Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Connecting cancer biology and clinical outcomes to imaging in KRAS mutant and wild-type colorectal cancer liver tumors following selective internal radiation therapy with yttrium-90

  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To determine whether pathologic colorectal tumor KRAS mutation status is correlated with progression-free survival (PFS) by imaging after selective internal radiation therapy with Yttrium-90 (SIRT Y90) for metastatic colorectal cancer in the liver (mCRC).

Materials and methods

This was an IRB approved, HIPAA compliant retrospective cohort study. Consecutive patients with unresectable mCRC with documented KRAS mutation status treated at a single center from 2002 to 2013 with SIRT Y90 were investigated. Treatment response was compared between KRAS wild-type (wt) and mutant (mut) using an anatomic tumor response criteria based on RECIST 1.0. Kaplan–Meier estimation and Cox regression analysis were used to measure progression-free survival (PFS) and to assess independent prognostic factors for PFS.

Results

82 of 186 patients met review criteria. 33 (40.2%) patients were identified as KRAS mut. PFS was longer in KRAS wt (median 166 days [95% CI 96–258 days]) vs. mut (median 91 days [95% CI 79–104 days], p = 0.002). KRAS mut patients were 1.48 times more likely to progress at first follow-up imaging than wt (95% CI 1.06–2.08, p = 0.024). Univariate analysis identified high pre-SIRT Y90 INR, KRAS wt, any use of anti-EGFR therapy, and post-SIRT Y90 chemotherapy as prognostic factors for longer PFS. In multivariate analysis, only KRAS wt was an independent prognostic factor for longer PFS (RR: 1.80 [95% CI 1.08–2.99], p = 0.024).

Conclusion

Longer PFS is associated with KRAS wt vs. mut following SIRT Y90.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fearon ER (2011) Molecular genetics of colorectal cancer. Annu Rev Pathol Mech Dis 6(1):479–507

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bos JL, Fearon ER, Hamilton SR, et al. (1987) Prevalence of ras gene mutations in human colorectal cancers. Nature 327(6120):293–297

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fearon ER, Vogelstein B (1990) A genetic model for colorectal tumorigenesis. Cell 61(5):759–767

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Karapetis CS, Khambata-Ford S, Jonker DJ, et al. (2008) K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 359(17):1757–1765

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kim ST, Park KH, Kim JS, Shin SW, Kim YH (2013 ) Impact of KRAS mutation status on outcomes in metastatic colon cancer patients without anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy. Cancer Res Treat 45(1):55–62. PMCID: PMC3629364

  6. Andreyev HJ, Norman AR, Cunningham D, et al. (2001) Kirsten ras mutations in patients with colorectal cancer: the “RASCAL II” study. Br J Cancer 85(5):692–696. PMCID: PMC2364126

  7. Andreyev HJ, Norman AR, Cunningham D, Oates JR, Clarke PA (1998) Kirsten ras mutations in patients with colorectal cancer: the multicenter “RASCAL” study. J Natl Cancer Inst 90(9):675–684

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Richman SD, Seymour MT, Chambers P, et al. (2009) KRAS and BRAF mutations in advanced colorectal cancer are associated with poor prognosis but do not preclude benefit from oxaliplatin or irinotecan: results from the MRC FOCUS trial. J Clin Oncol 27(35):5931–5937

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lièvre A, Bachet J-B, Le Corre D, et al. (2006) KRAS mutation status is predictive of response to cetuximab therapy in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res 66(8):3992–3995

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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(10):1626–1634

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Van Cutsem E, Köhne C-H, Hitre E, et al. (2009) Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 360(14):1408–1417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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(5):663–671

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Douillard J-Y, Siena S, Cassidy J, et al. (2010) 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 28(31):4697–4705

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Peeters M, Price TJ, Cervantes A, et al. (2010) 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 28(31):4706–4713

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Laimer K, Spizzo G, Gastl G, et al. (2007) High EGFR expression predicts poor prognosis in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity and oropharynx: a TMA-based immunohistochemical analysis. Oral Oncol 43(2):193–198

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sahlberg SH, Gustafsson A-S, Pendekanti PN, Glimelius B, Stenerlöw B (2014) The influence of AKT isoforms on radiation sensitivity and DNA repair in colon cancer cell lines. Tumour Biol 35(4):3525–3534. PMCID: PMC3980041

  17. Freudlsperger C, Horn D, Weißfuß S, et al. (2015) Phosphorylation of AKT(Ser473) serves as an independent prognostic marker for radiosensitivity in advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Int J Cancer 136(12):2775–2785

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Stegeman H, Span PN, Kaanders JHAM, Bussink J (2014) Improving chemoradiation efficacy by PI3-K/AKT inhibition. Cancer Treat Rev 40(10):1182–1191

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Akinwande O, Philips P, Scoggins CR, et al. (2016) Comparison of tumor response assessment methods in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after locoregional therapy. J Surg Oncol 113(4):443–448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hipps D, Ausania F, Manas DM, Rose JDG, French JJ (2013) Selective interarterial radiation therapy (SIRT) in colorectal liver metastases: how do we monitor response? HPB Surg World J Hepat Pancreat Biliary Surg 2013:570808. PMCID: PMC3830800

  21. Lahti S, Xing M, Zhang D et al. KRAS Status as an independent prognostic factor for survival after yttrium-90 radioembolizatoin therapy for unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. JVIR (In Press)

