whom had access to the raw data. The corresponding author had full access to all of the data and the final responsibility for submitting the article for publication on behalf of all authors

Management of adverse events from the treatment of encorafenib plus cetuximab for patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer: insights from the BEACON CRC study

Adverse events; Cetuximab; EncorafenibEventos adversos; Cetuximab; EncorafenibEsdeveniments adversos; Cetuximab; EncorafenibColorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide, with a 5-year relative survival of 14% in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients with BRAF V600E mutations, which occur in ∼10%-15% of patients with mCRC, have a poorer prognosis compared with those with wild-type BRAF tumours. The combination of the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib with the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor cetuximab currently represents the only chemotherapy-free targeted therapy approved in the USA and Europe for previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC. As a class, BRAF inhibitors are associated with dermatologic, gastrointestinal, and renal events, as well as pyrexia and secondary skin malignancies. Adverse event (AE) profiles of specific BRAF inhibitors vary, however, and are affected by the specific agents given in combination. In patients with mCRC, commonly reported AEs of cetuximab monotherapy include infusion reactions and dermatologic toxicities. Data from the phase III BEACON CRC study indicate that the combination of encorafenib with cetuximab has a distinct safety profile. Here we review the most frequently reported AEs that occurred with this combination in BEACON CRC and best practices for managing and mitigating AEs that require more than standard supportive care.This work was supported by Array BioPharma in collaboration with Merck KGaA Darmstadt, Germany (for sites outside of North America), ONO Pharmaceutical, Japan, and Pierre Fabre, France. Array BioPharma was acquired by Pfizer in July 2019. This work was also supported by the Cancer Center Core [grant number P30 CA 008748] to MSKCC. Medical writing/editorial support was provided by Namiko Abe, PhD, and Alyson Bexfield, PhD, of Caudex, New York, and was funded by Pfizer

Quality of life with encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib treatment in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer: patient-reported outcomes from BEACON CRC

Colorectal cancer; Encorafenib; Quality of lifeCáncer colorrectal; Encorafenib; Calidad de vidaCàncer colorectal; Encorafenib; Qualitat de vidaBackground In the BEACON CRC study (NCT02928224), encorafenib plus cetuximab with binimetinib {9.3 versus 5.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.60 [0.47-0.75]} or without binimetinib [9.3 versus 5.9 months; HR (95% CI): 0.61 (0.48-0.77)] significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared with the previous standard of care (control) in patients with BRAF V600E metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Quality of life (QoL) was a secondary endpoint, assessed using validated instruments. Patients and methods BEACON CRC was a randomized, open-label, phase III study comparing encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib and the investigator’s choice of irinotecan plus cetuximab or FOLFIRI plus cetuximab (chemotherapy control) in patients with previously treated BRAF V600E mCRC. Patient-reported QoL assessments included the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Colorectal (FACT-C). The primary outcome for these tools was time to definitive 10% deterioration. Results Encorafenib plus cetuximab, both with and without binimetinib, was associated with longer median times to definitive 10% deterioration versus the control group in the EORTC Global Health Status scale [HR (95% CI): 0.65 (0.52-0.80) versus 0.61 (0.49-0.75), respectively] and the FACT-C functional well-being subscale [HR (95% CI): 0.62 (0.50-0.76) versus 0.58 (0.47-0.72), respectively]. Consistent results were observed across all subscales of the EORTC and FACT-C instruments. QoL was generally maintained during treatment for the global EORTC and FACT-C scales. Conclusions In addition to improving OS, encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib delays QoL decline in previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC.This study was sponsored by Array BioPharma Inc, which was acquired by Pfizer, United States; National Cancer Institute, United States in July 2019. This work was also supported by the Cancer Center Core Grant [grant number P30 CA 008748] to Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

Landscape of KRASG12C, Associated Genomic Alterations, and Interrelation With Immuno-Oncology Biomarkers in KRAS-Mutated Cancers

