Mahoney, Michelle R.

Abstract Purpose: To determine the frequency and prognostic association of molecular markers by anatomic tumor site in patients with stage III colon carcinomas. Experimental Design: In a randomized trial of adjuvant FOLFOX ± cetuximab, BRAFV600E and KRAS (exon 2) mutations and DNA mismatch repair (MMR) proteins were analyzed in tumors (N = 3,018) in relationship to tumor location, including subsite. Cox models were used to assess clinical outcome, including overall survival (OS). Results: KRAS codon 12 mutations were most frequent at the splenic flexure and cecum; codon 13 mutations were evenly distributed. BRAF mutation frequency sharply increased from transverse colon to cecum in parallel with deficient (d) MMR. Nonmutated BRAF and KRAS tumors progressively decreased from sigmoid to transverse (all P < 0.0001). Significantly, poorer OS was found for mutant KRAS in distal [HR, 1.98; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.49–2.63; P < 0.0001] versus proximal (1.25; 95% CI, 0.97–1.60; P = 0.079) cancers. BRAF status and outcome were not significantly associated with tumor site. Proximal versus distal dMMR tumors had significantly better outcome. An interaction test was significant for tumor site by KRAS (Padjusted = 0.043) and MMR (Padjusted = 0.010) for OS. Significant prognostic differences for biomarkers by tumor site were maintained in the FOLFOX arm. Tumor site was independently prognostic with a stepwise improvement from cecum to sigmoid (OS: Padjusted = 0.001). Conclusions: Mutation in BRAF or KRAS codon 12 was enriched in proximal cancers whereas nonmutated BRAF/KRAS was increased in distal tumors. Significant differences in outcome for KRAS mutations and dMMR were found by tumor site, indicating that their interpretation should occur in the context of tumor location. Clin Cancer Res; 21(23); 5294–304. ©2015 AACR.

Abstract Purpose: We examined the prognostic impact of specific KRAS mutations in patients with stage III colon adenocarcinoma receiving adjuvant FOLFOX alone or combined with cetuximab in a phase III trial (N0147). Analysis was restricted to BRAF–wild-type tumors, because BRAF mutation was associated with poor prognosis, and BRAF and KRAS mutations are mutually exclusive. Experimental Design: The seven most common KRAS mutations in codon 12 and codon 13 were examined in 2,478 BRAF–wild-type tumors. Because KRAS mutations in codon 12 (n = 779) or 13 (n = 220) were not predictive of adjuvant cetuximab benefit, study arms were pooled for analysis. Disease-free survival (DFS) was evaluated by HRs using Cox models. Results: KRAS mutations in codon 12 (multivariate HR, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.28–1.80; P < 0.0001) or codon 13 (multivariate HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.04–1.77; P = 0.0248) were significantly associated with shorter DFS compared with patients with wild-type KRAS/BRAF tumors, independent of covariates. KRAS codon 12 mutations were independently associated with proficient mismatch repair (P < 0.0001), proximal tumor site (P < 0.0001), low grade, age, and sex, whereas codon 13 mutations were associated with proximal site (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: KRAS mutations in either codon 12 or 13 are associated with inferior survival in patients with resected stage III colon cancer. These data highlight the importance of accurate molecular characterization and the significant role of KRAS mutations in both codons in the progression of this malignancy in the adjuvant setting. Clin Cancer Res; 20(11); 3033–43. ©2014 AACR.

PurposeThe association of deficient DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) with prognosis in patients with colon cancer treated with adjuvant fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) chemotherapy remains unknown.Patients and MethodsResected, stage III colon carcinomas from patients (N = 2,686) randomly assigned to FOLFOX ± cetuximab (North Central Cancer Treatment Group N0147 trial) were analyzed for mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression and mutations in BRAFV600E(exon 15) and KRAS (codons 12 and 13). Association of biomarkers with disease-free survival (DFS) was determined using Cox models. A validation cohort (Cancer and Leukemia Group B 88903 trial) was used.ResultsdMMR was detected in 314 (12%) of 2,580 tumors, of which 49.3% and 10.6% had BRAFV600Eor KRAS mutations, respectively. MMR status was not prognostic overall (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.07; P = .14), yet significant interactions were found between MMR and primary tumor site (Pinteraction= .009) and lymph node category (N1 v N2; Pinteraction= .014). Favorable DFS was observed for dMMR versus proficient MMR proximal tumors (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.94; P = .018) but not dMMR distal tumors (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 0.99 to 2.95; P = .056), adjusting for mutations and covariates. Any survival benefit of dMMR was lost in N2 tumors. Mutations in BRAFV600E(HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.70; P = .009) or KRAS (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.21 to 1.70; P < .001) were independently associated with worse DFS. The observed MMR by tumor site interaction was validated in an independent cohort of stage III colon cancers (Pinteraction= .037).ConclusionThe prognostic impact of MMR depended on tumor site, and this interaction was validated in an independent cohort. Among dMMR cancers, proximal tumors had favorable outcome, whereas distal or N2 tumors had poor outcome. BRAF or KRAS mutations were independently associated with adverse outcome.

