Search

PURPOSE Consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) were evaluated as prognostic and predictive biomarkers of patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) with or without panitumumab (Pmab) after Pmab + mFOLFOX6 induction within the randomized phase II PanaMa trial. METHODS CMSs were determined in the safety set (ie, patients that received induction) and full analysis set (FAS; ie, randomly assigned patients who received maintenance) and correlated with median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) since the start of induction or maintenance treatment and objective response rates (ORRs). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CI were calculated by univariate/multivariate Cox regression analyses. RESULTS Of 377 patients of the safety set, 296 (78.5%) had available CMS data: CMS1/2/3/4: 29 (9.8%)/122 (41.2%)/33 (11.2%)/112 (37.8%) and unclassifiable: 17 (5.7%). The CMSs were prognostic biomarkers in terms of PFS ( P < .0001), OS ( P < .0001), and ORR ( P = .02) since the start of induction treatment. In FAS patients (n = 196), with CMS2/4 tumors, the addition of Pmab to FU/FA maintenance therapy was associated with longer PFS (CMS2: HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.95], P = .03; CMS4: HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.38 to 1.03], P = .07) and OS (CMS2: HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.52 to 1.52], P = .66; CMS4: HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.30 to 0.96], P = .04). The CMS interacted significantly with treatment in terms of PFS (CMS2 v CMS1/3: P = .02; CMS4 v CMS1/3: P = .03) and OS (CMS2 v CMS1/3: P = .03; CMS4 v CMS1/3: P < .001). CONCLUSION The CMS had a prognostic impact on PFS, OS, and ORR in RAS wild-type mCRC. In PanaMa, Pmab + FU/FA maintenance was associated with beneficial outcomes in CMS2/4, whereas no benefit was observed in CMS1/3 tumors.

PDF file 129K, S6: Confirmation of expression of microRNAs and putative target genes in SW480wildtype, SW480CXCR4, SW480CXCR7, and SW480CXCR4/CXCR7 cells treated with SDF-1a for 0, 3 and 12 h by qPCR

PDF file 95K, S5: Correlation analysis of expression of AXL, IGFBP7 and AKR1C3 in tumor tissue with various clinicopathological features

PDF file 79K, S3: Effect of SDF-1a on expression of EGFR

Purpose: In colorectal cancer, increased expression of the CXC chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) has been shown to provoke metastatic disease due to the interaction with its ligand stromal cell-derived factor-1 (SDF-1). Recently, a second SDF-1 receptor, CXCR7, was found to enhance tumor growth in solid tumors. Albeit signaling cascades via SDF-1/CXCR4 have been intensively studied, the significance of the SDF-1/CXCR7–induced intracellular communication triggering malignancy is still only marginally understood.Experimental Design: In tumor tissue of 52 patients with colorectal cancer, we observed that expression of CXCR7 and CXCR4 increased with tumor stage and tumor size. Asking whether activation of CXCR4 or CXCR7 might result in a similar expression pattern, we performed microarray expression analyses using lentivirally CXCR4- and/or CXCR7-overexpressing SW480 colon cancer cell lines with and without stimulation by SDF-1α.Results: Gene regulation via SDF-1α/CXCR4 and SDF-1α/CXCR7 was completely different and partly antidromic. Differentially regulated genes were assigned by gene ontology to migration, proliferation, and lipid metabolic processes. Expressions of AKR1C3, AXL, C5, IGFBP7, IL24, RRAS, and TNNC1 were confirmed by quantitative real-time PCR. Using the in silico gene set enrichment analysis, we showed that expressions of miR-217 and miR-218 were increased in CXCR4 and reduced in CXCR7 cells after stimulation with SDF-1α. Functionally, exposure to SDF-1α increased invasiveness of CXCR4 and CXCR7 cells, AXL knockdown hampered invasion. Compared with controls, CXCR4 cells showed increased sensitivity against 5-FU, whereas CXCR7 cells were more chemoresistant.Conclusions: These opposing results for CXCR4- or CXCR7-overexpressing colon carcinoma cells demand an unexpected attention in the clinical application of chemokine receptor antagonists such as plerixafor. Clin Cancer Res; 20(3); 604–16. ©2013 AACR.