  22. Margonis GA, Kim Y, Spolverato G, Ejaz A, Gupta R et al. (2015) Association between specific mutations in KRAS codon 12 and colorectal liver metastasis. JAMA Surg PMID: 26038887

  23. Lewandowski RJ, Sato KT, Atassi B, et al. (2007) Radioembolization with 90Y microspheres: angiographic and technical considerations. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 30(4):571–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Salem R, Thurston KG (2006) Radioembolization with 90Yttrium microspheres: a state-of-the-art brachytherapy treatment for primary and secondary liver malignancies. Part 1: Technical and methodologic considerations. J Vasc Interv Radiol 17(8):1251–1278. PMID: 16923973

  25. Kooby DA, Egnatashvili V, Srinivasan S, et al. (2010) Comparison of yttrium-90 radioembolization and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol 21(2):224–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hoofnagle JH, Serrano J, Knoben JE, Navarro VJ (2013) LiverTox: a website on drug-induced liver injury. Hepatology 57(3):873–874

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Reimers MS, Zeestraten ECM, Kuppen PJK, Liefers GJ, van de Velde CJH (2013) Biomarkers in precision therapy in colorectal cancer. Gastroenterol Rep 1(3):166–183. PMCID: PMC3937997

  28. Petrioli R, Licchetta A, Roviello G, et al. (2012) CEA and CA19.9 as early predictors of progression in advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer patients receiving oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab. Cancer Invest 30(1):65–71

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gulec SA, Suthar RR, Barot TC, Pennington K (2011) The prognostic value of functional tumor volume and total lesion glycolysis in patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases undergoing 90Y selective internal radiation therapy plus chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38(7):1289–1295

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kucuk ON, Soydal C, Lacin S, Ozkan E, Bilgic S (2011) Selective intraarterial radionuclide therapy with Yttrium-90 (Y-90) microspheres for unresectable primary and metastatic liver tumors. World J Surg Oncol 9(1):86

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Zalom M, Yu R, Friedman M, Bresee C, Waxman A (2012) FDG PET/CT as a prognostic test after 90Y radioembolization in patients with metastatic hepatic disease. Clin Nucl Med 37(9):862–865

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Annunziata S, Treglia G, Caldarella C, Galiandro F (2014) The Role of 18F-FDG-PET and PET/CT in patients with colorectal liver metastases undergoing selective internal radiation therapy with yttrium-90: a first evidence-based review. Sci World J 2(2014):e879469

    Google Scholar 

  33. Zerizer I, Al-Nahhas A, Towey D, et al. (2012) The role of early 18F-FDG PET/CT in prediction of progression-free survival after 90Y radioembolization: comparison with RECIST and tumour density criteria. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39(9):1391–1399

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Mahnken AH, Spreafico C, Maleux G, Helmberger T, Jakobs TF (2013) Standards of practice in transarterial radioembolization. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 36(3):613–622

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Skougaard K, Johannesen HH, Nielsen D et al. (2014) CT versus FDG-PET/CT response evaluation in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with irinotecan and cetuximab. Cancer Med. 3(5):1294–1301. PMCID: PMC4302679

  36. Toulany M, Dittmann K, Krüger M, Baumann M, Rodemann HP (2005) Radioresistance of K-Ras mutated human tumor cells is mediated through EGFR-dependent activation of PI3 K-AKT pathway. Radiother Oncol J Eur Soc Ther Radiol Oncol 76(2):143–150

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Toulany M, Kasten-Pisula U, Brammer I, et al. (2006) Blockage of epidermal growth factor receptor-phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-AKT signaling increases radiosensitivity of K-RAS mutated human tumor cells in vitro by affecting DNA repair. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res 12(13):4119–4126

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Minjgee M, Toulany M, Kehlbach R, Giehl K, Rodemann HP (2011) K-RAS(V12) induces autocrine production of EGFR ligands and mediates radioresistance through EGFR-dependent Akt signaling and activation of DNA-PKcs. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 81(5):1506–1514

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wang M, Kern AM, Hülskötter M et al. (2014) EGFR-mediated chromatin condensation protects KRAS-mutant cancer cells against ionizing radiation. Cancer Res 74(10):2825–2834. PMCID: PMC4278592

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Michael J. Magnetta, Anish Ghodadra, Steven J. Lahti & Hyun S. Kim

  2. Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, Yale Cancer Center, 330 Cedar Street TE 2-224, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA

    Minzhi Xing & Hyun S. Kim

  3. Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Di Zhang

  4. Yale Cancer Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

    Hyun S. Kim

Authors
  1. Michael J. Magnetta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anish Ghodadra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Steven J. Lahti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Minzhi Xing
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Di Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hyun S. Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hyun S. Kim.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors have no financial or other disclosures relationship with any commercial organization that may have a direct or indirect interest in this manuscript. There is no conflict of interest to declare for this manuscript.

Information concerning grants

None applicable.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Magnetta, M.J., Ghodadra, A., Lahti, S.J. et al. Connecting cancer biology and clinical outcomes to imaging in KRAS mutant and wild-type colorectal cancer liver tumors following selective internal radiation therapy with yttrium-90. Abdom Radiol 42, 451–459 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0875-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0875-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation