Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Predictive Molecular Biomarkers for the Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

  • Translational Colorectal Oncology (Y Jiang, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Colorectal Cancer Reports

Abstract

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major public health problem in the USA and globally. Over the past 20 years, significant advances have been made in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Recent efforts have focused on developing molecular biomarkers to further define the subset of patients with mCRC who would derive a substantial benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy. Activating mutations in KRAS and NRAS are a predictive marker for resistance to anti-EGFR therapy in mCRC. BRAF V600E and PIK3CA mutations have been reported as negative predictive markers for anti-EGFR therapy in mCRC. Microsatellite instability and immunologic biomarkers may be predictive markers for immunotherapy, including immune-checkpoint inhibitors in the near future. Next-generation sequencing technology is a powerful new tool for the discovery of predictive molecular biomarkers and to facilitate the delivery of personalized medicine. Herein, we review the current status of predictive molecular biomarker research in the treatment of mCRC.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, et al. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:9–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Amado RG, Wolf M, Peeters M, et al. Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1626–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Douillard J-Y, Siena S, Cassidy J, et al. Randomized, phase III trial of panitumumab with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) versus FOLFOX4 alone as first-line treatment in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: the PRIME study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4697–705.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Peeters M, Price TJ, Cervantes A, et al. Randomized phase III study of panitumumab with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) compared with FOLFIRI alone as second-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:4706–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Van Cutsem E, Kohne CH, Hitre E, et al. Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1408–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bokemeyer C, Bondarenko I, Hartmann JT, et al. Efficacy according to biomarker status of cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: the OPUS study. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:1535–46.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Peeters M, Oliner KS, Parker A, et al. Massively parallel tumor multigene sequencing to evaluate response to panitumumab in a randomized phase III study of metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19:1902–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. De Roock W, Jonker DJ, Di Nicolantonio F, et al. Association of KRAS G13D mutation with outcome in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. JAMA. 2010;304:1812–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Peeters M, Douillard JY, Van Cutsem E, et al. Mutant KRAS codon 12 and 13 alleles in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: assessment as prognostic and predictive biomarkers of response to panitumumab. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:759–65.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Andre T, Blons H, Mabro M, et al. Panitumumab combined with irinotecan for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard chemotherapy: a GERCOR efficacy, tolerance, and translational molecular study. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:412–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Loupakis F, Ruzzo A, Cremolini C, et al. KRAS codon 61, 146 and BRAF mutations predict resistance to cetuximab plus irinotecan in KRAS codon 12 and 13 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2009;101:715–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. De Roock W, Claes B, Bernasconi D, et al. Effects of KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations on the efficacy of cetuximab plus chemotherapy in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective consortium analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:753–62. This large retrospective analysis showed that the presence of BRAF mutations is associated with poor response to anti-EGFR therapy in mCRC.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Karnoub AE, Weinberg RA. Ras oncogenes: split personalities. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2008;9:517–31.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Fernandez-Medarde A, Santos E. Ras in cancer and developmental diseases. Genes Cancer. 2011;2:344–58.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Douillard JY, Oliner KS, Siena S, et al. Panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:1023–34. The authors showed that patients with tumors expressing any activating RAS mutations do not benefit from the addition of panitumumab.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Heinemann V, Fischer von Weikersthal L, Decker T, et al. Randomized comparison of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment of KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: German AIO study KRK-0306 (FIRE-3). ASCO Meeting Abstracts 31:LBA3506, 2013.

  17. Stintzing S, Jung A, Rossius L, et al. Mutations within the EGFR signaling pathway: influence on efficacy in FIRE-3—a randomized phase III study of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab as first-line treatment for wild-type (WT) KRAS (exon 2) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. ASCO Meeting Abstracts 32:445, 2014. The authors showed that patients with tumors expressing any activating RAS mutations do not benefit from the addition of cetuximab.

  18. Bokemeyer C, Kohne C-H, Ciardiello F, et al. Treatment outcome according to tumor RAS mutation status in OPUS study patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) randomized to FOLFOX4 with/without cetuximab. ASCO Meeting Abstracts 32:3505, 2014. The authors showed that patients with tumors expressing any activating RAS mutations do not benefit from the addition of cetuximab.

  19. DiNicolantonio F, Martini M, Molinari F, et al. Wild-type BRAF is required for response to panitumumab or cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5705–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Van Cutsem E, Kohne CH, Lang I, et al. Cetuximab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: updated analysis of overall survival according to tumor KRAS and BRAF mutation status. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2011–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Seymour MT, Brown SR, Middleton G, et al. Panitumumab and irinotecan versus irinotecan alone for patients with KRAS wild-type, fluorouracil-resistant advanced colorectal cancer (PICCOLO): a prospectively stratified randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:749–59.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Sartore-Bianchi A, Martini M, Molinari F, et al. PIK3CA mutations in colorectal cancer are associated with clinical resistance to EGFR-targeted monoclonal antibodies. Cancer Res. 2009;69:1851–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Loupakis F, Pollina L, Stasi I, et al. PTEN expression and KRAS mutations on primary tumors and metastases in the prediction of benefit from cetuximab plus irinotecan for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2622–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Tol J, Dijkstra JR, Klomp M, et al. Markers for EGFR pathway activation as predictor of outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with or without cetuximab. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:1997–2009.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Laurent-Puig P, Cayre A, Manceau G, et al. Analysis of PTEN, BRAF, and EGFR status in determining benefit from cetuximab therapy in wild-type KRAS metastatic colon cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5924–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ulivi P, Capelli L, Valgiusti M, et al. Predictive role of multiple gene alterations in response to cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer: a single center study. J Transl Med. 2012;10:87.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Prenen H, De Schutter J, Jacobs B, et al. PIK3CA mutations are not a major determinant of resistance to the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:3184–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Karapetis CS, Jonker D, Daneshmand M, et al. PIK3CA, BRAF, and PTEN status and benefit from cetuximab in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer—results from NCIC CTG/AGITG CO.17. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:744–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Sridharan M, Hubbard JM, Grothey A. Colorectal cancer: how emerging molecular understanding affects treatment decisions. Oncology (Williston Park). 2014;28:110–8.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Molinari F, Frattini M. Functions and regulation of the PTEN gene in colorectal cancer. Front Oncol. 2013;3:326.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer. Nature 487:330–7, 2012. The authors reported detailed genomic profiling of colorectal cancer.

