Smaller panel, similar results: genomic profiling and molecularly informed therapy in pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic cancer has a dismal prognosis. One reason is resistance to cytotoxic drugs. Molecularly matched therapies might overcome this resistance but the best approach to identify those patients who may benefit is unknown. Therefore, we sought to evaluate a molecularly guided treatment approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical outcome and mutational status of patients with pancreatic cancer who received molecular profiling at the West German Cancer Center Essen from 2016 to 2021. We carried out a 47-gene DNA next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel. Furthermore, we assessed microsatellite instability-high/deficient mismatch repair (MSI-H/dMMR) status and, sequentially and only in case of KRAS wild-type, gene fusions via RNA-based NGS. Patient data and treatment were retrieved from the electronic medical records.

RESULTS

Of 190 included patients, 171 had pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (90%). One hundred and three patients had stage IV pancreatic cancer at diagnosis (54%). MMR analysis in 94 patients (94/190, 49.5%) identified 3 patients with dMMR (3/94, 3.2%). Notably, we identified 32 patients with KRAS wild-type status (16.8%). To identify driver alterations in these patients, we conducted an RNA-based fusion assay on 13 assessable samples and identified 5 potentially actionable fusions (5/13, 38.5%). Overall, we identified 34 patients with potentially actionable alterations (34/190, 17.9%). Of these 34 patients, 10 patients (10/34, 29.4%) finally received at least one molecularly targeted treatment and 4 patients had an exceptional response (>9 months on treatment).

CONCLUSIONS

Here, we show that a small-sized gene panel can suffice to identify relevant therapeutic options for pancreatic cancer patients. Informally comparing with previous large-scale studies, this approach yields a similar detection rate of actionable targets. We propose molecular sequencing of pancreatic cancer as standard of care to identify KRAS wild-type and rare molecular subsets for targeted treatment strategies.

Efficacy and Safety of Cetuximab Dosing (biweekly vs weekly) in Patients with KRAS Wild-type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cetuximab 500 mg/m2 biweekly (Q2W) plus chemotherapy is commonly used and recommended by NCCN guidelines. This meta-analysis compares efficacy and safety between Q2W versus weekly (Q1W) cetuximab dosing.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed on Pubmed and RightFind (2007-2017) for patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC who received Q2W or Q1W cetuximab and other treatments. Observational studies and case reports were excluded. Randomized trials comparing Q2W and Q1W dosing, and single-arm trials with only Q2W schedule were included. CRYSTAL, a phase 3 randomized study with Q1W cetuximab dosing was paired with each single-arm study with a Q2W schedule and reweighted to achieve similar demographic/baseline characteristics. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) with hazard ratios (HR), overall response rate (ORR) with odds ratios, and risk difference of adverse events of special interest (AESI) between Q2W versus Q1W cetuximab were analyzed.

RESULTS

Five phase 2 studies with cetuximab Q2W/Q1W dosing schedules were identified: CECOG (phase 2; Q2W, n = 77; Q1W, n = 75), NORDIC 7.5 (phase 2; Q2W, n = 152) and NORDIC 7 (arm C of phase 3; Q1W, n = 109), CELINE (n = 60), OPTIMIX (n = 99), and APEC (n = 289) all phase 2, Q2W, single-arm studies paired with CRYSTAL Q1W dosing (n = 303). Efficacy was similar between Q2W versus Q1W administration; OS HR = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.89, 1.04]; PFS HR = 0.96, 95% CI [0.87, 1.05]; ORR odds ratio 1.16, 95% CI [0.96, 1.41]. Mean differences (Q2W-Q1W) across AESI rates were not clinically meaningful with no obvious directionality.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated no significant differences in efficacy and safety between Q2W versus Q1W cetuximab administration in mCRC patients.

A Retrospective Exploration of Targeted Maintenance Therapy in Advanced Colorectal Cancer: Based on the Background of Chinese Patient Assistance Program

Background: Maintenance therapy with bevacizumab (Bev) in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) provides progression-free survival (PFS) benefits. However, the role of maintenance therapy with an anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody has not been established.

Methods: Eligible CRC patients were assigned to maintenance therapy with cetuximab (Cet; Cet group) or Bev (Bev group). PFS, the duration of maintenance therapy, and safety were analyzed. Cox multivariate regression analyses were performed to determine independent prognostic factors.