PDF file 121K, S4: Dose-response curves towards SDF-1a and I-TAC in Matrigel invasion assay

PDF file 53K, S8: Percentage of chemokine receptor surface expression after SDF-1a treatment

PDF file 57K, S1: Lentiviral vectors for expression of CXCR4 and CXCR7

PDF file 154K, S7: Correlation analysis of expression of miR-217, miR-218 and their respective targets RIN2, EFNB2, and DUSP5 in tumor tissue with various clinicopathological features

PDF file 86K, S9: Effect of Plerixafor on SW480CXCR7 and SW480CXCR4/CXCR7 cells

PDF file 100K, S2: Generation of CRC cell lines with high expression of CXCR4 and/or CXCR7

In patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, depth of response (DpR) has gained importance as a novel end-point in clinical trials. We investigated the overall DpR, as well as the prognostic and predictive impact of DpR to induction therapy (six cycles of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin [FU/FA], oxaliplatin [FOLFOX] and panitumumab [Pmab]) on consecutive maintenance therapy (FU/FA plus Pmab or FU/FA alone) in patients treated within the PanaMa trial.Central radiological assessment was performed according to RECIST 1.1. DpR was defined as percentage change in tumour diameter within defined time intervals (induction therapy, maintenance therapy, total course of therapy). For prognostic and predictive analyses, median DpR (/≥) served as threshold.Out of 248 patients receiving maintenance therapy, 211 were evaluable for DpR analyses (FU/FA + Pmab, n = 106; FU/FA alone, n = 105). The overall DpR in all patients was 56.5%. DpR of induction therapy (42.5%) accounted for the largest proportion (75.2%) of the overall DpR. While greater DpR to induction therapy was significantly associated with prolonged PFS (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.93, p = 0.013) and OS (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.28-0.51, p 0.001), there was no significant correlation of DpR and maintenance treatment arm.In the PanaMa trial, the overall DpR was similar to DpR achieved by other epidermal growth factor receptor-based regimens. DpR to induction therapy accounted for three quarters of the total tumour shrinkage potentially suggesting that FOLFOX plus Pmab can be de-escalated following induction without substantially compromising efficacy. DpR to induction therapy was prognostic but not predictive for efficacy of consecutive maintenance therapy.NCT01991873.

3536 Background: We evaluated the prognostic and predictive impact of DNA mutations related to anti-EGFR antibody resistance in patients of the PANAMA trial, which compared Panitumumab (Pmab) and FU/FA versus FU/FA maintenance therapy after Pmab-FOLFOX induction therapy in RAS wild-type (wt) mCRC. Methods: Next generation panel sequencing was conducted on 201 of 248 tumors obtained prior to study inclusion from the full analysis set using the Cancer Hotspot Panel v2 on an Illumina MiSeq system. Hyperselection covered mutations of the following genes: KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, HER2, PTEN, AKT1, PIK3CA. Median progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) since start of maintenance were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and Cox-regression (log rank test). Objective response rates (ORR) of maintenance therapy were compared by Chi-square-test. Results: From 201 tumors, 41 (20.4 %) carried at least one mutation: KRAS: 7 (3.5%), BRAF: 23 (11.4%), PTEN: 4 (2.0%), AKT1: 2 (1.0%), PIK3CA: 12 (6.0%), with 6 tumors harboring co-occuring mutations. No mutations were found in NRAS and HER2. Negative hyperselection (wt for all genes) was associated with (numerically) favourable prognosis in terms of PFS (HR 0.79 (95% CI 0.55 – 1.12), p=0.184), OS (HR 0.61 (95% CI 0.40 – 0.95), p=0.028) and ORR (39.4% vs. 29.3%, p=0.279). The benefit of adding Pmab to FU/FA during maintenance was limited to the hyperselection wt subgroup, with significantly longer PFS (9.9 vs. 6.0 months, 0.64 (95% CI 0,46 – 0.90), p = 0.011), numerically longer OS and significantly higher ORR (49.4% vs 26.6%, p=0.009) compared to FU/FA (Table). Conclusions: Mutations related to resistance concerning anti-EGFR antibodies were detected in 41 of 201 (20.4%) of analysed tumors and associated with a worse prognosis compared to hyperselected wt tumors. Negative hyperselection may aid in the identification of patients with relevant benefit from maintenance therapy including Pmab. [Table: see text]

