Irinotecan and Panitumumab as 3rd Line Treatment for mCRC Without KRAS Mutations
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
DISEASE(S): Metastatic Colorectal Cancer,Colorectal Adenocarcinoma,Metastaserende Colorectal Cancer Uden Kras Mutation,Colorectal Neoplasms
PROVIDER: 2064058 | ecrin-mdr-crc |
REPOSITORIES: ECRIN MDR
Similar Datasets
Project description:A prospective study was conducted to identify biomarkers associated with resistance to panitumumab monotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients with previously treated, codon 12/13 KRAS wt, mCRC were prospectively administered panitumumab 6 mg/kg IV q2weeks. Of 34 panitumumab-treated patients, 11 (32%) had progressive disease at 8 weeks and were classified as non-responders. A Nanostring nCounter-based assay identified a 5-gene expression signature (ERBB2, MLPH, IRX3, MYRF, and KLK6) associated with panitumumab resistance (P = 0.001). Immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization determined that the HER2 (ERBB2) protein was overexpressed in 4/11 non-responding and 0/21 responding cases (P = 0.035). Two non-responding tumors had ERBB2 gene amplification only, and one demonstrated both ERBB2 amplification and mutation. A non-codon 12/13 KRAS mutation occurred in one panitumumab-resistant patient and was mutually exclusive with ERBB2/HER2 abnormalities. This study identifies a 5-gene signature associated with non-response to single agent panitumumab, including a subgroup of non-responders with evidence of aberrant ERBB2/HER2 signaling. KRAS wt tumors resistant to EGFRi may be identified by gene signature analysis, and the HER2 pathway plays an important role in resistance to therapy.
| S-EPMC4951343 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Apc, Kras, and Trp53 mutations
| PRJNA515706 | ENA
Project description:BackgroundKRAS mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) define a subset of tumors that have primary resistance to anti-EGFR-based therapy. Data concerning whether different KRAS mutations may also have a prognostic value are lacking. Furthermore, novel KRAS G12C inhibitors are currently in development. The aim of our analysis was to compare response rates in patients treated with first-line chemotherapy doublet + Bevacizumab among different KRAS variants. Secondary end-points were progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).MethodsPatients with KRAS mutated mCRC treated with either FOLFIRI/FOLFOX/XELOX + Bevacizumab were eligible for enrollment. Patients whose tumor harbored NRAS mutations or that coexpressed also BRAF mutations were excluded from this retrospective analysis. Patients' individual data were collected from patients' records. Propensity score matching (nearest method, 1:2 ratio) was used to define the two different groups of patients for comparison (KRAS G12C mutated vs other KRAS variants). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), sex, metastatic site of involvement, synchronous vs metachronous metastatic disease, tumor sidedness, mucinous histology, primary tumor surgery, more than two lines of treatment for metastatic disease, and radical surgery of metastases were used as matching factors. Response rate (RR) was calculated by RECIST 1.1 criteria. Both progression free-survival and overall survival were calculated by Kaplan-Meier method. Categorical variables were compared by Fisher exact test for binomial variables and by chi-square test for all other instances. The level of statistical significance p was set at 0.05 for all tests.ResultsA total of 120 patients were assessed in the final analysis. Out of the 120 patients, 15 (12%) were KRAS G12C mutated. In the whole cohort of patients, 59/120 (49%) had partial response (PR), 42/120 (35%) had stable disease (SD), and 19/120 (16%) had progressive disease (PD) as the best response. In KRAS G12C patients, 4/15 (27%) had PR, 6/15 (40%) had SD, and the remaining 5/15 (33%) had PD as the best response. In patients with other KRAS mutations, 55/105 (52%) had PR, 37/105 (35%) had SD, and the remaining 13/105 (12%) had PD as the best response. The difference in RR between the two groups of patients was statistically significant (p=0.017). On the other hand, no difference in PFS (p=0.76) and OS (p=0.56) was observed. After matching procedures, the difference in response rates between KRAS G12C mutated patients vs the matched cohort of patients with other KRAS mutations remained statistically significant (p=0.016). KRAS G12C mutations were not associated with differences in sites of metastatic involvement, sex, and ECOG PS. On the other hand, synchronous vs metachronous metastatic disease (p=0.039), age > 75 years (p=0.043), and mucinous histology (p=0.008) were more frequent in G12C mutated tumors.ConclusionsIn our cohort of patients, it was observed that KRAS G12C mutations are associated with worse response rates compared to other KRAS variants when treated with standard chemotherapy doublet + Bevacizumab. On the other hand, both PFS and OS were not significantly different. Based on these findings, we believe that new treatment options focused on KRAS G12C inhibition should be tested mainly in first-line setting and in addition to standard chemotherapy doublet + Bevacizumab for mCRC patients, as they might "fill the gap" in response rates that was seen in our study.
