Consensus molecular subgroups (CMS) of colorectal cancer (CRC) and first-line efficacy of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab in the FIRE3 (AIO KRK-0306) trial.
Aged
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ pharmacology
Bevacizumab
/ therapeutic use
Biomarkers, Tumor
/ genetics
Camptothecin
/ analogs & derivatives
Cetuximab
/ therapeutic use
Clinical Decision-Making
/ methods
Colon
/ pathology
Colorectal Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
DNA Mutational Analysis
Female
Fluorouracil
/ pharmacology
Gene Expression Profiling
Humans
Kaplan-Meier Estimate
Leucovorin
/ pharmacology
Male
Middle Aged
Mutation
Prognosis
Progression-Free Survival
Rectum
/ pathology
CMS
bevacizumab
cetuximab
colorectal cancer
Journal
Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology
ISSN: 1569-8041
Titre abrégé: Ann Oncol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9007735
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 11 2019
01 11 2019
Historique:
entrez:
24
12
2019
pubmed:
24
12
2019
medline:
4
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
FIRE-3 compared first-line therapy with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab in 592 KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. The consensus molecular subgroups (CMS) are grouping CRC samples according to their gene-signature in four different subtypes. Relevance of CMS for the treatment of mCRC has yet to be defined. In this exploratory analysis, patients were grouped according to the previously published tumor CRC-CMSs. Objective response rates (ORR) were compared using chi-square test. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) times were compared using Kaplan-Meier estimation, log-rank tests. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated according to the Cox proportional hazard method. CMS classification could be determined in 438 out of 514 specimens available from the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (n = 592). Frequencies for the remaining 438 samples were as follows: CMS1 (14%), CMS2 (37%), CMS3 (15%), CMS4 (34%). For the 315 RAS wild-type tumors, frequencies were as follows: CMS1 (12%), CMS2 (41%), CMS3 (11%), CMS4 (34%). CMS distribution in right- versus (vs) left-sided primary tumors was as follows: CMS1 (27% versus 11%), CMS2 (28% versus 45%), CMS3 (10% versus 12%), CMS4 (35% versus 32%). Independent of the treatment, CMS was a strong prognostic factor for ORR (P = 0.051), PFS (P < 0.001), and OS (P < 0.001). Within the RAS wild-type population, OS observed in CMS4 significantly favored FOLFIRI cetuximab over FOLFIRI bevacizumab. In CMS3, OS showed a trend in favor of the cetuximab arm, while OS was comparable in CMS1 and CMS2, independent of targeted therapy. CMS classification is prognostic for mCRC. Prolonged OS induced by FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the FIRE-3 study appears to be driven by CMS3 and CMS4. CMS classification provides deeper insights into the biology to CRC, but at present time has no direct impact on clinical decision-making.The FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306) study had been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00433927.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
FIRE-3 compared first-line therapy with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab in 592 KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. The consensus molecular subgroups (CMS) are grouping CRC samples according to their gene-signature in four different subtypes. Relevance of CMS for the treatment of mCRC has yet to be defined.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
In this exploratory analysis, patients were grouped according to the previously published tumor CRC-CMSs. Objective response rates (ORR) were compared using chi-square test. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) times were compared using Kaplan-Meier estimation, log-rank tests. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated according to the Cox proportional hazard method.
RESULTS
CMS classification could be determined in 438 out of 514 specimens available from the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (n = 592). Frequencies for the remaining 438 samples were as follows: CMS1 (14%), CMS2 (37%), CMS3 (15%), CMS4 (34%). For the 315 RAS wild-type tumors, frequencies were as follows: CMS1 (12%), CMS2 (41%), CMS3 (11%), CMS4 (34%). CMS distribution in right- versus (vs) left-sided primary tumors was as follows: CMS1 (27% versus 11%), CMS2 (28% versus 45%), CMS3 (10% versus 12%), CMS4 (35% versus 32%). Independent of the treatment, CMS was a strong prognostic factor for ORR (P = 0.051), PFS (P < 0.001), and OS (P < 0.001). Within the RAS wild-type population, OS observed in CMS4 significantly favored FOLFIRI cetuximab over FOLFIRI bevacizumab. In CMS3, OS showed a trend in favor of the cetuximab arm, while OS was comparable in CMS1 and CMS2, independent of targeted therapy.
CONCLUSIONS
CMS classification is prognostic for mCRC. Prolonged OS induced by FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the FIRE-3 study appears to be driven by CMS3 and CMS4. CMS classification provides deeper insights into the biology to CRC, but at present time has no direct impact on clinical decision-making.The FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306) study had been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00433927.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31868905
pii: S0923-7534(20)32595-3
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz387
pmc: PMC6927316
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Bevacizumab
2S9ZZM9Q9V
Cetuximab
PQX0D8J21J
Leucovorin
Q573I9DVLP
Fluorouracil
U3P01618RT
Camptothecin
XT3Z54Z28A
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT00433927']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase III
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1796-1803Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.
Références
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Oct;17(10):1426-1434
pubmed: 27575024
Nat Med. 2015 Nov;21(11):1350-6
pubmed: 26457759
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Sep;15(10):1065-75
pubmed: 25088940
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jan 1;5(1):83-90
pubmed: 30422156
Nat Rev Cancer. 2017 Mar 23;17(4):268
pubmed: 28332502
Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer. 2017 Jan;1867(1):1-18
pubmed: 27864070
JAMA Oncol. 2016 Sep 1;2(9):1162-9
pubmed: 27270348
Ann Oncol. 2016 Aug;27(8):1386-422
pubmed: 27380959
Lancet Oncol. 2019 May;20(5):e274-e283
pubmed: 31044725
Ann Oncol. 2018 Jan 1;29(1):44-70
pubmed: 29155929
Z Gastroenterol. 2017 Dec;55(12):1344-1498
pubmed: 29212104
Oncotarget. 2018 Apr 10;9(27):18698-18711
pubmed: 29721154
J Clin Oncol. 2019 Aug 1;37(22):1876-1885
pubmed: 31042420
Ann Oncol. 2018 Nov 1;29(11):2240-2246
pubmed: 30247524