[EN] BACKGROUND: Liquid biopsy offers a minimally invasive alternative to tissue-based evaluation of mutational status in cancer. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the aggregate performance of OncoBEAM RAS mutation analysis in plasma of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients at 10 hospital laboratories in Spain where this technology is routinely implemented. METHODS: Circulating cell-free DNA from plasma was examined for RAS mutations using the OncoBEAM platform at each hospital laboratory. Results were then compared to those obtained from DNA extracted from tumour tissue from the same patient. RESULTS: The overall percentage agreement between plasma-based and tissue-based RAS mutation testing of the 236 participants was 89% (210/236; kappa, 0.770 (95% CI: 0.689-0.852)). Re-analysis of tissue from all discordant cases by BEAMing revealed two false negative and five false positive tumour tissue RAS results, with a final concordance of 92%. Plasma false negative results were found more frequently in patients with exclusive lung metastatic disease. CONCLUSIONS: In this first prospective real-world RAS mutation performance comparison study, a high overall agreement was observed between results obtained from plasma and tissue samples. Overall, these findings indicate that the plasma-based BEAMing assay is a viable solution for rapid delivery of RAS mutation status to determine mCRC patient eligibility for anti-EGFR therapy. This work was supported by Sysmex Inostics, Inc as well as the AES Programme [Grant Numbers PI15/00934, PT17/0015/0006]. The funders had no involvement in the writing of this manuscript but did review for medical accuracy prior to submission. García-Foncillas, J.; Tabernero, J.; Ëlez, E.; Aranda, E.; Benavides, M.; Camps-Herrrero, C.; Jantus-Lewintre, E.... (2018). Prospective multicenter real-world RAS mutation comparison between OncoBEAM-based liquid biopsy and tissue analysis in metastatic colorectal cancer. British Journal of Cancer. 119(12):1464-1470. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0293-5 Malvezzi, M. et al. European cancer mortality predictions for the year 2017, with focus on lung cancer. Ann. Oncol. 28, 1117–1123 (2017). Lockhart, A. C. & Berlin, J. D. The epidermal growth factor receptor as a target for colorectal cancer therapy. Semin Oncol. 32, 52–60 (2005). Di Fiore, F. et al. Clinical relevance of KRAS mutation detection in metastatic colorectal cancer treated by Cetuximab plus chemotherapy. Br. J. Cancer 96, 1166–1169 (2007). Karapetis, C. S. et al. K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 359, 1757–1765 (2008). Douillard, J.-Y. et al. Panitumumab–FOLFOX4 treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. New Engl. J. Med. 369, 1023–1034 (2013). Bokemeyer, C. et al. FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 51, 1243–1252 (2015). Peeters, M. et al. Analysis of KRAS/NRAS mutations in a phase III study of panitumumab with FOLFIRI compared with FOLFIRI alone as second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 21, 5469–5479 (2015). Van Cutsem, E. et al. Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan plus cetuximab treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 33, 692–700 (2015). Stintzing, S. et al. FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a post-hoc analysis of tumour dynamics in the final RAS wild-type subgroup of this randomised open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 17, 1426–1434 (2016). Benson, A. B. et al. Colon cancer, version 3. 2014. J. Natl Compr. Cancer Netw. 12, 1028–1059 (2014). Allegra C. J. et al. Extended RAS gene mutation testing in metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti–epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy: American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion Update 2015. J. Clin. Oncol. 34, 179–185 (2016). Van Cutsem, E. et al. ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann. Oncol. 27, 1386–1422 (2016). Garcia-Foncillas, J. et al. Incorporating BEAMing technology as a liquid biopsy into clinical practice for the management of colorectal cancer patients: an expert taskforce review. Ann. Oncol. 28, 2943–2949 (2017). Atreya, C. E., Corcoran, R. B. & Kopetz, S. Expanded RAS: refining the patient population. J. Clin. Oncol. 