Abstract Sulindac, atorvastatin, or prebiotic dietary fiber may reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. However, clinical trial data are currently limited. We conducted a randomized, phase II chemoprevention trial involving subjects 40 years or older, with previously resected colon cancer or multiple/advanced colorectal adenomas. Magnification chromoendoscopy (MCE) was performed to identify and characterize rectal aberrant crypt foci (ACF); eligibility criteria required five or more rectal ACFs at baseline. Intervention assignments were as follows: (a) atorvastatin 20 mg qd; (b) sulindac 150 mg bid; (c) oligofructose-enriched inulin (as ORAFTI®Synergy1) 6 gm bid; or (d) control (maltodextrin) 6 gm bid, for 6 months. Percent change in rectal ACF number (%ΔACF) within arm was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included changes in proliferation (Ki67) and apoptosis (caspase-3), as measured from normal mucosa biopsy samples. Among 85 eligible randomized subjects, 76 (86%) completed the trial per protocol. The median (range) of rectal ACF was 9 (5–34) and 8 (0–37) at baseline and postintervention, respectively. The median (SD) for %ΔACF was 5.6 (−69% to 143%), −18.6 (−83% to 160%), −3.6 (−88% to 83%), and −10.0 (−100% to 117%) in the atorvastatin, sulindac, ORAFTI®Synergy1 and control arms, respectively. Neither within-arm (P = 0.12–0.59) nor between-arm (P = 0.30–0.92) comparisons of %ΔACF were statistically significant. The active and control interventions also seemed to have similar effects on mucosal proliferation and apoptosis (P &gt; 0.05 for each comparison). Data from this multicenter, phase II trial do not provide convincing evidence of CRC risk reduction from 6-month interventions with atorvastatin, sulindac, or ORAFTI®Synergy1, although statistical power was limited by the relatively small sample size. Cancer Prev Res; 4(2); 259–69. ©2011 AACR.

PurposeBiliary cancers overexpress epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and angiogenesis has been correlated with poor outcome. Erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and bevacizumab, a vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor have each been shown to have activity in biliary cancer. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the response rate by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), VEGF levels, and molecular studies of EGFR and k-ras.Patients and MethodsEligible patients had advanced cholangiocarcinoma or gallbladder cancer. Patients were treated with bevacizumab 5 mg/kg intravenously on days 1 and 15 and erlotinib 150 mg by mouth daily on days 1 through 28. Responses were evaluated by RECIST. VEGF levels were collected, and samples were analyzed for EGFR mutation by polymerase chain reaction.ResultsFifty-three eligible patients were enrolled at eight sites. Of 49 evaluable patients, six (12%; 95% CI, 6% to 27%) had a confirmed partial response. Stable disease was documented in another 25 patients (51%). Rash was the most common grade 3 toxicity. Four patients had grade 4 toxicities. Median OS was 9.9 months, and TTP was 4.4 months. Low repeats (< 16) in EGFR intron 1 polymorphism and G>G k-ras Q38 genotype (wild type) were associated with improved outcomes.ConclusionCombination chemotherapy with bevacizumab and erlotinib showed clinical activity with infrequent grade 3 and 4 adverse effects in patients with advanced biliary cancers. On the basis of preliminary molecular analysis, presence of a k-ras mutation may alter erlotinib efficacy. The combination of bevacizumab and erlotinib may be a therapeutic alternative in patients with advanced biliary cancer.

Purpose Prior trials have shown that surgery followed by hepatic artery infusion (HAI) of floxuridine (FUDR) alternating with systemic fluorouracil improves survival rates. Oxaliplatin combined with capecitabine has demonstrated activity in advanced colorectal cancer. Based on this observation a trial was conducted to assess the potential benefit of systemic oxaliplatin and capecitabine alternating with HAI of FUDR. The primary end point was 2-year survival. Patients and Methods Patients with liver-only metastases from colorectal cancer amenable to resection or cryoablation were eligible. HAI and systemic therapy was initiated after metastasectomy. Alternating courses of HAI consisted of 0.2 mg/m2/d FUDR and dexamethasone, day 1 through 14 weeks 1 and 2. Systemic therapy included oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 day 1 with capecitabine at 1,000 mg/m2 twice daily, days 1 through 14, weeks 4 and 5. Two additional 3-week courses of systemic therapy were given. Capecitabine was reduced to 850 mg/m2 twice daily after interim review of toxicity. Results Fifty-five of 76 eligible patients were able to initiate protocol-directed therapy and completed median of six cycles (range, one to six). Three postoperative or treatment-related deaths were reported. Overall, 88% of evaluable patients were alive at 2 years. With a median follow-up of 4.8 years, a total of 30 patients have had disease recurrence, 11 involving the liver. Median disease-free survival was 32.7 months. Conclusion Alternating HAI of FUDR and systemic capecitabine and oxaliplatin met the prespecified end point of higher than 85% survival at 2 years and was clinically tolerable. However, the merits of this approach need to be established with a phase III trial.

