Evolution of RAS testing over time: factors influencing mutation rates in metastatic colorectal cancer patients

A phase II study of daily encorafenib in combination with biweekly cetuximab in patients with BRAF V600E mutated metastatic colorectal cancer: the NEW BEACON study

BACKGROUND

Patients with BRAF V600E mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have a poor prognosis. The introduction of BRAF targeted therapy with encorafenib and weekly administered cetuximab have shown improved survival with a median progression free survival (PFS) of 4.3 months. However, a regimen with cetuximab given every second week may have comparable efficacy and is more convenient for patients. While BRAF targeted therapy is a new standard therapy in pre-treated patients with BRAF V600E mutated mCRC, resistance invariably occurs and is an emerging challenge. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of cetuximab given every second week in combination with daily encorafenib and to explore the correlation between markers of resistance and outcome.

METHODS

The study is an open label, single arm, phase II study, investigating the efficacy and tolerability of cetuximab given every second week in combination with encorafenib in patients with BRAF V600E mutated mCRC. Furthermore, we will be investigating mechanisms of response and resistance against BRAF targeted therapy though comprehensive genomic profiling on tumor tissue and blood for circulating tumor DNA analysis. A total of 53 patients (19 + 34 in two steps) will be included according to Simon's optimal two stage design. The primary end point of the study is 2 months PFS rate.

DISCUSSION

By combining BRAF inhibitor with cetuximab given every second week we can halve the number of visits in the hospital compared to the currently approved regimen with weekly cetuximab. This seems particularly relevant in a group of patients with a median overall survival of 9.3 months. Resistance after initial response to targeted therapy can be either adaptive (e.g., epigenetic, or transcriptomic alterations) or acquired (selective genetic alterations - e.g., activating de novo mutations) resistance. It is of great importance to untangle these complex mechanisms of resistance in patients with BRAF V600E mutated mCRC to improve treatment strategies in the future potentially even further.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EU Clinical Trial Register, Eudract no. 2020-003283-10 . Registered on 11 November 2020.

Comprehensive genomic profiling in advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer: number needed to test and budget impact of expanded first line use

AIMS

Use of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is limited. We estimated impacts of expanded 1 L CGP, using the Tempus xT test, on detection of actionable alterations and testing budgets in a modeled US health plan over two-years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A decision analytic model was developed to estimate the impact of replacing 20% of usual testing (a mix of CGP and non-CGP) with Tempus xT CGP. Actionable alterations for matched treatments or clinical trial included KRAS, NRAS, RAF, BRAF, deficient mismatch repair (dMMR)/microsatellite instability (MSI), NTRK, RET, EGFR, HER2, MET, PIK3CA and POLE1. Costs included initial and repeat testing, physician-associated and administrative costs.

RESULTS

In a hypothetical five-million-member plan, 50% Medicare and 50% commercial, 1,112 new cases of mCRC were expected per year. Of these, 566 (51%) would undergo 1 L molecular testing, with 55 re-tested upon progression. Based on current testing rates, there were an expected 521 missed opportunities for genomically informed treatment (47% of new cases), with 442 missed due to lack of testing and 79 due to testing without CGP. Replacing 20% of usual testing with Tempus xT CGP was associated with up to a $0.003 per member per month testing cost increase (net total cost of $202,102 for the five-million-member plan) and 15.5 additional patients with an opportunity for genomically informed care (12.7 patients for treatment and 2.8 for clinical trial). The testing total cost (initial test, repeat test, biopsy and physician services, and administrative cost) to put one additional patient with mCRC on matched therapy or matched clinical trial was estimated to be $13,005. Number needed to test to identify one actionable alteration with Tempus xT CGP versus usual testing was 7.8 patients.

LIMITATIONS

Conservative assumptions were made for inputs with limited evidence. Based on high concordance rates with dMMR/MSI status, tumor mutational burden (TMB) status was not calculated separately.

CONCLUSIONS

Replacing 20% of usual testing with Tempus xT CGP was associated with a small incremental testing cost and can identify meaningfully more actionable alterations.

Causes behind error rates for predictive biomarker testing: the utility of sending post-EQA surveys

External quality assessment (EQA) schemes assess the performance of predictive biomarker testing in lung and colorectal cancer and have previously demonstrated variable error rates. No information is currently available on the underlying causes of incorrect EQA results in the laboratories. Participants in EQA schemes by the European Society of Pathology between 2014 and 2018 for lung and colorectal cancer were contacted to complete a survey if they had at least one analysis error or test failure in the provided cases. Of the 791 surveys that were sent, 325 were completed including data from 185 unique laboratories on 514 incorrectly analyzed or failed cases. For the digital cases and immunohistochemistry, the majority of errors were interpretation-related. For fluorescence in situ hybridization, problems with the EQA materials were reported frequently. For variant analysis, the causes were mainly methodological for lung cancer but variable for colorectal cancer. Post-analytical (clerical and interpretation) errors were more likely detected after release of the EQA results compared to pre-analytical and analytical issues. Accredited laboratories encountered fewer reagent problems and more often responded to the survey. A recent change in test methodology resulted in method-related problems. Testing more samples annually introduced personnel errors and lead to a lower performance in future schemes. Participation to quality improvement projects is important to reduce deviating test results in laboratories, as the different error causes differently affect the test performance. EQA providers could benefit from requesting root cause analyses behind errors to offer even more tailored feedback, subschemes, and cases.