Results: A total of 143 eligible patients were assigned to the Cet (n = 79) or Bev (n = 64) groups. In the Cet group, all patients had KRAS wild-type. The baseline characteristics were well-balanced between the two groups, except for a higher percentage of patients with a left-sided primary tumor in the Cet group than in the Bev group (86.1 vs. 62.5%, P < 0.0001). The median PFS was not significantly different between the Cet group and the Bev group: 5.9 months (95% CI 2.30–9.50) vs. 7.0 months (95% CI 3.69–10.31) (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.77–1.79, P = 0.45). The median duration of maintenance therapy in the Cet group was shorter than that in the Bev group: 4.0 months (95% CI 1.94–5.99) vs. 4.8 months (95% CI 2.68–6.98) (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.61–1.33; P = 0.59). The subgroup analyses showed that the median PFS for the first maintenance therapy and the second maintenance therapy were 3.2 months (95% CI 1.69–4.78) and 5.2 months (95% CI 1.58–8.83), respectively (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44–1.81; P = 0.75).

Conclusions: This study suggests that maintenance therapy with Cet or Bev can be considered an appropriate option following induction chemotherapy for selected patients with advanced CRC. Multiple maintenance therapy seems to confer survival benefits in advanced CRC. Maintenance therapy with Cet after first-line induction chemotherapy seems to be associated with greater survival benefits.

First-Line Carboplatin, Pemetrexed, and Panitumumab in Patients with Advanced Non-Squamous KRAS Wild Type (WT) Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC)

BACKGROUND

We added panitumumab to standard combination chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with advanced KRAS WT non-squamous NSCLC.

METHODS

Patients received panitumumab 9 mg/kg IV, pemetrexed 500 mg/m² IV, and carboplatin AUC = 6 IV every 21 days. After 6 cycles, maintenance therapy with panitumumab and pemetrexed was administered every 21 days until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity.

RESULTS

29 of 66 patients (44%) had objective responses. The median TTP was 6 months; median overall survival (OS) was 17 months. Panitumumab increased treatment-related toxicity, notably skin rash.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of panitumumab increased toxicity, and had no discernible impact on efficacy.

First-line cetuximab-based chemotherapies for patients with advanced or metastatic KRAS wild-type colorectal cancer

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most commonly occurring cancers worldwide. A burgeoning number of studies have demonstrated that the addition of cetuximab to another standard first-line regimen markedly improves the outcome of CRC treatment. However, at present, the efficacy and safety of cetuximab-based combination chemotherapy has not been well described in Japan. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of first-line chemotherapies that included cetuximab for patients with advanced or metastatic Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) wild-type CRC in Japan. This prospective multicenter observational study was conducted at 13 affiliated medical institutions. A total of 64 patients were enrolled between 2010 and 2013. The patients met the following criteria for eligibility: i) histologically confirmed, advanced or metastatic KRAS wild-type CRC; and ii) cetuximab-based chemotherapies administered as a first-line treatment. First-line cetuximab-based treatments were administered as follows: 29 patients (45.3%) received a combination of infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin and oxaliplatin; 14 patients (21.9%) received a combination of capecitabine and oxaliplatin; and 10 patients (15.6%) received a combination of infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan. The overall response rate (including complete plus partial responses) was 50% (32/64 patients). Initially, 48 lesions were diagnosed as unresectable. Among those, 13 lesions (27.1%) were converted to a resectable status following cetuximab-based combination chemotherapy treatments. The median overall survival time and the progression-free survival time were 1,189 and 359 days, respectively. The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse event was neutropenia, which occurred in 20.3% of the patients. The incidence of grade 3/4 skin toxicity was 17.2% (11/64 patients). Cetuximab-based therapies may represent a promising first-line regimen for patients with advanced or metastatic KRAS wild-type CRC in Japan. In addition, this combination was associated with a low incidence of serious toxicities.

A randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2 study of tivantinib (ARQ 197) in combination with irinotecan and cetuximab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with wild-type KRAS who have received first-line systemic therapy

Cetuximab in combination with an irinotecan-containing regimen is a standard treatment in patients with KRAS wild-type (KRAS WT), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We investigated the addition of the oral MET inhibitor tivantinib to cetuximab + irinotecan (CETIRI) based on preclinical evidence that activation of the MET pathway may confer resistance to anti-EGFR therapy. Previously treated patients with KRAS WT advanced or mCRC were enrolled. The phase 1, open-label 3 + 3, dose-escalation study evaluated the safety and maximally tolerated dose of tivantinib plus CETIRI. The phase 2, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study of biweekly CETIRI plus tivantinib or placebo was restricted to patients who had received only one prior line of chemotherapy. The phase 2 primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The recommended phase 2 dose was tivantinib (360 mg/m(2) twice daily) with biweekly cetuximab (500 mg/m(2)) and irinotecan (180 mg/m(2)). Among 117 patients evaluable for phase 2 analysis, no statistically significant PFS difference was observed: 8.3 months on tivantinib vs. 7.3 months on placebo (HR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.33; P = 0.38). Subgroup analyses trended in favor of tivantinib in patients with MET-High tumors by immunohistochemistry, PTEN-Low tumors, or those pretreated with oxaliplatin, but subgroups were too small to draw conclusions. Neutropenia, diarrhea, nausea and rash were the most frequent severe adverse events in tivantinib-treated patients. The combination of tivantinib and CETIRI was well tolerated but did not significantly improve PFS in previously treated KRAS WT mCRC. Tivantinib may be more active in specific subgroups.

