Guidelines for biomarker testing in colorectal carcinoma (CRC): a national consensus of the Spanish Society of Pathology (SEAP) and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM)

Optimizing aspirin dose for colorectal cancer patients through deep phenotyping using novel biomarkers of drug action

Background: Low-dose aspirin's mechanism of action for preventing colorectal cancer (CRC) is still debated, and the optimal dose remains uncertain. We aimed to optimize the aspirin dose for cancer prevention in CRC patients through deep phenotyping using innovative biomarkers for aspirin's action. Methods: We conducted a Phase II, open-label clinical trial in 34 CRC patients of both sexes randomized to receive enteric-coated aspirin 100 mg/d, 100 mg/BID, or 300 mg/d for 3 ± 1 weeks. Biomarkers were evaluated in blood, urine, and colorectal biopsies at baseline and after dosing with aspirin. Novel biomarkers of aspirin action were assessed in platelets and colorectal tissues using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry to quantify the extent of cyclooxygenase (COX)-1 and COX-2 acetylation at Serine 529 and Serine 516, respectively. Results: All aspirin doses caused comparable % acetylation of platelet COX-1 at Serine 529 associated with similar profound inhibition of platelet-dependent thromboxane (TX)A2 generation ex vivo (serum TXB2) and in vivo (urinary TXM). TXB2 was significantly reduced in CRC tissue by aspirin 300 mg/d and 100 mg/BID, associated with comparable % acetylation of COX-1. Differently, 100 mg/day showed a lower % acetylation of COX-1 in CRC tissue and no significant reduction of TXB2. Prostaglandin (PG)E2 biosynthesis in colorectal tumors and in vivo (urinary PGEM) remained unaffected by any dose of aspirin associated with the variable and low extent of COX-2 acetylation at Serine 516 in tumor tissue. Increased expression of tumor-promoting genes like VIM (vimentin) and TWIST1 (Twist Family BHLH Transcription Factor 1) vs. baseline was detected with 100 mg/d of aspirin but not with the other two higher doses. Conclusion: In CRC patients, aspirin 300 mg/d or 100 mg/BID had comparable antiplatelet effects to aspirin 100 mg/d, indicating similar inhibition of the platelet's contribution to cancer. However, aspirin 300 mg/d and 100 mg/BID can have additional anticancer effects by inhibiting cancerous tissue's TXA2 biosynthesis associated with a restraining impact on tumor-promoting gene expression. EUDRACT number: 2018-002101-65. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03957902.

Colorectal cancer treatment guidelines and shared decision making quality and reporting assessment: Systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Physicians must share decisions and choose personalised treatments regarding patients´ beliefs and values.

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the quality of the recommendations about shared decision making (SDM) in colorectal (CRC) and anal cancer treatment clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs).

METHODS

Guidelines were systematically reviewed following prospective registration (Prospero: CRD42021286146) without language restrictions searching 15 databases and 59 professional society websites from January 2010 to November 2021. A validated 31-item SDM quality assessment tool was employed to extract data in duplicate.

RESULTS

We identified 134 guidelines. Only 46/134 (34.3 %) mentioned SDM. Fifteen (11.1 %) made clear, precise and actionable recommendations, while 9/134 (6.7 %) indicated the strength of the SDM-related recommendations. CPGs underpinned by systematic reviews reported SDM more often than those based on consensus or reviews (35.9 % vs 32.0 %; p = 0.031). Guidelines that reported following quality tools (i.e., AGREE II) more commonly commented about SDM than when it was not reported (75.0 % vs 32.0 %; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Most of the CRC and anal treatment guidelines did not mention SDM and it was superficial. Guidelines based on systematic reviews and those using quality tools demonstrated better reporting of SDM. Recommendations about SDM in these guidelines merit urgent improvement.

Choosing which in-hospital laboratory tests to target for intervention: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Some laboratory testing practices may be of low value, leading to wasted resources and potential patient harm. Our scoping review investigated factors and processes that developers report using to inform decisions about what tests to target for practice improvement.

METHODS

We searched Medline on May 30th, 2019 and June 28th, 2021 and included guidelines, recommendation statements, or empirical studies related to test ordering practices. Studies were included if they were conducted in a tertiary care setting, reported making a choice about a specific test requiring intervention, and reported at least one factor informing that choice. We extracted descriptive details, tests chosen, processes used to make the choice, and factors guiding test choice.

RESULTS

From 114 eligible studies, we identified 30 factors related to test choice including clinical value, cost, prevalence of test, quality of test, and actionability of test results. We identified nine different processes used to inform decisions regarding where to spend intervention resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Intervention developers face difficult choices when deciding where to put scarce resources intended to improve test utilization. Factors and processes identified here can be used to inform a framework to help intervention developers make choices relevant to improving testing practices.

