Loree, Jonathan M.

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.

3579 Background: BRAFV600E ( BRAF) mutations (mts) portend poor prognosis in mCRC and patients (pts) may die before ascertainment. Since 2014, Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) has performed reflex hereditary screening of CRCs with BRAF and mismatch repair (MMR) immunohistochemistry (IHC). We evaluated this BRAF mt population-based cohort ( BRAFPOP) to establish the true prognosis of BRAF mts in mCRC. Methods: We reviewed all mCRCs from VCH between 4/2014 and 5/2018 for BRAF by IHC (VE1 antibody). Overall survival (OS) from stage IV diagnosis was compared to mCRCs with next generation sequencing (NGS) determined BRAF mts ( BRAFNGS) from BC Cancer & MD Anderson. BRAFNGS OS did not differ by center (p = 0.77). Results: See table for BRAF cohort baseline characteristic comparison. BRAFPOP pts had worse OS than BRAFNGS pts (HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.6 – 3.9, P < 0.0001). Median OS for all BRAF mt pts was 17.9 mos. Both groups had worse OS than wild type pts (P < 0.0001). 52 (81%) of BRAFPOP pts were referred to oncology, 40 (63%) received chemotherapy, and 12 (19%) had NGS BRAF testing. BRAFPOP pts who had NGS testing with BRAF mts had OS comparable to other BRAFNGS pts (P = 0.89) and better OS than BRAFPOP pts that never had NGS testing (HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18-0.76, P = 0.030). Pts with BRAF mts and MMR deficiency (dMMR) (n = 40) had worse OS than MMR proficiency (pMMR, n = 202) (1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.5, P = 0.011). This was driven by BRAFPOP dMMR pts (HR 1.9, 95% CI 0.9-4.0, P = 0.036) as no difference was seen by MMR in BRAFNGS pts (HR 1.3, 95% CI 0.8-2.2, P = 0.30). Conclusions: Current estimates of prognosis for mCRC with BRAF mts likely underestimate its impact due to referral bias for NGS testing. BRAF mts with dMMR are associated with worse prognosis than pMMR. This appears driven by BRAFPOP pts. [Table: see text]