Genomic alterations; Mutated cancers; Immuno-oncologyAlteraciones genómicas; Cánceres mutados; Inmuno-oncologíaAlteracions genòmiques; Càncers mutats; Immuno-oncologiaPURPOSE Promising single-agent activity from sotorasib and adagrasib in KRASG12C-mutant tumors has provided clinical evidence of effective KRAS signaling inhibition. However, comprehensive analysis of KRAS-variant prevalence, genomic alterations, and the relationship between KRAS and immuno-oncology biomarkers is lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS Retrospective analysis of deidentified records from 79,004 patients with various cancers who underwent next-generation sequencing was performed. Fisher's exact test evaluated the association between cancer subtypes and KRAS variants. Logistic regression assessed KRASG12C comutations with other oncogenes and the association between KRAS variants and immuno-oncology biomarkers. RESULTS Of the 79,004 samples assessed, 13,758 (17.4%) harbored KRAS mutations, with 1,632 (11.9%) harboring KRASG12C and 12,126 (88.1%) harboring other KRAS variants (KRASnon-G12C). Compared with KRASnon-G12C across all tumor subtypes, KRASG12C was more prevalent in females (56% v 51%, false discovery rate-adjusted P value [FDR-P] = .0006), current or prior smokers (85% v 56%, FDR-P 60 years (73% v 63%, FDR-P ≤ .0001). The most frequent KRAS variants across all subtypes were G12D (29.5%), G12V (23.0%), G12C (11.9%), G13D (6.5%), and G12R (6.2%). KRASG12C was most prevalent in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (9%), appendiceal (3.9%), colorectal (3.2%), tumor of unknown origin (1.6%), small bowel (1.43%), and pancreatic (1.3%) cancers. Compared with KRASnon-G12C-mutated, KRASG12C-mutated tumors were significantly associated with tumor mutational burden-high status (17.9% v 8.4%, odds ratio [OR] = 2.38; FDR-P < .0001). KRASG12C-mutated tumors exhibited a distinct comutation profile from KRASnon-G12C-mutated tumors, including higher comutations of STK11 (20.59% v 5.95%, OR = 4.10; FDR-P < .01) and KEAP1 (15.38% v 4.61%, OR = 3.76; FDR-P < .01). CONCLUSION This study presents the first large-scale, pan-cancer genomic characterization of KRASG12C. The KRASG12C mutation was more prevalent in females and older patients and appeared to be associated with smoking status. KRASG12C tumors exhibited a distinct comutation profile and were associated with tumor mutational burden-high status

Combining Survival and Toxicity Effect Sizes from Clinical Trials: NCCTG 89-20-52 (Alliance)

Background: How can a clinician and patient incorporate survival and toxicity information into a single expression of comparative treatment benefit? Sloan et al. recently extended the ½ standard deviation concept for judging the clinical importance of findings from clinical trials to survival and tumor response endpoints. A new method using this approach to combine survival and toxicity effect sizes from clinical trials into a quality-adjusted effect size is presented.Methods: The quality-adjusted survival effect size (QASES) is calculated as survival effect size (ESS) minus the calibrated toxicity effect sizes (EST) (QASES=ESS-EST). This combined effect size can be weighted to adjust for the relative emphasis placed by the patient on survival and toxicity effects.Results: As an example, consider clinical trial NCCTG 89-20-52 which randomized patients to once-daily thoracic radiotherapy (ODTRT) versus twice-daily treatment of thoracic radiotherapy (TDRT) for the treatment of lung cancer. The ODTRT vs. TDRT arms had median survival time of 22 vs. 20 months (p=0.49) and toxicity rate of 39% vs. 54%, (p&lt;0.05). The QASES of 0.18 standard deviations translates to a quality-adjusted survival difference of 5.7 months advantage for the ODRT arm over the TDRT treatment arm (22(16.3) months), p&lt;0.05). Similar results are presented for the four possible case combinations of significant/non-significant survival and toxicity benefits using completed clinical trials.Conclusions: We used a novel approach to re-analyze clinical trial data to produce a single estimate for each treatment that combines survival and toxicity data. The QASES approach is an intuitive and mathematically simple yet robust approach