» Articles » PMID: 38642257

Sequential RAS Mutations Evaluation in Cell-free DNA of Patients with Tissue RAS Wild-type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: the PERSEIDA (Cohort 2) Study

Abstract

Purpose: RAS (KRAS/NRAS) mutational status on a tumor biopsy is mandatory to guide the best treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Determining the RAS mutational status by tumor-tissue biopsy is essential in guiding the optimal treatment decision for mCRC. RAS mutations are negative predictive factors for the use of EGFR monoclonal antibodies. Cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis enables minimally invasive monitoring of tumor evolution.

Methods/patients: PERSEIDA was an observational, prospective study assessing cfDNA RAS, BRAF and EGFR mutations (using Idylla™) in first-line mCRC, RAS wild-type (baseline tumor-tissue biopsy) patients (cohort 2). Plasma samples were collected before first-line treatment, after 20 ± 2 weeks, and at disease progression.

Results: 117 patients were included (103 received panitumumab + chemotherapy as first-line treatment). At baseline, 7 (6.8%) patients had RAS mutations, 4 (3.9%) BRAF mutations and no EGFR mutations were detected (cfDNA, panitumumab + chemotherapy subpopulation [panitumumab + Ch]). The baseline RAS mutational status concordance between tissue and liquid biopsies was 94.0% (93.2%, panitumumab + Ch). At 20 weeks, only one patient in the study (included in the panitumumab + Ch) had an emerging cfDNA RAS mutation. No emerging BRAF or EGFR mutations were reported. At disease progression, 6 patients had emergent mutations not present at baseline (RAS conversion rate: 13.3% [6/45]; 15.0% [6/40], panitumumab + Ch).

Conclusions: The concordance rate between liquid and solid biopsies at baseline was very high, as previously reported, while our results suggest a considerable emergence of RAS mutations during disease progression. Thus, the dynamics of the genomic landscape in ctDNA may provide relevant information for the management of mCRC patients.

References
1.
Cervantes A, Martinelli E . Updated treatment recommendation for third-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer from the ESMO Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Living Guideline. Ann Oncol. 2023; 35(2):241-243. DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2023.10.129. View

2.
Obermannova R, Van Cutsem E, Yoshino T, Bodoky G, Prausova J, Garcia-Carbonero R . Subgroup analysis in RAISE: a randomized, double-blind phase III study of irinotecan, folinic acid, and 5-fluorouracil (FOLFIRI) plus ramucirumab or placebo in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma progression. Ann Oncol. 2016; 27(11):2082-2090. PMC: 5091322. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdw402. View

3.
Montagut C, Dalmases A, Bellosillo B, Crespo M, Pairet S, Iglesias M . Identification of a mutation in the extracellular domain of the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor conferring cetuximab resistance in colorectal cancer. Nat Med. 2012; 18(2):221-3. DOI: 10.1038/nm.2609. View

4.
Maurel J, Alonso V, Escudero P, Fernandez-Martos C, Salud A, Mendez M . Clinical Impact of Circulating Tumor RAS and BRAF Mutation Dynamics in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With First-Line Chemotherapy Plus Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Therapy. JCO Precis Oncol. 2022; 3:1-16. DOI: 10.1200/PO.18.00289. View

5.
Li J, Hu M, Liu N, Li H, Yu Z, Yan Q . Correction to: HDAC3 deteriorates colorectal cancer progression via microRNA-296-3p/TGIF1/TGFβ axis. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2022; 40(1):404. PMC: 8719399. DOI: 10.1186/s13046-021-02232-x. View