| S-EPMC8514824 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. The treatment of lung cancer patients harboring mutant EGFR with orally administered EGFR TKIs has been a paradigm shift. Osimertinib and rociletinib are two 3rd generation irreversible EGFR TKIs targeting the EGFR T790M mutation. Osimertinib is the current standard care for patients with EGFR mutations due to increased efficacy, lower side effects, and enhanced brain penetrance. Unfortunately, all patients develop resistance to it. Genomic approaches have primarily been used to interrogate resistance mechanisms. Here, we have characterized the proteome and phosphoproteome of a series of isogenic EGFR mutant lung adenocarcinoma cell lines that are either sensitive or resistant to these drugs. To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive proteomic dataset resource to date to investigate 3rd generation EGFR TKI resistance in lung adenocarcinoma. We have interrogated this unbiased global quantitative proteomic and phosphoproteomic dataset to uncover alterations in signaling pathways, and to reveal a proteomic signature of EMT and kinases / phosphatases with altered protein expression and phosphorylation in the TKI resistant cells. We validated the significant role of SHP2 in the activation of RAS/MAPK and PI3K/AKT signaling pathways. Furthermore, we performed anticorrelation analyses of this phosphoproteomic dataset with the published drug-induced P100 phosphoproteomic datasets from the Library of Integrated Network-Based Cellular Signatures (LINCS) program to predict drugs with the potential to overcome EGFR TKI resistance. We identified that dactolisib, a PI3K/mTOR inhibitor, in combination with osimertinib, may overcome osimertinib resistance both in vitro and in vivo. Introduction Lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer mortality in the world (1). Many lung adenocarcinoma patients with activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations initially respond dramaticlly to the first- or second-generation EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). However, they eventually develop resistance. The most common mechanism of acquired resistance is the EGFR T790M gatekeeper site residue mutation (2). Osimertinib, a third generation irreversible EGFR TKI has been approved by the FDA to treat patients harboring the EGFR T790M mutation who have developed resistance to first- and second- generation EGFR TKIs (3). Recently, osimertinib was also approved for the front-line treatment of patients harboring EGFR mutations (4). Rociletinib is another irreversible inhibitor targeting the EGFR T790M mutation, which has minimal activity against wild-type EGFR. Both drugs have therapeutic benefits and have demonstrated activity in tumors with T790M-mediated resistance to other EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (5, 6). Further development of rociletinib was ceased in 2016 due to less than expected efficacy, poor brain penetration leading to tumor progression in brain tissues and off-target effects on IGFR activation leading to hyperglycemia (7, 8). Although 3rd-generation TKIs provide clinical benefit to most patients with EGFR mutations, some patients, demonstrating primary resistance, still do not respond to these inhibitors. Complete responses are rare, and all patients eventually develop resistance, suggesting primary and acquired resistance mechanisms decrease the efficacy of the drugs (9, 10). Genomic approaches have been used primarily to interrogate osimertinib resistance mechanisms (9, 11-15). Several mechanisms of osimertinib resistance have been identified (16), including novel second site EGFR mutations, activated bypass pathways such as MET amplification, HER2 amplification, RAS mutations, BRAF mutations, PIK3CA mutations, and novel fusion events (17). However, the resistance mechanism is complex and still not fully understood. Previously, we have used SILAC-based quantitative phosphoproteomics to identify the global dynamic modification which occur upon treatment of TKI-sensitive and -resistant lung adenocarcinoma cells with the 1st and 2nd generation EGFR TKIs, erlotinib and afatinib. Utilizing this strategy, we identified the targets of mutant EGFR signaling pathways responsible for TKI resistance, and possible off-target effects of the drugs (18, 19). In this study, we employed SILAC-based quantitative mass spectrometry to characterize alterations in the proteome and phosphoproteome which occur upon acquired resistance and sought to identify novel mechanisms of resistance to the third generation EGFR TKIs, osimertinib and rociletinib. To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive 3rd generation EGFR TKI resistant proteome and phosphoproteome analysis resource available to date.
