Oncologie

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 45–51

Biologie moléculaire et prise en charge des cancers colorectaux

Mise au Point / Update
  • 137 Downloads

Résumé

Dans la pratique clinique courante, de plus en plus de situations rendent nécessaire la demande d’examens de biologie moléculaire afin de guider les praticiens en charge de patients présentant un cancer colorectal (CCR) dans leurs décisions thérapeutiques: administration d’une chimiothérapie adjuvante après chirurgie colorectale, choix du traitement en cas de CCR métastatique non opérable. Les progrès de la pharmacogénétique ont ainsi permis de mieux caractériser certaines formes familiales de CCR et de trouver des facteurs pronostiques et prédictifs aux différents traitements utilisés. Le but de cet article est de présenter les avancées récentes de l’utilisation de la biologie moléculaire en cas de suspicion de syndrome de Lynch et d’indication d’un anticorps anti-EGFR.

Mots clés

Cancer colorectal Biologie moléculaire Microsatellite Anticorps anti-EGFR KRAS 

Molecular biology and colorectal cancer management

Abstract

In current clinical practice, increasing number of situations make necessary the use of molecular biology tests to help clinicians in charge of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) in their therapeutic decisions: indication of adjuvant chemotherapy after colorectal surgery, treatment choice in case of unresectable metastatic CRC. Advances in pharmacogenetics allowed a better characterization of inherited causes of CRC and to identify prognostic and predictive factors for different treatments. The purpose of this article is to present the recent advances in the use of molecular biology in case of suspected Lynch syndrome and indication of anti-EGFR antibodies.

Keywords

Colorectal cancer Molecular biology Microsatellite Anti-EGFR antibodies KRAS 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Amado RG, Wolf M, Peeters M, et al. (2008) Wild-type KRAS is required for panitumumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 26: 1626–1634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benvenuti S, Sartore-Bianchi A, Di Nicolantonio F, et al (2007) Oncogenic activation of the RAS/RAF signaling pathway impairs the response of metastatic colorectal cancers to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody therapies. Cancer Res 67: 2643–2648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blons H, Laurent-Puig P (2009) Technical considerations for KRAS testing in colorectal cancer. The biologist’s point of view. Bull Cancer 96Suppl: S47–S56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bokemeyer C, Bondarenko I, Makhson A, et al (2009) Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin with and without cetuximab in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 27: 663–671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bonaiti-Pellie C, Andrieu N, Arveux P, et al. (2009) Cancer genetics: estimation of the needs of the population in France for the next ten years. Bull Cancer 96: 875–900PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S, et al (2004) Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecanrefractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 351: 337–345PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Roock W, Piessevaux H, De Schutter J, et al. (2008) KRAS wild-type state predicts survival and is associated to early radiological response in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. Ann Oncol 19: 508–515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Des Guetz G, Schischmanoff O, Nicolas P, et al (2009) Does microsatellite instability predict the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer? A systematic review with meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 45: 1890–1896PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Di Fiore F, Blanchard F, Charbonnier F, et al. (2007) Clinical relevance of KRAS mutation detection in metastatic colorectal cancer treated by Cetuximab plus chemotherapy. Br J Cancer 96: 1166–1169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frattini M, Saletti P, Romagnani E, et al (2007) PTEN loss of expression predicts cetuximab efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Br J Cancer 97: 1139–1145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guastadisegni C, Colafranceschi M, Ottini L, et al. (2010) Microsatellite instability as a marker of prognosis and response to therapy: a meta-analysis of colorectal cancer survival data. Eur J Cancer 46: 2788–2798PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, et al (2011) Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 61: 69–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karapetis CS, Khambata-Ford S, Jonker DJ, et al. (2008) KRAS mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 359: 1757–1765PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khambata-Ford S, Garrett CR, Meropol NJ, et al (2007) Expression of epiregulin and amphiregulin and KRAS mutation status predict disease control in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with cetuximab. J Clin Oncol 25: 3230–3237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Knijn N, Mekenkamp LJ, Klomp M, et al. (2011) KRAS mutation analysis: a comparison between primary tumours and matched liver metastases in 305 colorectal cancer patients. Br J Cancer 104: 1020–1026PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Laurent-Puig P, Agostini J, Maley K (2010) Colorectal oncogenesis. Bull Cancer 97: 1311–1321PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lièvre A, Bachet JB, Boige V, et al. (2008) KRAS mutations as an independent prognostic factor in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. J Clin Oncol 26: 374–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lièvre A, Bachet JB, Le Corre D, et al (2006) KRAS mutation status is predictive of response to cetuximab therapy in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res 66: 3992–3995PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Manceau G, Karoui M, Charachon A, et al. (2011) HNPCC (hereditary non polyposis colorectal cancer) or Lynch syndrome: a syndrome related to a failure of DNA repair system. Bull Cancer 98: 323–336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Olschwang S, Bonaiti C, Feingold J, et al (2004) Identification and management of HNPCC syndrome (hereditary non polyposis colon cancer), hereditary predisposition to colorectal and endometrial adenocarcinomas. Bull Cancer 91: 303–315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Olschwang S, Paraf F, Laurent-Puig P, et al. (2007) Recent advances for the identification and screening of Lynch syndrome. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 31: 136–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Popat S, Hubner R, Houlston RS (2005) Systematic review of microsatellite instability and colorectal cancer prognosis. J Clin Oncol 23: 609–618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ribic CM, Sargent DJ, Moore MJ, et al. (2003) Tumor microsatellite-instability status as a predictor of benefit from fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 349: 247–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Saltz LB, Meropol NJ, Loehrer PJ, et al (2004) Phase II trial of cetuximab in patients with refractory colorectal cancer that expresses the epidermal growth factor receptor. J Clin Oncol 22: 1201–1208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sargent DJ, Marsoni S, Monges G, et al. (2010) Defective mismatch repair as a predictive marker for lack of efficacy of fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy in colon cancer. J Clin Oncol 28: 3219–3226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Suraweera N, Duval A, Reperant M, et al (2002) Evaluation of tumor microsatellite instability using five quasimonomorphic mononucleotide repeats and pentaplex PCR. Gastroenterology 123: 1804–1811PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Umar A, Boland CR, Terdiman JP, et al. (2004) Revised Bethesda Guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst 96: 261–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van Cutsem E, Kohne CH, Lang I, et al (2011) 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 29: 2011–2019PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag France 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Inserm UMR-S775 bases moléculaires de la réponse aux xénobiotiquesuniversité Paris-DescartesParis cedex 06France

Personalised recommendations