Abstract

SummaryBackgroundMolecular indicators of colorectal cancer prognosis have been assessed in several studies, but most analyses have been restricted to a handful of markers. We aimed to identify prognostic biomarkers for colorectal cancer by sequencing panels of multiple driver genes.MethodsIn stage II or III colorectal cancers from the QUASAR 2 open-label randomised phase 3 clinical trial and an Australian community-based series, we used targeted next-generation sequencing of 82 and 113 genes, respectively, including the main colorectal cancer drivers. We investigated molecular pathways of tumorigenesis, and analysed individual driver gene mutations, combinations of mutations, or global measures such as microsatellite instability (MSI) and mutation burden (total number of non-synonymous mutations and coding indels) for associations with relapse-free survival in univariable and multivariable models, principally Cox proportional hazards models.FindingsIn QUASAR 2 (511 tumours), TP53, KRAS, BRAF, and GNAS mutations were independently associated with shorter relapse-free survival (p<0·035 in all cases), and total somatic mutation burden with longer survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·81 [95% CI 0·68–0·96]; p=0·014). MSI was not independently associated with survival (HR 1·12 [95% CI 0·57–2·19]; p=0·75). We successfully validated these associations in the Australian sample set (296 tumours). In a combined analysis of both the QUASAR 2 and the Australian sample sets, mutation burden was also associated with longer survival (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·74–0·94]; p=0·004) after exclusion of MSI-positive and POLE mutant tumours. In an extended analysis of 1732 QUASAR 2 and Australian colorectal cancers for which KRAS, BRAF, and MSI status were available, KRAS and BRAF mutations were specifically associated with poor prognosis in MSI-negative cancers. MSI-positive cancers with KRAS or BRAF mutations had better prognosis than MSI-negative cancers that were wild-type for KRAS or BRAF. Mutations in the genes NF1 and NRAS from the MAPK pathway co-occurred, and mutations in the DNA damage-response genes TP53 and ATM were mutually exclusive. We compared a prognostic model based on the gold standard of clinicopathological variables and MSI with our new model incorporating clinicopathological variables, mutation burden, and driver mutations in KRAS, BRAF, and TP53. In both QUASAR 2 and the Australian cohort, our new model was significantly better (p=0·00004 and p=0·0057, respectively, based on a likelihood ratio test).InterpretationMultigene panels identified two previously unreported prognostic associations in colorectal cancer involving TP53 mutation and total mutation burden, and confirmed associations with KRAS and BRAF. Even a modest-sized gene panel can provide important information for use in clinical practice and outperform MSI-based prognostic models.FundingUK Technology Strategy Board, National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Cancer Australia Project, Cancer Council Victoria, Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research, Victorian Government.

Highlights

  • There is increasing recognition that treatment of common cancers can be modified according to a patient’s expected prognosis or response to therapy

  • We investigated the prognostic associations of KRAS and BRAF mutations in relation to microsatellite instability (MSI) status by pooling data from the QUASAR 2 gene panel, the Australian validation set, and additional QUASAR 2 and stage II or III Australian colorectal cancers that had been analysed for MSI and by Sanger sequencing for KRAS or BRAF mutations for an extended set of patients

  • Results tumours from the QUASAR 2 clinical trial were sequenced for 82 genes

Read more

Summary

Introduction

There is increasing recognition that treatment of common cancers can be modified according to a patient’s expected prognosis or response to therapy. In view of the modest survival benefits that conventional cytotoxic therapies provide for patients with common solid malignancies, biomarkers of prognosis still have substantial potential clinical. Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia (Prof P Gibbs); Institute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo. University Hospital, Oslo, Norway (H Askautrud PhD, Prof H E Danielsen PhD); Department of Histopathology, University College London, London, UK (D Oukrif MSc, Prof M Novelli PhD); Thermo Fisher Scientific, Paisley, UK (J Wood PhD, J Sherlock PhD); Nuffield Department of Clinical and Laboratory Science, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, John Radcliffe. Genetics and Evolution Laboratory, Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, UK ac.uk

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.