Prevalence of KRAS G12C Mutation and Co-mutations and Associated Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review

PURPOSE

A systematic literature review was conducted to estimate the global prevalence of Kirsten rat sarcoma virus gene (KRAS) mutations, with an emphasis on the clinically significant KRAS G12C mutation, and to estimate the prognostic significance of these mutations in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC).

DESIGN

Relevant English-language publications in the Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library databases (from 2009 to 2021) and congress presentations (from 2016 to 2021) were reviewed. Eligible studies were those that reported the prevalence and clinical outcomes of the KRAS G12C mutation in patients with CRC.

RESULTS

A total of 137 studies (interventional [n = 8], post hoc analyses of randomized clinical trials [n = 6], observational [n = 122], and longitudinal [n =1]) were reviewed. Sixty-eight studies reported the prevalence of KRAS mutations (KRASm) in 42 810 patients with CRC. The median global prevalence of KRASm was 38% (range, 13.3%-58.9%) and that of the KRAS G12C mutation (KRAS G12C) 3.1% (range, 0.7%-14%). Available evidence suggests that KRASm are possibly more common in tumors that develop on the right side of the colon. Limited evidence suggests a lower objective response rate and inferior disease-free/relapse-free survival in patients with KRAS G12C compared with patients with KRASwt or other KRASm.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis reveals that KRAS G12C is prevalent in 3% of patients with CRC. Available evidence suggests a poor prognosis for patients with KRAS G12C. Right-sided tumors were more likely to harbor KRASm; however, their role in determining clinical outcomes needs to be investigated further.

KRAS early testing: consensus initiative and cost-effectiveness evaluation for metastatic colorectal patients in an Italian setting

KRAS testing is relevant for the choice of the most appropriate first-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Strategies for preventing unequal access to the test should be implemented, but their relevance in the practice is related to economic sustainability. The study adopted the Delphi technique to reach a consensus on several topics. Issues related to execution of KRAS testing were identified by an expert’s board and proposed to 108 Italian oncologists and pathologists through two subsequent questionnaires. The emerging proposal was evaluated by decision analyses models employed by technology assessment agencies in order to assess cost-effectiveness. Alternative therapeutic strategies included most commonly used chemotherapy regimens alone or in combination with cetuximab or bevacizumab. The survey indicated that time interval for obtaining KRAS test should not exceed 15 days, 10 days being an optimal interval. To assure the access to proper treatment, a useful strategy should be to anticipate the test after radical resection in patients at high risk of relapse. Early KRAS testing in high risk CRC patients generates incremental cost-effectiveness ratios between 6,000 and 13,000 Euro per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. In extensive sensitivity analyses ICER’s were always below 15,000 Euro per QALY gained, far within the threshold of 60,000 Euro/QALY gained accepted by regulatory institutions in Italy. In metastatic CRC a time interval higher than 15 days for result of KRAS testing limits access to therapeutic choices. Anticipating KRAS testing before the onset of metastatic disease in patients at high risk does not affect the sustainability and cost-effectiveness profile of cetuximab in first-line mCRC. Early KRAS testing may prevent this inequality in high-risk patients, whether they develop metastases, and is a cost-effective strategy. Based on these results, present joined recommendations of Italian societies of Oncology and Pathology should be updated including early KRAS testing.