Impact of the evolution in RAS mutation analysis in Australian patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.
RAS testing
colorectal cancer
metastatic
Journal
Asia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology
ISSN: 1743-7563
Titre abrégé: Asia Pac J Clin Oncol
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 101241430
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2022
Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
29
08
2021
accepted:
25
10
2021
pubmed:
25
1
2022
medline:
21
9
2022
entrez:
24
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
RAS mutation testing now routinely informs the optimal management of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), specifically the finding of a RAS mutation defines patients who will not benefit from treatment with an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor. Over time more RAS genes have been tested and more sensitive techniques used. To review routine care RAS testing and results over time. A retrospective analysis of the molecular data collected prospectively in the multi-site Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer (TRACC) registry from 2009 to 2018 was undertaken. Patients with RAS data were further analyzed. In parallel, the RAS mutation status of patients enrolled in the Test Tailor Treat (TTT) program was examined for 2011-2018. Of 2908 patients in the TRACC registry, 1892 (65%) were tested, with 898 (47%) of tested patients found to be RAS mutant (RASmt). RAS data were available for 5935 TTT patients. Of the tested TRACC patients diagnosed in 2009 and 2010, 38% were RASmt. For each 2-year period from 2011/2012 through to 2017/2018, the prevalence of RASmt in TRACC and TTT was 42% and 40% (2011/2012), 52% and 40% (2013/2014), 47% and 49% (2015/2016), and 47% and 49% (2017/2018). Based on both TRACC and TTT data, the proportion of patients reported to have a RAS mutation increased from 2009 to 2015 but has remained relatively stable in recent years. The increased proportion of RASmt patients observed over time is likely largely driven by the uptake of extended RAS testing.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
RAS mutation testing now routinely informs the optimal management of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), specifically the finding of a RAS mutation defines patients who will not benefit from treatment with an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor. Over time more RAS genes have been tested and more sensitive techniques used.
AIMS
OBJECTIVE
To review routine care RAS testing and results over time.
METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective analysis of the molecular data collected prospectively in the multi-site Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer (TRACC) registry from 2009 to 2018 was undertaken. Patients with RAS data were further analyzed. In parallel, the RAS mutation status of patients enrolled in the Test Tailor Treat (TTT) program was examined for 2011-2018.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 2908 patients in the TRACC registry, 1892 (65%) were tested, with 898 (47%) of tested patients found to be RAS mutant (RASmt). RAS data were available for 5935 TTT patients. Of the tested TRACC patients diagnosed in 2009 and 2010, 38% were RASmt. For each 2-year period from 2011/2012 through to 2017/2018, the prevalence of RASmt in TRACC and TTT was 42% and 40% (2011/2012), 52% and 40% (2013/2014), 47% and 49% (2015/2016), and 47% and 49% (2017/2018).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Based on both TRACC and TTT data, the proportion of patients reported to have a RAS mutation increased from 2009 to 2015 but has remained relatively stable in recent years. The increased proportion of RASmt patients observed over time is likely largely driven by the uptake of extended RAS testing.
Substances chimiques
ErbB Receptors
EC 2.7.10.1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e363-e368Informations de copyright
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Références
Bhalla A, Zulfiqar M, Bluth MH. Molecular diagnostics in colorectal carcinoma. Clin Lab Med. 2018;38(2):311-342.
Febbo PG, Ladanyi M, Aldape KD, et al. NCCn task force report: evaluating the clinical utility of tumor markers in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2011;9(Suppl_5):S-1-S-32.
Cohen R, Rousseau B, Vidal J, Colle R, Diaz LA, André T. Immune checkpoint inhibition in colorectal cancer: microsatellite instability and beyond. Target Oncol. 2020;15(1):11-24.
De Roock W, Claes B, Bernasconi D, et al. Effects of KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations on the efficacy of cetuximab plus chemotherapy in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective consortium analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(8):753-762.
Karapetis CS, Khambata-Ford S, Jonker DJ, et al. KRAS mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(17):1757-1765.
Kadowaki S. Prognostic value of KRAS and BRAF mutations in curatively resected colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(4):1275.
Yaeger R, Cercek A, Chou JF, et al. BRAF mutation predicts for poor outcomes after metastasectomy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: metastasectomy in BRAF-Mutant mCRC. Cancer. 2014;120(15):2316-2324.
Yokota T, Ura T, Shibata N, et al. BRAF mutation is a powerful prognostic factor in advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2011;104(5):856-862.
Kopetz S, Grothey A, Yaeger R, et al. Encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab in BRAF V600E-mutated colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2019;381(17):1632-1643.
Van Cutsem E, Köhne C-H, Hitre E, et al. Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1408-1417.
Semira C, Wong H, Field K, et al. Chemotherapy and biologic use in the routine management of metastatic colorectal cancer in Australia: is clinical practice following the evidence? Intern Med J. 2019;49(4):446-454.
Bylsma LC, Gillezeau C, Garawin TA, et al. Prevalence of RAS and BRAF mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer patients by tumor sidedness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Med. 2020;9(3):1044-1057.
Li W, Li H, Liu R, et al. Comprehensive analysis of the relationship between ras and raf mutations and msi status of colorectal cancer in northeastern China. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2018;50(4):1496-1509.
Dufraing K, Keppens C, Tack V, et al. Evolution of RAS testing over time: factors influencing mutation rates in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Colorectal Cancer. 2020;9(1):CRC14.
Boleij A, Tack V, Taylor A, et al. RAS testing practices and RAS mutation prevalence among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results from a Europe-wide survey of pathology centres. BMC Cancer. 2016;16(1):825.
Kafatos G, Niepel D, Lowe K, et al. RAS mutation prevalence among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of real-world data. Biomark Med. 2017;11(9):751-760.
Peeters M, Kafatos G, Taylor A, et al. Prevalence of RAS mutations and individual variation patterns among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a pooled analysis of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51(13):1704-1713.
Serebriiskii IG, Connelly C, Frampton G, et al. Comprehensive characterization of RAS mutations in colon and rectal cancers in old and young patients. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):3722.
Kinoshita H, Yanagisawa A, Watanabe T, et al. Increase in the frequency of K-ras codon 12 point mutation in colorectal carcinoma in elderly males in Japan: the 1990s compared with the 1960s. Cancer Sci. 2005;96(4):218-220.
Xie MZ, Li JL, Cai ZM, Li KZ, Hu BL. Impact of primary colorectal cancer location on the KRAS status and its prognostic value. BMC Gastroenterol. 2019;19(1):46.