Purpose: To determine the prevalence and prognostic value of mismatch repair (MMR) status and its relation to BRAF mutation (BRAF MT ) status in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Experimental Design: A pooled analysis of four phase III studies in first-line treatment of mCRC (CAIRO, CAIRO2, COIN, and FOCUS) was performed. Primary outcome parameter was the hazard ratio (HR) for median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in relation to MMR and BRAF. For the pooled analysis, Cox regression analysis was performed on individual patient data.Results

MMR assays identify patients with a low risk of recurrence. KRAS mutational analysis provides useful additional risk stratification to guide use of chemotherapy.

KRAS/BRAF mutation is associated with poor prognosis but is not a predictive biomarker for irinotecan or oxaliplatin. There is no evidence that patients with KRAS/BRAF mutated tumors are less likely to benefit from these standard chemotherapy agents.

SummaryBackgroundTherapeutic antibodies targeting EGFR have activity in advanced colorectal cancer, but results from clinical trials are inconsistent and the population in which most benefit is derived is uncertain. Our aim was to assess the addition of panitumumab to irinotecan in pretreated advanced colorectal cancer.MethodsIn this open-label, randomised trial, we enrolled patients who had advanced colorectal cancer progressing after fluoropyrimidine treatment with or without oxaliplatin from 60 centres in the UK. From December, 2006 until June, 2008, molecularly unselected patients were recruited to a three-arm design including irinotecan (control), irinotecan plus ciclosporin, and irinotecan plus panitumumab (IrPan) groups. From June 10, 2008, in response to new data, the trial was amended to a prospectively stratified design, restricting panitumumab randomisation to patients with KRAS wild-type tumours; the results of the comparison between the irinotcan and IrPan groups are reported here. We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence (stratified by previous EGFR targeted therapy and then minimised by centre, WHO performance status, previous oxaliplatin, previous bevacizumab, previous dose modifications, and best previous response) to randomly allocate patients to either irinotecan or IrPan. Patients in both groups received 350 mg/m2 intravenous irinotecan every 3 weeks (300 mg/m2 if aged ≥70 years or a performance status of 2); patients in the IrPan group also received intravenous panitumumab 9 mg/kg every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival in KRAS wild-type patients who had not received previous EGFR targeted therapy, analysed by intention to treat. Tumour DNA was pyrosequenced for KRASc.146, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations, and predefined molecular subgroups were analysed for interaction with the effect of panitumumab. This study is registered, number ISRCTN93248876.ResultsBetween Dec 4, 2006, and Aug 31, 2010, 1198 patients were enrolled, of whom 460 were included in the primary population of patients with KRASc.12–13,61 wild-type tumours and no previous EGFR targeted therapy. 230 patients were randomly allocated to irinotecan and 230 to IrPan. There was no difference in overall survival between groups (HR 1·01, 95% CI 0·83–1·23; p=0·91), but individuals in the IrPan group had longer progression-free survival (0·78, 0·64–0·95; p=0·015) and a greater number of responses (79 [34%] patients vs 27 [12%]; p<0·0001) than did individuals in the irinotecan group. Grade 3 or worse diarrhoea (64 [29%] of 219 patients vs 39 [18%] of 218 patients), skin toxicity (41 [19%] vs none), lethargy (45 [21]% vs 24 [11%]), infection (42 [19%] vs 22 [10%]) and haematological toxicity (48 [22%] vs 27 [12%]) were reported more commonly in the IrPan group than in the irinotecan group. We recorded five treatment-related deaths, two in the IrPan group and three in the irinotecan group.InterpretationAdding panitumumab to irinotecan did not improve the overall survival of patients with wild-type KRAS tumours. ...

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Microsatellite instability (MSI) and mismatch-repair deficiency (dMMR) in colorectal tumors are used to select treatment for patients. Deep learning can detect MSI and dMMR in tumor samples on routine histology slides faster and less expensively than molecular assays. However, clinical application of this technology requires high performance and multisite validation, which have not yet been performed. METHODS: We collected H&E-stained slides and findings from molecular analyses for MSI and dMMR from 8836 colorectal tumors (of all stages) included in the MSI-DETECT consortium study, from Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Specimens with dMMR were identified by immunohistochemistry analyses of tissue microarrays for loss of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and/or PMS2. Specimens with MSI were identified by genetic analyses. We trained a deep-learning detector to identify samples with MSI from these slides; performance was assessed by cross-validation (N ¼ 6406 specimens) and validated in an external cohort (n ¼ 771 specimens). Prespecified endpoints were area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve and area under the precision-recall curve

Topo1 immunohistochemistry identified subpopulations that did or did not benefit from irinotecan, and possibly also from oxaliplatin. If verified independently, this information will contribute to the individualization of treatment for colorectal cancer.

No abstract

No abstract