The predictive value of KRAS mutation in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) patients treated with cetuximab plus chemotherapy has recently been suggested. In our study, 59 patients with a chemotherapy-refractory MCRC treated with cetuximab plus chemotherapy were included and clinical response was evaluated according to response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST). Tumours were screened for KRAS mutations using first direct sequencing, then two sensitive methods based on SNaPshot and PCRligase chain reaction (LCR) assays. Clinical response was evaluated according to gene mutations using the Fisher exact test. Times to progression (TTP) were calculated using the Kaplan -Meier method and compared with log-rank test. A KRAS mutation was detected in 22 out of 59 tumours and, in six cases, was missed by sequencing analysis but detected using the SNaPshot and PCR-LCR assays. Remarkably, no KRAS mutation was found in the 12 patients with clinical response. KRAS mutation was associated with disease progression (P ¼ 0.0005) and TTP was significantly decreased in mutated KRAS patients (3 vs 5.5 months, P ¼ 0.015). Our study confirms that KRAS mutation is highly predictive of a non-response to cetuximab plus chemotherapy in MCRC and highlights the need to use sensitive molecular methods, such as SNaPshot or PCR-LCR assays, to ensure an efficient mutation detection.

Combined FcgammaRIIa/FcgammaRIIIa polymorphisms are prognostic factors for disease progression in mCRC patients treated with cetuximab plus irinotecan. As these polymorphisms are also clinically relevant in mutated-KRAS mCRC, an important role of ADCC in cetuximab efficacy is presumed.

KRAS genotyping is mandatory before anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer, which is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States and in Europe. Thus, large-scale KRAS mutation screening is needed for efficient patient management and in the future metastatic colorectal cancer genotyping might also include the detection of the BRAF V600E mutation, which is a very strong negative prognostic factor in colorectal cancer. We report our experience of routine KRAS/BRAF mutation screening practice performed on 1130 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples from 992 colorectal cancer patients. DNA was extracted from macrodissected tumor areas highlighted by a pathologist, KRAS codons 12/13 and BRAF V600E mutations were assessed in a single SNaPshots multiplex assay and each mutation was confirmed by an independent analysis. KRAS and BRAF mutations were, respectively, present in 41.8 and 6.5% of the tumor samples. If KRAS and BRAF mutations were mutually exclusive, four samples presented two concomitant KRAS mutations. Genotyping of paired primary tumors and metastases from 44 patients indicated that 5 patients (11.4%) presented discordant KRAS mutational status. KRAS genotype heterogeneity was also observed within primary tumor sites in seven cases. Non-reproducible KRAS artefactual mutations were detected in 53 samples (4.7%). We found that the prominent mechanism leading to these artefactual mutations was the fragmentation of DNA occurring during tissue processing. Routine KRAS genotyping performed on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues requires, therefore, the development of quality control scheme for molecular pathology, especially because of DNA damages induced by formalin fixation. The tumor heterogeneity observed in some patients indicates that it should be more appropriate to perform KRAS genotyping on metastases if sample is available.

Background:The direct comparison of CA19.9, circulating tumour cells (CTCs) and circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has never been performed for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic tumours (SPTs).Methods:We included 68 patients with a SPT referred for EUS-FNA. CTCs were analysed using size-based platform and ctDNA using digital PCR. The sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values were evaluated for each marker and their combination.Results:SPTs corresponded to 58 malignant tumours (52 pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) and 6 others) and 10 benign lesions. The sensitivity and specificity for PA diagnosis were 73% and 88% for EUS-FNA, 67% and 80% for CTC, 65% and 75% for ctDNA and 79% and 93% for CA19.9, respectively. The positivity of at least 2 markers was associated with a sensitivity and specificity of 78% and 91%, respectively. CtDNA was the only marker associated with overall survival (median 5.2 months for ctDNA+ vs 11.0 months for ctDNA−, P=0.01).Conclusions:CA19.9 alone and in combination with ctDNA and/or CTC analysis may represent an efficient method for diagnosing PA in patients with SPTs. Further studies including a larger cohort of patients with both malignant and benign lesions will be necessary to confirm these promising results.

Recent studies have suggested that activation of the EGFR pathway leads to malignant transformation only if the p53 protein is inactivated. Therefore, we evaluated the impact of TP53 mutations on cetuximab-based chemotherapy (CT) sensitivity in combination with KRAS mutations that have been associated with cetuximab resistance. KRAS and TP53 status were assessed in tumours from 64 metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with cetuximab-based CT and correlated to clinical response using the Fisher's exact test. Times to progression (TTPs) according to gene status were calculated using the Kaplan -Meier method and compared with log-rank test. TP53 mutations were found in 41 patients and were significantly associated with controlled disease (CD), as defined as complete response, partial response or stable disease (P ¼ 0.037) and higher TTP (20 vs 12 weeks, P ¼ 0.004). Remarkably, in the subgroup of 46 patients without KRAS mutation, but not in patients with KRAS mutation, TP53 mutations were also associated with CD (P ¼ 0.008) and higher TTP (24 vs 12 weeks, P ¼ 0.0007). This study suggests that TP53 mutations are predictive of cetuximab sensitivity, particularly in patients without KRAS mutation, and that TP53 genotyping could have a clinical interest to select patients who should benefit from cetuximab-based CT.

Our data again represent solid proof for the pivotal role of FGFR3 and TP53 mutations in superficial and invasive bladder tumors, respectively. However, other molecular markers should be identified for borderline pT1G3 bladder tumors, which are probably at the crossroads of these 2 distinct molecular pathways.

No abstract

No abstract