PURPOSE The randomized PANAMA trial investigated the efficacy of panitumumab (Pmab) when added to maintenance therapy with fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS Following first-line induction therapy with six cycles of FU/FA and oxaliplatin plus Pmab, responding patients (stable disease or partial or complete remission) were randomly assigned (1:1, open-label) to maintenance treatment with either FU/FA plus Pmab or FU/FA alone. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of progression-free survival (PFS, time from random assignment until progression or death) in favor of FU/FA plus Pmab with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75, a power of 80%, and a significance level of 10%. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate of maintenance therapy, and toxicity. Survival end points were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank test and Cox regressions. Dichotomous variables were compared by Fisher's exact test; odds ratios were indicated when appropriate. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01991873 ). RESULTS Overall, 248 patients were randomly assigned and received maintenance therapy with either FU/FA plus Pmab (125 patients) or FU/FA alone (123 patients). At data cutoff, with 218 events (of 218 needed), PFS of maintenance therapy was significantly improved with FU/FA plus Pmab (8.8 months v 5.7 months; HR, 0.72; 80% CI, 0.60 to 0.85; P = .014). Overall survival (event rate 54%) numerically favored the FU/FA plus Pmab arm (28.7 months v 25.7 months; HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.18; P = .32). Objective response rates were 40.8% in patients receiving FU/FA plus Pmab versus 26.0% in patients receiving FU/FA alone (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.14 to 3.36; P = .02). The most frequent Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event grade ≥ 3 event during maintenance therapy was skin rash (7.2%). CONCLUSION In RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, maintenance therapy with FU/FA plus Pmab induced a significantly superior PFS compared with FU/FA alone. If active maintenance therapy is aspired following induction therapy with FU/FA and oxaliplatin plus Pmab, FU/FA plus Pmab appears to be the most favorable option.

127 Background: Despite molecular selection, patients with RAS wildtype mCRC represent a heterogeneous population, including different metastatic patterns and number of organs involved. We investigated metastatic patterns for their prognostic and predictive impact on maintenance therapy with (FU/FA plus Pmab or FU/FA alone) in patients treated within the PanaMa trial. Methods: The study population was stratified according to number of organs involved and also to different patterns including liver metastases alone or in combination with additional organs. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regressions were used to correlate efficacy endpoints (i.e. progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of maintenance therapy) in the aforementioned populations. Results: Of 248 patients (pts) receiving maintenance therapy, 133 pts had a one-metastatic site disease (53.6%). Of those, 102 pts had liver-only metastases. Furthermore, liver metastases plus one additional involved organ was observed in 61/248 patients (24.6%), and liver metastases plus two or more organs in 40/248 patients (16.1%). In general, one organ disease was associated with favourable PFS of maintenance therapy compared to patients with ≥2 organs involved (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.52–0.88; P = 0.004). A predictive impact of disease spread in terms of pmab-containing maintenance therapy was present for the PFS of maintenance therapy in patients with ≥ 2 organ disease (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39–0.86; P = 0.006) unlike in patients with only one-organ disease (HR 0.83, 95% CI, 0.57-1.21; P = 0.332) and also specifically in patients with a 2-organ disease including the liver (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33–0.99; P = 0.046). Conclusions: Consistent with previous reports, organ spread has prognostic impact in mCRC. The efficacy of more intensive maintenance therapy (including pmab and 5-FU/FA) is predominantly seen in patients with more than one organ involved in the metastatic spread, while less striking effects were seen in patients with only one organ disease. These data may support clinical decisions when EGFR-based maintenance therapy is considered. Clinical trial information: NCT01991873 .