Purpose The primary goal of this multicenter phase III trial was to determine whether overall survival (OS) of fluorouracil (FU) -refractory patients was noninferior when treated with second-line infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4; arm B) versus irinotecan (arm A). Cross-over to the other treatment on disease progression was mandated. Patients and Methods Patients who experienced treatment failure with one prior FU-based therapy and had not received prior irinotecan or oxaliplatin, either for metastatic disease or within 6 months of adjuvant FU therapy, were randomly assigned to arm A (irinotecan 350 or 300 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) or arm B (FOLFOX4). Results A total of 491 patients were randomly assigned (arm A, n = 245; arm B, n = 246); 288 (59%) had experienced treatment failure with FU for metastatic colorectal cancer. Two hundred twenty-seven patients (46%) received protocol-mandated third-line therapy (arm A, 43%; arm B, 57%). Median survival was 13.8 months (95% CI, 12.2 to 15.0 months) for initial treatment with FOLFOX4 and 14.3 months (95% CI, 12.0 to 15.9 months) for irinotecan (P = .38; hazard ratio = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.8 to 1.1). Response rates (RR; 28% v 15.5%; P = .0009) and time to progression (TTP; 6.2 v 4.4 months; P = .0009) were significantly superior with FOLFOX4. In the nonrandom subset of patients who crossed over, RR and TTP improvements with FOLFOX4 continued into third-line treatment. Irinotecan therapy was associated with more grade 3 nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and febrile neutropenia; FOLFOX4 was associated with more neutropenia and paresthesias. Conclusion In patients who experienced treatment failure with front-line FU therapy, OS does not significantly differ whether second-line therapy begins with irinotecan or FOLFOX4. FOLFOX4 produces higher RR and longer TTP. Both arms had notable OS in patients who experienced treatment failure with first-line FU therapy.

Purpose Epidermal growth factor receptor/human epidermal growth factor receptor 1 and ligand expression is common in biliary cancers (BILI) and may be associated with worse outcome. The primary objective of this study was to determine the proportion of patients with advanced BILI who were progression-free at 6 months. Methods Patients with either unresectable or metastatic disease were studied. Only one prior systemic or locoregional therapy was allowed. Erlotinib was administered continuously at a dose of 150 mg per day orally. Results Forty-two patients with BILI were enrolled. The median age was 67 years (range, 33 to 82 years). Fifty-two percent of patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1. Fifty-seven percent of patients had received prior chemotherapy for advanced BILI. HER1/EGFR expression by immunohistochemistry in tumor cells was detected in 29 (81%) of the 36 assessable patients. Seven of the patients (17%; 95% CI, 7% to 31%) were progression free at 6 months. Three patients had partial response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group classification of duration 4, 4, and 14 months, respectively. All responding patients had mild (grade 1/2) skin rash and two patients had positive tumoral HER1/EGFR expression. Three patients (7%) had toxicity-related dose reductions of erlotinib due to grade 2/3 skin rash. Conclusion Results suggest a therapeutic benefit for EGFR blockade with erlotinib in patients with biliary cancer. Additional studies with erlotinib as a single agent and in combination with other targeted agents are warranted in this disease.

Purpose Adverse events (AEs) are monitored in clinical trials for patient safety, to satisfy reporting requirements, and develop safety profiles. Recently, much attention has been placed on the reporting of serious AEs (SAEs) that are either life threatening or lethal in clinical trials. However, SAEs comprise a small subset of all AE data collected for trials; the majority of AE data collected are routine AEs (RAEs) regarding non–life-threatening events. We assessed the utility of the RAE data collected, relative to the volume. Patients and Methods We surveyed the RAE data from 26 North Central Cancer Treatment Group coordinated trials. Results A total of 8,318 (11%) of 75,598 of RAEs required queries. Of these, 86% were protocol-required RAEs, 83% of RAEs required per protocol were within normal limits (eg, platelets) or not present, and 61% of extra AEs were mild. One fifth of RAEs were considered unlikely to be related or unrelated to treatment. Overall, 3% of events were severe, life threatening, or caused death. Only 1% of RAE data reported required expedited reporting (eg, via Adverse Event Expedited Reporting System). Results indicate that 72% of RAEs would be eliminated if only the maximum severity per patient and type were required. These results were validated in a large phase III trial. Conclusion The majority of RAEs identified, transcribed, and entered are not clinically important. Our data suggest that reducing the number of AEs monitored will affect substantially neither overall patient safety nor compromise evaluation of regimens undergoing testing. We present several considerations for such a reduction in data collection, as well as a policy that we have used to address the deluge of RAE data.