Citations

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]

656 Background: Despite multiple trials of new agents in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), long term outcomes remain poor. This study explores the changing trends in the design, interpretation and outcomes of phase III randomized controlled trials (RCT) in mCRC over time. Methods: Phase III RCTs of systemic therapy for mCRC with enrollment between 1986 and 2016 were identified through 4 electronic databases and grouped into 3 time periods (1986-1996 – T1; 1997-2006 – T2 & 2007-2016 – T3). Study selection, quality appraisal and data collection were performed by 2 independent investigators. Study characteristics, primary and secondary endpoints, and authors’ interpretation of results and conclusions were analyzed. Improvement in overall survival (OS) was the difference between experimental and control arms. A study was deemed positive if it met its end point, was recommended for further study or for adoption for clinical use (p ≤ 0.05 significant for all analyses). Results: One hundred fifty trials (T1=36, T2=62, T3=52) with 77494 patients (T1=12406, T2=39158, T3=25930) were included. Although 1st line therapy trials continued to be the most common across all T, the percentage (%) of trials evaluating 3rd line and beyond (T1=0, T2=3, T3=27) have increased significantly over time as have trials with targeted agents (T1=11, T2=34, T3=79). Although OS remains the most common primary end point, more trials in T2 & T3 have used progression-free survival instead (14 vs 47 & 44). The % of trials with negative results but interpreted as positive increased over time (T1=18; T2=42; T3=35). Across all T, the median improvement in OS (months, m) of these trials was significantly lower compared to the trials that met primary end point across all T (T1 = 0 vs 1.8 m, T2 = -0.1 vs 3.25, T3 = -0.25 vs 2.55). Conclusions: A significant shift has occurred over the past three decades in the design and interpretation of phase III trials in advanced CRC. Any interpretations of potential survival benefits from trials that have not met primary end point must be made with significant caution.

627 Background: The SLI of the BEACON CRC phase 3 study assessed the safety and efficacy of the combination of the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib (ENCO) + MEK inhibitor binimetinib (BINI) + anti-EGFR antibody cetuximab (CETUX) in pts with BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC after 1 or 2 prior regimens. CEA and CA19-9 are tumor markers that are widely used to monitor the effectiveness of systemic therapies for mCRC; here we report on the association of CEA and CA19-9 changes while on treatment with clinical outcomes in pts from the SLI. Methods: Pts in the SLI received the triplet of ENCO 300 mg QD + BINI 45 mg BID + CETUX 400 mg/m2 (initial dose) then 250 mg/m2 QW in 28-day cycles. Pts were evaluated for safety, radiographic response, and change in tumor markers CEA and CA19-9. Results: 30 pts were treated. The triplet was generally well tolerated, and adverse events were consistent with known BRAF, MEK, and EGFR inhibitor toxicities. The rate of severe skin toxicities (grade 3/4) was lower than generally observed for CETUX in mCRC. Of the 29 pts with a BRAFV600E mutation, the median time on study treatment was 5.6 mo (range, 1.0–9.3 mo), and 22 (76%) remained on study treatment at the time of data cutoff. The confirmed overall response rate (ORR) was 41%, with 1 complete and 11 partial responses. In addition, 9 pts had prolonged stable disease (SD) up to 9.3 mo.CEA and CA19-9 were analyzed in 28 pts. CEA and CA19-9 decreased in 96% and 82% of these pts, respectively. Among 15 pts with treatment duration ≥5.6 mo, median/mean % decreases were 97%/79% for CEA and 92%/82% for CA19-9 in confirmed responders (n=6). Respective decreases in pts with prolonged SD (n=9) were similar: 84%/68% for CEA and 89%/68% for CA19-9. Updated safety, efficacy, and tumor marker results will be provided. Conclusions: ENCO + BINI + CETUX is generally well tolerated and has encouraging clinical activity in BRAFV 600E mCRC, with a confirmed ORR of 41%. In pts with study treatment duration ≥5.6 mo, the tumor markers CEA and CA19-9 decreased markedly and to the same degree in responders vs pts with prolonged SD, providing additional evidence of the meaningful clinical activity of this regimen. Clinical trial information: NCT02928224.

TPS3622 Background: BRAF mutations are found in ≈10% of mCRC cases. Pts with BRAFV600E mCRC have a poor prognosis, with shorter progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) than pts with BRAFwt mCRC (Van Cutsem et al 2011; Modest et al 2012; Sorbye et al 2015). The benefits of combined BRAF + EGFR inhibition in mCRC have been demonstrated in vitro (Corcoran et al 2012; Prahallad et al 2012; Yang et al 2012), and preclinical evidence suggests that adding MEK signaling inhibition improves antitumor activity. Early clinical data indicate that BRAF + EGFR + MEK inhibition has greater activity than BRAF + EGFR inhibition in pts with BRAFV600E mCRC (Van Cutsem et al 2016). Our study will examine the combination of BINI (a MEK inhibitor) + ENCO (a selective BRAF kinase inhibitor) + CTX (an anti-EGFR antibody) and of ENCO + CTX in pts with BRAFV600E mCRC. Methods: BEACON CRC (NCT02928224) is enrolling pts with BRAFV600E mCRC whose disease has progressed after 1 or 2 prior regimens in the metastatic setting. A safety lead-in phase (≈30 pts) will determine the safety and tolerability of oral ENCO 300 mg QD + oral BINI 45 mg BID + intravenous CTX 400 mg/m2 followed by 250 mg/m2 QW. In the phase 3 portion, ≈615 pts will be randomized 1:1:1 to triplet (ENCO + BINI + CTX), doublet (ENCO + CTX), or control (investigator’s choice of IRI/CTX or FOLFIRI/CTX) arms. Pts will be treated in 28-day cycles until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent, initiation of subsequent anticancer therapy, or death. The primary endpoint is OS (triplet vs control). Secondary endpoints include OS (doublet vs control), confirmed investigator-assessed objective response rate according to RECIST version 1.1 (triplet or doublet vs control; triplet vs doublet), PFS (triplet or doublet vs control), duration of response, time to response, pharmacokinetics, and pt-reported outcomes. Safety will be summarized using standard adverse event reporting. Clinical trial information: NCT02928224.