Primary tumor site is a useful predictor of cetuximab efficacy in the third-line or salvage treatment of KRAS wild-type (exon 2 non-mutant) metastatic colorectal cancer: a nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown left-sided colorectal cancer (LCRC) and right-sided colorectal cancer (RCRC) exhibit different molecular and clinicopathological features. We explored the association between the primary tumor site and cetuximab efficacy in KRAS wild-type colorectal cancer (CRC).

METHODS

This study enrolled a cohort of patients, who had received cetuximab treatment after two or more lines of chemotherapy for KRAS wild-type (exon 2 nonmutant) metastatic CRC, from the databases of Taiwan Cancer Registry (2004-2010) and National Health Insurance (2004-2011). Survival data were obtained from the National Death Registry. Time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) and overall survival (OS) after the start of cetuximab treatment were compared between patients with LCRC (splenic flexure to rectum) and RCRC (cecum to hepatic flexure).

RESULTS

A total of 969 CRC patients were enrolled. Among them, 765 (78.9 %) and 136 (14.0 %) patients had LCRC and RCRC, respectively. Patients with LCRC, compared to patients with RCRC, had longer TTD (median, 4.59 vs. 2.75 months, P = .0005) and OS (median, 12.62 vs. 8.07 months, P < .0001) after the start of cetuximab treatment. Multivariate analysis revealed a right-sided primary tumor site was an independent predictor of shorter TTD (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32, using the LCRC group as a reference, 95 % confidence interval: 1.08-1.61, P = .0072) and OS (adjusted HR = 1.45, 95 % CI: 1.18-1.78, P = .0003).

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrate that a left-sided primary tumor site is a useful predictor of improved cetuximab efficacy in the third-line or salvage treatment of KRAS wild-type (exon 2 nonmutant) metastatic CRC.

Primary tumor location is an important predictive factor for wild-type KRAS metastatic colon cancer treated with cetuximab as front-line bio-therapy

INTRODUCTION

Left- and right-sided colon cancers were significantly different in epidemiologic, clinical and histological parameters. However, the impact of primary tumor location in metastatic colon cancer treated with front-line targeted triplet regimens is unclear, particularly in Asian populations.

METHODS

A total of 121 patients with KRAS exon 2 codon 12/13 wild-type metastatic colon cancer were enrolled between January 2007 and December 2013. All patients received one target agent, such as cetuximab or bevacizumab, as a front-line targeted triplet regimen. The impact of primary tumor location for cetuximab and bevacizumab groups was analyzed, respectively.

RESULTS

In cetuximab group, left-sided metastatic colon cancer was superior to right-sided metastatic colon cancer in objective response rate (70.1% vs 33.3%, P = 0.024), progression-free survival (15.0 vs 5.3 months, P < 0.001) and overall survival (35.8 vs 14.4 months, P = 0.031). Primary tumor location was an independent prognostic factor for progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.240, 95% confidence interval 0.114-0.508, P < 0.001). However, in the bevacizumab group, there were no differences in outcomes for either side. Primary tumor location was insignificant for progression-free survival and overall survival in univariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Left-sided primary tumors were favored in cetuximab-based front-line targeted triplet regimen for metastatic colon cancer.

FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab administered weekly or every second week in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase II CECOG study

BACKGROUND

This randomized phase II study investigated first-line chemotherapy plus cetuximab administered every second week in KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients received FOLFOX4 plus either standard weekly cetuximab (arm 1) or cetuximab (500 mg/m(2)) every second week (arm 2), until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end point was the objective response rate (ORR). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), disease control rate (DCR) and safety were also investigated. The study was not powered to establish non-inferiority, but aimed at the estimation of treatment differences.

RESULTS

Of 152 randomized eligible patients, 75 were treated in arm 1 and 77 in arm 2; ORRs [53% versus 62%, odds ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74-2.66], PFS [median 9.5 versus 9.2 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.63-1.34], OS (median 25.8 versus 23.0 months, HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.56-1.30) and DCR (87%) were comparable. HRs adjusted for baseline factors were 1.01 and 0.99 for PFS and OS, respectively. Frequencies of grade 3/4 adverse events in arms 1 versus 2 were similar: most common were neutropenia (28% versus 34%) and rash (15% versus 17%).

CONCLUSIONS

Activity and safety of FOLFOX4 plus either cetuximab administered weekly or every second week were similar.