Impact Of RAS Mutations Research Articles

ASO Author Reflections: Impact of RAS Mutations on Total Neoadjuvant Therapy Outcomes in Rectal Cancer.

ASO Author Reflections: Impact of RAS Mutations on Total Neoadjuvant Therapy Outcomes in Rectal Cancer.

Impact of RAS mutations on immunologic characteristics of the tumor microenvironment (TME) in patients with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch-repair–deficient (dMMR) colorectal cancer (CRC).

3067 Background: The KEYNOTE-177 trial demonstrated pembrolizumab’s superiority over first-line chemotherapy in patients with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. However, in a subgroup analysis, patients with KRAS or NRAS mutations did not show the same favorable PFS benefit with PD-1 blockade therapy (HR 1,19; CI 0.68-2,07). The impact of RAS mutations on the immunologic characteristics of the TME of MSI-H/dMMR CRC has not been well characterized. Methods: A retrospective review of deidentified records of patients with MSI-H/dMMR CRC tumors was conducted using next-generation sequencing data (Tempus |xT assay, DNA-seq of 595-648 genes at 500x coverage, and full transcriptome RNA-seq). MSI-H determined by assessment of 239 loci by NGS. Several immune markers were assessed, including tumor mutational burden (TMB), neoantigen tumor burden (NTB, ScanNeo), PD-L1 expression, immune infiltration, and canonical immune pathways (82 geneset signatures). Results: A total of 463 MSI-H/dMMR CRCs were analyzed, of which 110 (24%) tumors harbored RAS mutations ( RASmut) [ KRAS: 93%, NRAS 6% and HRAS 1%}, while 353 were RAS-wild-type ( RASWT). Compared to MSI-H/dMMR RASWT, MSI-H/dMMR RASmut tumors were more frequently identified in males (53% vs. 38%; P= 0.005), and younger patients (median age: 57 yrs vs. 71 yrs, P< 0.001). Although there were no significant differences in median TMB (40 mut/MB for both, p = 0.9) or frequency of TMB-high status (≥10 mut/MB) between the two groups, RASmuttumors tended to have a lower tumor NTB (16 vs. 12 neoAg/Mb, P <0.001) and lower % CD8 T cell but higher % CD4 T cell infiltration (P < 0.05). Significant differences were observed in genomic alterations co-occurring with RASmut compared to RASWT (e.g., MLH1 (23% vs. 8.8%, P < 0.001), MSH6 (36% vs. 24%, P = 0.017), APC (60% vs. 20%, P< 0.001), ARID1A (54% vs 30%, P< 0.001), PIK3CA (36% vs 19%, P< 0.001), and TP53 (32% vs. 19%, P = 0.014). Pathway enrichment analysis identified 14 differentially expressed pathways among RASmut tumors. Four pathways showed significant upregulation, including Hedgehog, Wnt, TGFβ, and cancer stem cell pathways. Ten pathways of interest showed significant downregulation among RASmut tumors. The majority (9/10) were immune-related, including cytokine signaling [ JAK-STAT, TGFβ, TH1], innate immune [ NK cells], and adaptive immune events (CD8 T cell, Tregs)]. Conclusions: MSI-H/dMMR CRCs harboring RASmut exhibited overall upregulated WNT/SHH pathway activity, coupled with reduced NTB, cytokine signaling, and innate and adaptive immune events. TGFβ is pleiotropic, and different members were associated with variable modulation. These data suggest that MSI-H/dMMR CRCs harboring RAS mutations are less immunogenic and appeared to contain a TME that is less sensitive to immune checkpoint blockade than MSI-H/dMMR RAS wt CRCs.

The prognostic impact of RAS on overall survival following liver resection in early versus late-onset colorectal cancer patients