ESMO recommendations on microsatellite instability testing for immunotherapy in cancer, and its relationship with PD-1/PD-L1 expression and tumour mutational burden: a systematic review-based approach

BACKGROUND

Cancers with a defective DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) system contain thousands of mutations most frequently located in monomorphic microsatellites and are thereby defined as having microsatellite instability (MSI). Therefore, MSI is a marker of dMMR. MSI/dMMR can be identified using immunohistochemistry to detect loss of MMR proteins and/or molecular tests to show microsatellite alterations. Together with tumour mutational burden (TMB) and PD-1/PD-L1 expression, it plays a role as a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy.

METHODS

To define best practices to implement the detection of dMMR tumours in clinical practice, the ESMO Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group launched a collaborative project, based on a systematic review-approach, to generate consensus recommendations on the: (i) definitions related to the concept of MSI/dMMR; (ii) methods of MSI/dMMR testing and (iii) relationships between MSI, TMB and PD-1/PD-L1 expression.

RESULTS

The MSI-related definitions, for which a consensus frame-work was used to establish definitions, included: 'microsatellites', 'MSI', 'DNA mismatch repair' and 'features of MSI tumour'. This consensus also provides recommendations on MSI testing; immunohistochemistry for the mismatch repair proteins MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2 represents the first action to assess MSI/dMMR (consensus with strong agreement); the second method of MSI/dMMR testing is represented by polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based assessment of microsatellite alterations using five microsatellite markers including at least BAT-25 and BAT-26 (strong agreement). Next-generation sequencing, coupling MSI and TMB analysis, may represent a decisive tool for selecting patients for immunotherapy, for common or rare cancers not belonging to the spectrum of Lynch syndrome (very strong agreement). The relationships between MSI, TMB and PD-1/PD-L1 expression are complex, and differ according to tumour types.

CONCLUSIONS

This ESMO initiative is a response to the urgent questions raised by the growing success of immunotherapy and provides also important insights on the relationships between MSI, TMB and PD-1/PD-L1.

Cost-Effectiveness of RAS Genetic Testing Strategies in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibodies against epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have proved beneficial for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), particularly when combined with predictive biomarkers of response. International guidelines recommend anti-EGFR therapy only for RAS (NRAS,KRAS) wild-type tumors because tumors with RAS mutations are unlikely to benefit.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to review the cost-effectiveness of RAS testing in mCRC patients before anti-EGFR therapy and to assess how well economic evaluations adhere to guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic review of full economic evaluations comparing RAS testing with no testing was performed for articles published in English between 2000 and 2018. Study quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies scale, and the British Medical Journal and the Philips checklists.

RESULTS

Six economic evaluations (2 cost-effectiveness analyses, 2 cost-utility analyses, and 2 combined cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses) were included. All studies were of good quality and adopted the perspective of the healthcare system/payer; accordingly, only direct medical costs were considered. Four studies presented testing strategies with a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio under the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (£20 000-£30 000/QALY) and the US ($50 000-$100 000/QALY) thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

Testing mCRC patients for RAS status and administering EGFR inhibitors only to patients with RAS wild-type tumors is a more cost-effective strategy than treating all patients without testing. The treatment of mCRC is becoming more personalized, which is essential to avoid inappropriate therapy and unnecessarily high healthcare costs. Future economic assessments should take into account other parameters that reflect the real world (eg, NRAS mutation analysis, toxicity of biological agents, genetic test sensitivity and specificity).

Clinical Pharmacogenetic Testing and Application: Laboratory Medicine Clinical Practice Guidelines

Pharmacogenetic testing for clinical applications is steadily increasing. Correct and adequate use of pharmacogenetic tests is important to reduce unnecessary medical costs and adverse patient outcomes. This document contains recommended pharmacogenetic testing guidelines for clinical application, interpretation, and result reporting through a literature review and evidence-based expert opinions for the clinical pharmacogenetic testing covered by public medical insurance in Korea. This document aims to improve the utility of pharmacogenetic testing in routine clinical settings.

Gene expression profile predictive of response to chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer

Fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy (CT) has been the mainstay of care of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) for years. Response rates are only observed, however, in about half of treated patients, and there are no reliable tools to prospectively identify patients more likely to benefit from therapy. The purpose of our study was to identify a gene expression profile predictive of CT response in mCRC. Whole genome expression analyses (Affymetrix GeneChip^® HG-U133 Plus 2.0) were performed in fresh frozen tumor samples of 37 mCRC patients (training cohort). Differential gene expression profiles among the two study conditions (responders versus non-responders) were assessed using supervised class prediction algorithms. A set of 161 differentially expressed genes in responders (23 patients; 62%) versus non-responders (14 patients; 38%) was selected for further assessment and validation by RT-qPCR (TaqMan^®Low Density Arrays (TLDA) 7900 HT Micro Fluidic Cards) in an independent multi-institutional cohort (53 mCRC patients). Seven of these genes were confirmed as significant predictors of response. Patients with a favorable predictive signature had significantly greater response rate (58% vs 13%, p = 0.024), progression-free survival (61% vs 13% at 1 year, HR = 0.32, p = 0.009) and overall survival (32 vs 16 months, HR = 0.21, p = 0.003) than patients with an unfavorable gene signature. This is the first study to validate a gene-expression profile predictive of response to CT in mCRC patients. Larger and prospective confirmatory studies are required, however, in order to successfully provide oncologists with adequate tools to optimize treatment selection in routine clinical practice.