2021-03-11 | PXD020108 | Pride
Project description:KRAS is a proto-oncogene encoding a small GTPase. Mutations contribute up to 30% of human solid tumours including lung adenocarcinoma, pancreatic and colorectal carcinomas. Most KRAS activating mutations interfere with GTP hydrolysis, essential for its role as a molecular switch, leading to alterations in their molecular environment and oncogenic signalling. Here, APEX-2 proximity labelling was used to profile the molecular environment of wild type and G12D, G13D and Q61H activating mutants of KRAS under both, starvation and stimulation conditions. We demonstrate by quantitative proteomics the presence of known interactors of KRAS including a-RAF and LZTR1, which varied in abundance with wildtype and KRAS mutants. Notably, the KRAS mutations G12D, G13D and Q61H abrogate association with LZTR1. Wildtype KRAS and LZTR1, as part of the CUL3 ubiquitin E3 ligase complex, affect each other’s protein stability.
2024-03-06 | PXD029725 | Pride
Project description:Cycloneda sanguinea isolate:3rd instar larvae Raw sequence reads
| PRJNA377582 | ENA
Project description:A Phase 1 dose escalation study in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring KRAS or EGFR mutations to determine the maximum tolerated dose and recommended Phase II dose of HBI-2376 and characterize its pharmacokinetic profile.
| 2398774 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Single channel custom oligonucleotide array of 147 microRNAs to detect changes in expression of a lgl-hypomorph mutant versus wild-type 0, 3, and 5 day old 3rd instar lgl-hypomorph larvae were compared to 0 day 3rd instar wild-type larvae to test for differences in microRNA expression
2017-12-18 | GSE40293 | GEO
Project description:PURPOSE:In mCRC, disease dynamics may play a critical role in the understanding of long-term outcome. We evaluated depth of response (DpR), time to DpR, and post-DpR survival as relevant endpoints. METHODS:We analyzed DpR by central review of computer tomography images (change from baseline to smallest tumor diameter), early tumor shrinkage (??20% reduction in tumor diameter at first reassessment), time to DpR (study randomization to DpR-image), post-DpR progression-free survival (pPFS?=?DpR-image to tumor progression or death), and post-DpR overall survival (pOS?=?DpR-image to death) with special focus on BRAF status in 66 patients and primary tumor site in 86 patients treated within the VOLFI-trial, respectively. RESULTS:BRAF wild-type (BRAF-WT) compared to BRAF mutant (BRAF-MT) patients had greater DpR (- 57.6% vs. - 40.8%, p?=?0.013) with a comparable time to DpR [4.0 (95% CI 3.1-4.4) vs. 3.9 (95% CI 2.5-5.5) months; p?=?0.8852]. pPFS was 6.5 (95% CI 4.9-8.0) versus 2.6 (95% CI 1.2-4.0) months in favor of BRAF-WT patients (HR 0.24 (95% CI 0.11-0.53); p?<?0.001). This transferred into a significant difference in pOS [33.6 (95% CI 26.0-41.3) vs. 5.4 (95% CI 5.0-5.9) months; HR 0.27 (95% CI 0.13-0.55); p?<?0.001]. Similar observations were made for patients stratified for primary tumor site. CONCLUSIONS:BRAF-MT patients derive a less profound treatment response compared to BRAF-WT patients. The difference in outcome according to BRAF status is evident after achievement of DpR with BRAF-MT patients hardly deriving any further disease control beyond DpR. Our observations hint towards an aggressive tumor evolution in BRAF-MT tumors, which may already be molecularly detectable at the time of DpR.
| S-EPMC7467910 | biostudies-literature