BackgroundThe impact of molecular aberrations on survival after resection of colorectal liver metastases (CLM) in patients with early-age-onset (EOCRC) versus late-age-onset colorectal cancer (LOCRC) is unknown.MethodsPatients who underwent liver resection for CLM with known RAS, BRAF and MSI status were retrospectively studied. The prognostic impact of RAS mutations by age was analysed with age as a categorical variable and a continuous variable.ResultsThe study included 573 patients, 192 with EOCRC and 381 with LOCRC. The younger the age of onset of CRC, the greater the negative impact on overall survival of RAS mutations in the LOCRC, EOCRC, and ≤40 years (hazard ratio (HR), 1.64 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.23–2.20), 2.03 (95% CI, 1.30–3.17), and 2.97 (95% CI, 1.44–6.14), respectively. Age-specific mortality risk and linear regression analysis also demonstrated that RAS mutations had a greater impact on survival in EOCRC than in LOCRC (slope: −4.07, 95% CI −8.10 to 0.04, P = 0.047, R2 = 0.08).ConclusionAmong patients undergoing CLM resection, RAS mutations have a greater negative influence on survival in patients with EOCRC, more so in patients ≤40 years, than in patients with LOCRC and should be considered as a prognostic factor in multidisciplinary treatment planning.

Impact of RAS mutations on the immune infiltrate of colorectal liver metastases: A preliminary study.

Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog KRAS proto-oncogene is the most common altered gene in colorectal cancer (CRC). Determining itsmutational status, which is associated with worse prognosis and resistance to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors, is essential for managing patients with CRC and colon liver metastases (CLM). Emerging studies highlighted the relationship of KRAS-mutated cancers and tumor microenvironment components, mainly with Tcells. The aim of this study was to analyze the relationship of CLM immune cell infiltrate with KRAS mutational status. We performed a retrospective study on paraffin-embedded CLM tissue sections from patients surgically resected at the Department of Hepatobiliary and General Surgery of Humanitas Clinical and Cancer Center. We studied the distribution of lymphocytes (CD3+ cells), macrophages (CD163+), and neutrophils (CD66b+) in CLM tumoral and peritumoral area. Percentage of positive cells was correlated with tumor macroscopic characteristic, clinical aspects, and KRAS mutation. We observed a significant increase in CD66b+ cells in the peritumoral area in patients KRAS-mutated compared to KRAS wild-type patients. Percentages of lymphocytes and macrophages did not show significant differences. Further, neutrophils were found to be significantly increased also in the bloodstream of KRAS-mutated patients, indicating increased mobilization of neutrophils and recruitment in the CLM site. In conclusion, this study reveals a new intriguing aspect of the peritumoral microenvironment, which could pave the way for new prognostic and predictive markers for patient stratification.

Impact of RAS Mutations in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer After Potentially Curative Resection: Does Site of Metastases Matter?

RAS mutation status is an important prognostic factor after resection of liver metastases (LiM) from colorectal cancer (CRC). The prognostic significance of RAS after resection of lung (LuM) and peritoneal (PM) metastases from CRC is unknown. Between 2005 and 2014, all consecutive patients with known RAS status who underwent potentially curative resection for LiM, LuM, or PM were evaluated. A total of 720 patients with known RAS status underwent resection of LiM (n=468), LuM (n=102), and PM (n=150). RAS mutations were identified in 63 and 58% of patients with LuM and PM, respectively, compared with 41% of patients with LiM (p<0.001). Five-year overall survival (OS) after resection of PM was 45%, compared with 52% after resection of LiM (p=0.018) and 64% after resection of LuM (p=0.005). RAS mutations were associated with significantly worse OS after resection of LiM (p<0.001), but did not affect OS among patients undergoing resection of LuM (p=0.41) and PM (p=0.65). RAS mutations are more prevalent among patients undergoing resection of LuM and PM than LiM but do not affect survival after lung and peritoneal metastasectomy, as they do after hepatectomy. These results suggest that the prognostic significance of RAS mutations after resection of metastatic CRC depends on the specific site of metastases.

RAS heterogeneity as a prognostic marker in metastatic colorectal cancer.