KRAS mutation analysis by PCR: a comparison of two methods

Background

KRAS mutation assays are important companion diagnostic tests to guide anti-EGFR antibody treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Direct comparison of newer diagnostic methods with existing methods is an important part of validation of any new technique. In this this study, we have compared the Therascreen (Qiagen) ARMS assay with Competitive Allele-Specific TaqMan PCR (castPCR, Life Technologies) to determine equivalence for KRAS mutation analysis.

Methods

DNA was extracted by Maxwell (Promega) from 99 colorectal cancers. The ARMS-based Therascreen and a customized castPCR assay were performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. All assays were performed on either an Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast Dx or a ViiA7 real-time PCR machine (both from Life Technologies). The data were collected and discrepant results re-tested with newly extracted DNA from the same blocks in both assay types.

Results

Of the 99 tumors included, Therascreen showed 62 tumors to be wild-type (WT) for KRAS, while 37 had KRAS mutations on initial testing. CastPCR showed 61 tumors to be wild-type (WT) for KRAS, while 38 had KRAS mutations. Thirteen tumors showed BRAF mutation in castPCR and in one of these there was also a KRAS mutation. The custom castPCR plate included several other KRAS mutations and BRAF V600E, not included in Therascreen, explaining the higher number of mutations detected by castPCR. Re-testing of discrepant results was required in three tumors, all of which then achieved concordance for KRAS. CastPCR assay Ct values were on average 2 cycles lower than Therascreen.

Conclusion

There was excellent correlation between the two methods. Although castPCR assay shows lower Ct values than Therascreen, this is unlikely to be clinically significant.

RAS testing of colorectal carcinoma—a guidance document from the Association of Clinical Pathologists Molecular Pathology and Diagnostics Group

Analysis of colorectal carcinoma (CRC) tissue for KRAS codon 12 or 13 mutations to guide use of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy is now considered mandatory in the UK. The scope of this practice has been recently extended because of data indicating that NRAS mutations and additional KRAS mutations also predict for poor response to anti-EGFR therapy. The following document provides guidance on RAS (i.e., KRAS and NRAS) testing of CRC tissue in the setting of personalised medicine within the UK and particularly within the NHS. This guidance covers issues related to case selection, preanalytical aspects, analysis and interpretation of such RAS testing.

Higher quality of molecular testing, an unfulfilled priority: Results from external quality assessment for KRAS mutation testing in colorectal cancer

Precision medicine is now a key element in clinical oncology. RAS mutational status is a crucial predictor of responsiveness to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents in metastatic colorectal cancer. In an effort to guarantee high-quality testing services in molecular pathology, the European Society of Pathology has been organizing an annual KRAS external quality assessment program since 2009. In 2012, 10 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples, of which 8 from invasive metastatic colorectal cancer tissue and 2 artificial samples of cell line material, were sent to more than 100 laboratories from 26 countries with a request for routine KRAS testing. Both genotyping and clinical reports were assessed independently. Twenty-seven percent of the participants genotyped at least 1 of 10 samples incorrectly. In total, less than 5% of the distributed specimens were genotyped incorrectly. Genotyping errors consisted of false negatives, false positives, and incorrectly genotyped mutations. Twenty percent of the laboratories reported a technical error for one or more samples. A review of the written reports showed that several essential elements were missing, most notably a clinical interpretation of the test result, the method sensitivity, and the use of a reference sequence. External quality assessment serves as a valuable educational tool in assessing and improving molecular testing quality and is an important asset for monitoring quality assurance upon incorporation of new biomarkers in diagnostic services.

Toward a Molecular Classification of Colorectal Cancer: The Role of BRAF

Different genetic aberrations of BRAF have been reported in various malignancies. BRAF is member of the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway and constitutive activity of this pathway can lead to increased cellular growth, invasion, and metastasis. The most common activating BRAF mutation in colorectal cancer is the V600E mutation, which is present in 5–15% of all tumors, and up to 80% of tumors with high microsatellite instability (MSI) harbor this mutation. BRAF mutation is associated with proximal location, higher age, female gender, MSI-H, high grade, and mucinous histology, and is a marker of poor prognosis in colorectal cancer. The role of BRAF mutation as a predictive marker in respect of EGFR targeted treatments is controversial. BRAF V600 selective inhibitors have been approved for the treatment of V600 mutation positive metastatic melanoma, but the response rates in colorectal cancer are poor. This might be due to innate resistance mechanisms of colorectal cancers against the treatment solely targeting BRAF. To overcome resistance the combination of treatments, simultaneous inhibition of BRAF and MEK or PI3K/mTOR, might emerge as a successful therapeutic concept.