Purpose Molecular diagnostic testing has become an integral part of the evaluation of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Expanded mutational testing, such as next-generation sequencing (NGS), often identifies mutations with unclear clinical or prognostic implications. One such example is BRAF mutations that occur outside of codon 600 (non-V600 BRAF mutations). Methods We conducted this multicenter, retrospective cohort study to characterize the clinical, pathologic, and survival implications of non-V600 BRAF mutations in metastatic CRC. We pooled patients in whom non-V600 BRAF mutations were identified from NGS databases at three large molecular genetics reference laboratories. Results A total of 9,643 patients with metastatic CRC underwent NGS testing. We identified 208 patients with non-V600 BRAF mutations, which occurred in 2.2% of all patients tested and accounted for 22% of all BRAF mutations identified. Cancers with non-V600 BRAF mutations, compared with cancers with V600E BRAF (V600E BRAF) mutations, were found in patients who were significantly younger (58 v 68 years, respectively), fewer female patients (46% v 65%, respectively), and patients who had fewer high-grade tumors (13% v 64%, respectively) or right-sided primary tumors (36% v 81%, respectively). Median overall survival was significantly longer in patients with non-V600 BRAF-mutant metastatic CRC compared with those with both V600E BRAF-mutant and wild-type BRAF metastatic CRC (60.7 v 11.4 v 43.0 months, respectively; P < .001). In multivariable analysis, non-V600 BRAF mutation was independently associated with improved overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.18; P < .001). Conclusion Non-V600 BRAF mutations occur in approximately 2.2% of patients with metastatic CRC and define a clinically distinct subtype of CRC with an excellent prognosis.

Abstract Objectives: To develop evidence-based guideline recommendations through a systematic review of the literature to establish standard molecular biomarker testing of colorectal cancer (CRC) tissues to guide epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapies and conventional chemotherapy regimens. Methods: The American Society for Clinical Pathology, College of American Pathologists, Association for Molecular Pathology, and American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an expert panel to develop an evidence-based guideline to establish standard molecular biomarker testing and guide therapies for patients with CRC. A comprehensive literature search that included more than 4,000 articles was conducted. Results: Twenty-one guideline statements were established. Conclusions: Evidence supports mutational testing for EGFR signaling pathway genes, since they provide clinically actionable information as negative predictors of benefit to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapies for targeted therapy of CRC. Mutations in several of the biomarkers have clear prognostic value. Laboratory approaches to operationalize CRC molecular testing are presented.

Objectives.— To develop evidence-based guideline recommendations through a systematic review of the literature to establish standard molecular biomarker testing of colorectal cancer (CRC) tissues to guide epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapies and conventional chemotherapy regimens. Methods.— The American Society for Clinical Pathology, College of American Pathologists, Association for Molecular Pathology, and American Society of Clinical Oncology convened an expert panel to develop an evidence-based guideline to establish standard molecular biomarker testing and guide therapies for patients with CRC. A comprehensive literature search that included more than 4,000 articles was conducted. Results.— Twenty-one guideline statements were established. Conclusions.— Evidence supports mutational testing for EGFR signaling pathway genes, since they provide clinically actionable information as negative predictors of benefit to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapies for targeted therapy of CRC. Mutations in several of the biomarkers have clear prognostic value. Laboratory approaches to operationalize CRC molecular testing are presented.

Abstract The American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union Internationale Contre le Cancer ( AJCC / UICC ) TNM staging system provides the most reliable guidelines for the routine prognostication and treatment of colorectal carcinoma. This traditional tumour staging summarizes data on tumour burden (T), the presence of cancer cells in draining and regional lymph nodes (N) and evidence for distant metastases (M). However, it is now recognized that the clinical outcome can vary significantly among patients within the same stage. The current classification provides limited prognostic information and does not predict response to therapy. Multiple ways to classify cancer and to distinguish different subtypes of colorectal cancer have been proposed, including morphology, cell origin, molecular pathways, mutation status and gene expression‐based stratification. These parameters rely on tumour‐cell characteristics. Extensive literature has investigated the host immune response against cancer and demonstrated the prognostic impact of the in situ immune cell infiltrate in tumours. A methodology named ‘Immunoscore’ has been defined to quantify the in situ immune infiltrate. In colorectal cancer, the Immunoscore may add to the significance of the current AJCC / UICC TNM classification, since it has been demonstrated to be a prognostic factor superior to the AJCC / UICC TNM classification. An international consortium has been initiated to validate and promote the Immunoscore in routine clinical settings. The results of this international consortium may result in the implementation of the Immunoscore as a new component for the classification of cancer, designated TNM ‐I ( TNM ‐Immune). © 2013 The Authors. Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.