  32. Hampel H, Frankel WL, Martin E, et al. Feasibility of screening for Lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5783–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Sinicrope FA, Foster NR, Thibodeau SN, et al. DNA mismatch repair status and colon cancer recurrence and survival in clinical trials of 5-fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:863–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Alexander J, Watanabe T, Wu TT, et al. Histopathological identification of colon cancer with microsatellite instability. Am J Pathol. 2001;158:527–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Ogino S, Galon J, Fuchs CS, et al. Cancer immunology-analysis of host and tumor factors for personalized medicine. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2011;8:711–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Ogino S, Nosho K, Irahara N, et al. Lymphocytic reaction to colorectal cancer is associated with longer survival, independent of lymph node count, microsatellite instability, and CpG island methylator phenotype. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:6412–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Ling A, Edin S, Wikberg ML, et al. The intratumoural subsite and relation of CD8(+) and FOXP3(+) T lymphocytes in colorectal cancer provide important prognostic clues. Br J Cancer. 2014;110:2551–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Galon J, Costes A, Sanchez-Cabo F, et al. Type, density, and location of immune cells within human colorectal tumors predict clinical outcome. Science. 2006;313:1960–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Pages F, Berger A, Camus M, et al. Effector memory T cells, early metastasis, and survival in colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2654–66.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Galon J, Pages F, Marincola FM, et al. The immune score as a new possible approach for the classification of cancer. J Transl Med 10, 2012.

  41. Misale S, Yaeger R, Hobor S, et al. Emergence of KRAS mutations and acquired resistance to anti-EGFR therapy in colorectal cancer. Nature. 2012;486:532–6. The authors reported that ctDNA may play a critical roel in the development of molecular biomarkers by showing the detection of KRAS mutations in ctDNA several months prior to radiographic evidence of disease progression in mCRC patients treated with anti-EGFR therapy.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Diaz Jr LA, Williams RT, Wu J, et al. The molecular evolution of acquired resistance to targeted EGFR blockade in colorectal cancers. Nature. 2012;486:537–40. The authors reported that ctDNA may play a critical role in the development of molecular biomarkers by showing the detection of KRAS mutations in ctDNA several months prior to radiographic evidence of disease progression in mCRC patients treated with anti-EGFR therapy.

    PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Newman AM, Bratman SV, To J, et al. An ultrasensitive method for quantitating circulating tumor DNA with broad patient coverage. Nat Med. 2014;20:548–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Leary RJ, Sausen M, Kinde I, et al. Detection of chromosomal alterations in the circulation of cancer patients with whole-genome sequencing. Sci Transl Med. 2012;4:162ra154.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Sausen M, Parpart S, Diaz Jr LA. Circulating tumor DNA moves further into the spotlight. Genome Med. 2014;6:35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Lambrechts D, Lenz HJ, de Haas S, et al. Markers of response for the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1219–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Custodio A, Barriuso J, de Castro J, et al. Molecular markers to predict outcome to antiangiogenic therapies in colorectal cancer: current evidence and future perspectives. Cancer Treat Rev. 2013;39:908–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Van Cutsem E, de Haas S, Kang YK, et al. Bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy in advanced gastric cancer: a biomarker evaluation from the AVAGAST randomized phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:2119–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Kopetz S, Hoff PM, Morris JS, et al. Phase II trial of infusional fluorouracil, irinotecan, and bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer: efficacy and circulating angiogenic biomarkers associated with therapeutic resistance. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:453–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Raffan E, Semple RK. Next-generation sequencing—implications for clinical practice. Br Med Bull. 2011;99:53–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Johansen Taber KA, Dickinson BD, Wilson M. The promise and challenges of next-generation genome sequencing for clinical care. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174:275–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Scuffham PA, Nikles J, Mitchell GK, et al. Using N-of-1 trials to improve patient management and save costs. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25:906–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Mahon J, Laupacis A, Donner A, et al. Randomised study of N of 1 trials versus standard practice. BMJ. 1996;312:1069–74.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Lillie EO, Patay B, Diamant J, et al. The N-of-1 clinical trial: the ultimate strategy for individualizing medicine? Per Med. 2011;8:161–73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

Conflict of Interest

James J. Lee and Edward Chu declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Cancer Therapeutics Program, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, UPMC Cancer Pavilion, 5150 Centre Avenue, 5th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA, 15232, USA

    James J. Lee & Edward Chu

Authors
  1. James J. Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edward Chu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James J. Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, J.J., Chu, E. The Role of Predictive Molecular Biomarkers for the Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Curr Colorectal Cancer Rep 10, 395–402 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-014-0246-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11888-014-0246-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation