Loree, Jonathan M

Abstract Background Surrogate endpoints are increasingly used as the basis of cancer drug approvals. A strong association between treatment effects on the surrogate and true endpoint is essential for their validation as reliable endpoints. We assess the current evidence of trial-level surrogacy for colorectal cancer (CRC) endpoints through a novel framework. Methods We developed a framework to grade the quality of oncology surrogate endpoints in 7 domains of the surrogate relationship: data source quality (A-B); disease setting homogeneity (0-3); uniformness of surrogate and true endpoint definitions (0-3); number of trials evaluated (0-4); and individual- (0-2) and trial-level associations (0-8). We screened PubMed using keywords and medical subject headings terms for meta-analyses published before July 6, 2024, validating surrogate endpoint associations across CRC trials. Two reviewers blindly assessed each article before reaching a consensus score. The main outcomes were framework-derived evidence scores and reported trial-level associations (R2) with overall survival. Results A total of 18 articles were identified, containing 39 evaluations of 12 unique surrogate endpoints for overall survival. Evidence scores ranged from B6 to A23. Only disease-free survival consistently demonstrated high-quality evidence of trial-level surrogacy (≥A18, median R2 = 0.92). Progression-free survival and objective response rate were low-quality surrogates in metastatic CRC (progression-free survival: B6-A15, median R2 = 0.55; objective response rate: B6-A13, median R2 = 0.33). Other evaluated endpoints were demonstrated to be unreliable surrogates. Conclusion Disease-free survival shows high-quality surrogacy in stage II-III colon cancer. Endpoints identified in the metastatic setting demonstrate inconsistent surrogacy evidence. Reassessment and identification of new endpoints are warranted, particularly with immunotherapy.

Abstract Purpose: Mutations in KRAS/NRAS (RAS) predict lack of anti-EGFR efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, it is unclear if all RAS mutations have similar impact, and atypical mutations beyond those in standard guidelines exist. Experimental Design: We reviewed 7 tissue and 1 cell-free DNA cohorts of 9,485 patients to characterize atypical RAS variants. Using an in vitro cell-based assay (functional annotation for cancer treatment), Ba/F3 transformation, and in vivo xenograft models of transduced isogenic clones, we assessed signaling changes across mutations. Results: KRAS exon 2, extended RAS, and atypical RAS mutations were noted in 37.8%, 9.5%, and 1.2% of patients, respectively. Among atypical variants, KRAS L19F, Q22K, and D33E occurred at prevalence ≥0.1%, whereas no NRAS codon 117/146 and only one NRAS codon 59 mutation was noted. Atypical RAS mutations had worse overall survival than RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC (HR, 2.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.24–6.80; P = 0.014). We functionally characterized 114 variants with the FACT assay. All KRAS exon 2 and extended RAS mutations appeared activating. Of 57 atypical RAS variants characterized, 18 (31.6%) had signaling below wild-type, 23 (40.4%) had signaling between wild-type and activating control, and 16 (28.1%) were hyperactive beyond the activating control. Ba/F3 transformation (17/18 variants) and xenograft model (7/8 variants) validation was highly concordant with FACT results, and activating atypical variants were those that occurred at highest prevalence in clinical cohorts. Conclusions: We provide best available evidence to guide treatment when atypical RAS variants are identified. KRAS L19F, Q22K, D33E, and T50I are more prevalent than many guideline-included RAS variants and functionally relevant.

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesPrecision medicine has altered the management of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the concordance of mutational findings between primary CRC tumors and associated pulmonary metastases (PM) is not well‐described. This study aims to determine the concordance of genomic profiles between primary CRC and PM.MethodsPatients treated for colorectal PM at a single institution from 2000 to 2017 were identified. Mutational concordance was defined as either both wild‐type or both mutant alleles in lung and colorectal lesion; genes with opposing mutational profiles were reported as discordant.ResultsThirty‐eight patients met inclusion criteria, among whom KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, MET, RET, and PIK3CA were examined for concordance. High concordance was demonstrated among all evaluated genes, ranging from 86% (KRAS) to 100% concordance (NRAS, RET, and MET). De novo KRAS mutations were detected in the PM of 4 from 35 (11%) patients, 3 of whom had previously received anti‐epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy. Evaluation of Cohen's κ statistic demonstrated moderate to perfect correlation among evaluated genes.ConclusionsBecause high intertumoral genomic homogeneity exists, it may be reasonable to use primary CRC mutational profiles to guide prognostication and targeted therapy for PM. However, the possibility of de novo KRAS‐mutant PM should be considered, particularly among patients previously treated with anti‐EGFR therapy.