TY - JOUR
T1 - Preoperative chemoradiation with capecitabine, irinotecan and cetuximab in rectal cancer
T2 - significance of pre-treatment and post-resection RAS mutations
AU - Gollins, Simon
AU - West, Nick
AU - Sebag-Montefiore, David
AU - Myint, Arthur Sun
AU - Saunders, Mark
AU - Susnerwala, Shabbir
AU - Quirke, Phil
AU - Essapen, Sharadah
AU - Samuel, Leslie
AU - Sizer, Bruce
AU - Worlding, Jane
AU - Southward, Katie
AU - Hemmings, Gemma
AU - Tinkler-Hundal, Emma
AU - Taylor, Morag
AU - Bottomley, Daniel
AU - Chambers, Philip
AU - Lawrie, Emma
AU - Lopes, Andre
AU - Beare, Sandy
N1 - This work was funded by Cancer Research UK Bobby Moore Fund (ref C23134A9353). Merck Serono supplied free cetuximab and an educational grant and Pfizer gave free irinotecan and an educational grant. Neither Merck Serono or Pfizer was involved in study design, data analysis or manuscript preparation or had access to study data. Central trial coordination was by Cancer Research UK and University College London Cancer Trials Centre, including data collection and statistical analyses. The Pathology and Tumour Biology laboratory is supported by grants from Yorkshire Cancer Research, the Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland, the Academy of Medical Sciences, The Medical Research Council and a National Institute of Health Research Senior Investigator Award. SG was a National Institute for Social Care and Health Research Academic Health Science Collaboration Clinical Research Fellow.
PY - 2017/10/24
Y1 - 2017/10/24
N2 - BACKGROUND: The influence of EGFR pathway mutations on cetuximab-containing rectal cancer preoperative chemoradiation (CRT) is uncertain. METHODS: In a prospective phase II trial (EXCITE), patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-defined non-metastatic rectal adenocarinoma threatening/involving the surgical resection plane received pelvic radiotherapy with concurrent capecitabine, irinotecan and cetuximab. Resection was recommended 8 weeks later. The primary endpoint was histopathologically clear (R0) resection margin. Pre-planned retrospective DNA pyrosequencing (PS) and next generation sequencing (NGS) of KRAS, NRAS, PIK3CA and BRAF was performed on the pre-treatment biopsy and resected specimen. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients were recruited and 76 underwent surgery, with R0 resection in 67 (82%, 90%CI: 73-88%) (four patients with clinical complete response declined surgery). Twenty-four patients (30%) had an excellent clinical or pathological response (ECPR). Using NGS 24 (46%) of 52 matched biopsies/resections were discrepant: ten patients (19%) gained 13 new resection mutations compared to biopsy (12 KRAS, one PIK3CA) and 18 (35%) lost 22 mutations (15 KRAS, 7 PIK3CA). Tumours only ever testing RAS wild-type had significantly greater ECPR than tumours with either biopsy or resection RAS mutations (14/29 [48%] vs 10/51 [20%], P=0.008), with a trend towards increased overall survival (HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05-1.03, P=0.055). CONCLUSIONS: This regimen was feasible and the primary study endpoint was met. For the first time using pre-operative rectal CRT, emergence of clinically important new resection mutations is described, likely reflecting intratumoural heterogeneity manifesting either as treatment-driven selective clonal expansion or a geographical biopsy sampling miss.
AB - BACKGROUND: The influence of EGFR pathway mutations on cetuximab-containing rectal cancer preoperative chemoradiation (CRT) is uncertain. METHODS: In a prospective phase II trial (EXCITE), patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-defined non-metastatic rectal adenocarinoma threatening/involving the surgical resection plane received pelvic radiotherapy with concurrent capecitabine, irinotecan and cetuximab. Resection was recommended 8 weeks later. The primary endpoint was histopathologically clear (R0) resection margin. Pre-planned retrospective DNA pyrosequencing (PS) and next generation sequencing (NGS) of KRAS, NRAS, PIK3CA and BRAF was performed on the pre-treatment biopsy and resected specimen. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients were recruited and 76 underwent surgery, with R0 resection in 67 (82%, 90%CI: 73-88%) (four patients with clinical complete response declined surgery). Twenty-four patients (30%) had an excellent clinical or pathological response (ECPR). Using NGS 24 (46%) of 52 matched biopsies/resections were discrepant: ten patients (19%) gained 13 new resection mutations compared to biopsy (12 KRAS, one PIK3CA) and 18 (35%) lost 22 mutations (15 KRAS, 7 PIK3CA). Tumours only ever testing RAS wild-type had significantly greater ECPR than tumours with either biopsy or resection RAS mutations (14/29 [48%] vs 10/51 [20%], P=0.008), with a trend towards increased overall survival (HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05-1.03, P=0.055). CONCLUSIONS: This regimen was feasible and the primary study endpoint was met. For the first time using pre-operative rectal CRT, emergence of clinically important new resection mutations is described, likely reflecting intratumoural heterogeneity manifesting either as treatment-driven selective clonal expansion or a geographical biopsy sampling miss.
KW - locally advanced rectal cancer
KW - cetuximab-containing chemoradiation
KW - RAS mutations
KW - intra-tumoural clonal heterogeneity
KW - treatment response
KW - next generation sequencing
U2 - 10.1038/bjc.2017.294
DO - 10.1038/bjc.2017.294
M3 - Article
VL - 117
SP - 1286
EP - 1294
JO - British Journal of Cancer
JF - British Journal of Cancer
SN - 0007-0920
ER -