51 Background: The PANAMA study demonstrated superior progression-free survival (PFS) with the addition of panitumumab (Pmab) to fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) as maintenance therapy following first-line induction therapy with FOLFOX/Pmab in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. We report health-related quality of life (HRQOL) analyses of the PANAMA study. Methods: HRQOL was assessed by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) at every cycle of therapy until disease progression. All patients who received at least one dose of induction therapy and completed at least one HRQOL assessment were included into the analysis. HRQOL outcomes were mean changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 from baseline (prior to cycle 1 of induction therapy) to each cycle of treatment (both induction and maintenance therapy). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01991873). Results: In total, 349/377 (93%) of the induction and 237/248 pts (96%) of the maintenance group completed at least one HRQOL assessment and were included in the HRQOL analysis population. There were no significant differences in any of the EORTC QLQ-C30 items between both treatment arms before induction therapy and at randomization. From baseline to cycle 6 of induction therapy there was significant improvement in mean EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/QOL, functioning (except for cognitive functioning) and symptom (except for nausea and vomiting, dyspnea, appetite loss, constipation, and financial difficulties) scores in the randomized population. During maintenance therapy, no significant differences between FU/FA plus Pmab and FU/FA alone were observed. In both arms of the trial, GHS/QOL scores were maintained or trended to improve from baseline (start of induction therapy) to cycle 10 of maintenance therapy (FU/FA plus Pmab: mean difference 9.48 [95% CI 1.96-17.00]; p=0.014); FU/FA arm (mean difference 6.52 [95% CI –1.9-14.95]; p=0.128). Conclusions: Using the established EORTC QLQ-C30 assessment, the addition of Pmab to FU/FA as maintenance therapy in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer did not impair the HRQOL endpoints analyzed compared to FU/FA alone. These results, along with previously reported improvement in PFS, may support clinical decision-making concerning maintenance treatments. Clinical trial information: NCT01991873 .

Introduction Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a serious and frequent complication of cytotoxic chemotherapy. Biosimilar filgrastim (Nivestim™, Hospira Inc, A Pfizer Company, Lake Forest, IL, USA) is a granulocyte-colony stimulating factor licensed for the treatment of neutropenia and FN induced by myelosuppressive chemotherapy. The primary goal of this VENICE study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01627990) was to observe the tolerability, safety and efficacy of biosimilar filgrastim in patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. Methods This was a prospective, multicenter, non-interventional, longitudinal study. Consenting adult patients with solid tumors or hematologic malignancies for whom cytotoxic chemotherapy and treatment with biosimilar filgrastim was planned were enrolled. Results Among the enrolled patients (N = 386), 81% were female, with a median age (range) of 61 (22–92) years, with 39% >65 years old. Most patients (n = 338; 88%) had solid tumors and the remainder (n = 49; 13%) had hematological malignancies. The majority of the patients (64%) received biosimilar filgrastim as primary prophylaxis and 36% as secondary prophylaxis. At the follow-up visits, for the majority of patients (95.6%) there had been no change in chemotherapy dose due to FN. For two patients (0.5%) the chemotherapy was discontinued due to FN and for four patients (1.0%) the chemotherapy dose was reduced due to FN. For the majority of patients (96.9%) the chemotherapy cycle following the first biosimilar filgrastim treatment was not delayed due to FN. For 3 patients (0.8%), the chemotherapy was delayed following the first biosimilar filgrastim treatment. Less than one-third (29.8%) of the patients experienced ≥1 adverse event that was at least potentially related to biosimilar filgrastim treatment. Conclusions Biosimilar filgrastim was effective and well-tolerated in both the primary and secondary prophylactic setting in patients undergoing chemotherapy for solid tumors and hematological malignancies. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01627990. Funding Hospira Inc, A Pfizer Company, Lake Forest, IL, USA.