33, 682–685 (2015). Jeong, K. Y., Kim, E. K., Park, M. H. & Kim, H. M. Perspective on cancer therapeutics utilizing analysis of circulating tumor cells. Diagnostics 8, E23 (2018). Spindler, K. G. et al. Cell-free DNA in metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncologist 22, 1049–1055 (2017). Janku, F. et al. Multiplex KRASG12/G13 mutation testing of unamplified cell-free DNA from the plasma of patients with advanced cancers using droplet digital polymerase chain reaction. Ann. Oncol. 28, 642–650 (2017). Luthra, R., Chen, H., Roy-Chowdhuri, S. & Singh, R. R. Next-generation sequencing in clinical molecular diagnostics of cancer: advantages and challenges. Cancers 7, 2023–2036 (2015). Denis, J. A., Guillerm, E., Coulet, F., Larsen, A. K. & Lacorte, J. M. The Role of BEAMing and Digital PCR for Multiplexed Analysis in Molecular Oncology in the Era of Next-Generation Sequencing. Mol. Diagn. Ther. 21, 587–600 (2017). Grasselli, J. et al. Concordance of blood- and tumor-based detection of RAS mutations to guide anti-EGFR therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann. Oncol. 28, 1294–1301 (2017). Schmiegel, W. et al. Blood-based detection of RAS mutations to guide anti-EGFR therapy in colorectal cancer patients: concordance of results from circulating tumor DNA and tissue-based RAS testing. Mol. Oncol. 11, 208–219 (2017). Vidal, J. et al. Plasma ctDNA RAS mutation analysis for the diagnosis and treatment monitoring of metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Ann. Oncol. 28, 1325–1332 (2017). Sorich, M. J. et al. Extended RAS mutations and anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody survival benefit in metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of random, controlled trials. Ann. Oncol. 26, 13–21 (2015). Baldus, S. E. et al. Prevalence and heterogeneity of KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations in primary colorectal adenocarcinomas and their corresponding metastases. Clin. Cancer Res. 16, 790–799 (2010). Watanabe, T. et al. Heterogeneity of KRAS status may explain the subset of discordant KRAS status between primary and metastatic colorectal cancer. Dis. Colon Rectum 54, 1170–1178 (2011). Artale, S. et al. Mutations of KRAS and BRAF in primary and matched metastatic sites of colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 4217–4219 (2008). Kim, M. J. et al. Different metastatic pattern according to the KRAS mutational status and site-specific discordance of KRAS status in patients with colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer 12, 347 (2012). Mostert, B. et al. KRAS and BRAF mutation status in circulating colorectal tumor cells and their correlation with primary and metastatic tumor tissue. Int J. Cancer 133, 130–141 (2013). Morelli, M. P. et al. Character the patterns of clonal selection in circulating tumor DNA from patients with colorectal cancer refractory to anti-EGFR treatment. Ann. Oncol. 26, 731–736 (2015). Laurent-Puig, P. et al. Clinical relevance of KRAS-mutated subclones detected with picodroplet digital PCR in advanced colorectal cancer treated with anti-EGFR therapy. Clin. Cancer Res. 21, 1087–1097 (2015). de Castro, D. G. et al. A comparison of three methods for detecting KRAS mutations in formalin-fixed colorectal cancer specimens. Br. J. Cancer 107, 345–351 (2012). Azuara, D. et al. Nanofluidic digital PCR and extended genotyping of RAS and BRAF for improved selection of metastatic colorectal cancer patients for anti-EGFR therapies. Mol. Cancer Ther. 15, 1106–1112 (2016). Tack, V. et al. External quality assessment unravels interlaboratory differences in quality of RAS testing for anti-EGFR therapy in colorectal cancer. Oncologist 20, 257–262 (2015). Normanno, N. et al. RAS testing of liquid biopsy correlates with the outcome of metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with first-line FOLFIRI plus cetuximab in the CAPRI-GOIM trial. Ann. Oncol. 29, 112–118 (2018). Thierry, A. R. et al. Clinical utility of circulating DNA analysis for rapid detection of actionable mutations to select metastatic colorectal patients for anti-EGFR treatment. Ann. Oncol. 28, 2149–2159 (2017). Tie, J. et al. Circulating tumor DNA as an early marker of therapeutic response in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann. Oncol. 26, 1715–1722 (2015). Garlan, F. et al. Early evaluation of circulating tumor DNA as marker of therapeutic efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients (PLACOL Study). Clin. Cancer Res. 23, 5416–5425 (2017).

Prospective multicenter real-world RAS mutation comparison between OncoBEAM-based liquid biopsy and tissue analysis in metastatic colorectal cancer

Abstract