586 Background: The impact of intratumor heterogeneity on prognosis in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is unclear, however relative variant allele frequency (rVAF) of key mutations within a tumor may impact outcomes. Therefore, we sought to determine whether rVAF of RAS ( KRAS &amp; NRAS) mutant (mt) clones impacts overall survival (OS) in mCRC patients (pts). Methods: Using a next generation sequencing panel of 201 cancer related genes, we tested 200 mCRC tumors / matched normals. Mutations, indels, and copy number variant (CNV) information were obtained. An rVAF of RAS clones was determined by dividing RAS mt VAF by the VAF of the mutated gene with the highest allele frequency. This truncal gene served as a marker of the total malignant population in a specimen. Pts were stratified at an rVAF of 50%. OS was compared with Kaplan-Meier curves, the log-rank test, and Cox regression. We assessed the impact of CNV on our findings by correcting the rVAF for CNVs in RASand truncal mutations. Results: Of 200 pts, 15% had RAS mt rVAF &lt; 50%, 40.5% had rVAF ≥ 50%, and 44.5% were RAS wild type (WT). Age, gender, MSI status, histology, and stage at diagnosis were similar between groups. More RAS WT pts had BRAF mutations (19.1% vs 1.2% and 3.3%, P&lt; 0.0001), left sided (78.7% vs 56.8% and 60%, P= 0.02), or poorly differentiated tumors (27.3% vs 8.6% and 13.3%, P= 0.003) compared to pts with rVAF ≥ 50% or rVAF &lt; 50%, respectively. Mean coverage was 807x for RAS and 602x for truncal mutations. OS was better in pts with an rVAF &lt; 50% compared to pts with rVAF ≥ 50% regardless of whether rVAF was corrected for CNV (HR 0.6; 95% CI 0.39-0.93, P =0.029) or not (HR 0.48; 95% CI 0.31-0.82, P= 0.010). mOS for pts with WT, rVAF &lt; 50% and rVAF ≥ 50% tumors were 65.8, 55.7, and 38.6 months ( P= 0.0025). In multivariate models controlling for stage at diagnosis and BRAF mutation, pts with rVAF &lt; 50% (HR 1.75; 95% CI 1.03-2.97, P = 0.04) and rVAF ≥ 50% (HR 2.46; 95% CI 1.66-3.65, P&lt; 0.0001) had worse OS compared to WT pts. When rVAF was used as a continuous variable, every 1% increase in rVAF RAS mt resulted in a 1% increased hazard of death ( P &lt;0.0001). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that clonal proportion of a tumor with a RAS mutation may impact OS and suggest the prognostic impact of RAS mutations is not an “all or none” phenomenon.

RAS mutations in EXPERT-C, a randomized phase II trial of neoadjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) and chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with or without cetuximab (C) in MRI-defined, high-risk rectal cancer (RC).

489 Background: Studies indicate that RAS mutations beyond KRAS exons 2-3 may predict anti-EGFRs benefit. EXPERT-C was a randomized phase II trial of neoadjuvant CAPOX and CRT ± C in MRI-defined, high-risk RC. We have previously shown that adding C in KRAS (exons 2-3)/BRAF wild type (WT) patients did not improve complete response (CR) and was associated with a non-significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.62, p=0.23) and overall survival (OS) (HR 0.56, p=0.20). The aim of this study was to analyse the impact of RAS mutations on the outcome of C-treated patients in this trial. Methods: Between October 2005 and July 2008, 164 eligible patients were randomly assigned to 4 cycles of CAPOX followed by CRT, surgery, and 4 cycles of adjuvant CAPOX (n=81) or the same regimen plus C (CAPOX-C, n=83). KRAS (exons 2-3) and NRAS (exon 3) mutations were prospectively analysed. Of 90 KRAS/NRAS WT patients, 84 were retrospectively analysed for additional KRAS (exon 4) and NRAS (exons 2/4) mutations by using bi-directional Sanger sequencing. The effect of C on CR, PFS, and OS in patients with RAS WT tumors was analyzed. PFS and OS were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and treatment arms compared using a log-rank analysis. Results: Eleven (13%) of 84 patients initially classified as KRAS/NRAS WT were found to have tumours harbouring a mutation in KRAS exon 4 (11%) or NRAS exons 2/4 (2%). Overall, after this retrospective mutation analysis, 78/149 (52%) assessable patients were RAS WT (CAPOX, n=40; CAPOX-C, n=38). After a median follow-up of 63.8 months, in line with the initial analysis, the addition of C in the group of RAS WT patients, was associated with numerically higher, but not statistically significant, rates of CR (15.8% vs. 7.5%, p=0.31), 5-year PFS (78.4% vs. 67.5%, p=0.17) and 5-year OS (83.8% vs. 70%, p=0.20). Conclusions: Although the results of our analysis are potentially affected by the small numbers, in our locally advanced RC population the status of RAS did not appear to significantly improve the selection of patients who may benefit from the use of an anti-EGFR therapy.

Prognostic impact of RAS mutations in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome

RAS is an oncogene frequently mutated in human cancer. RAS mutations have been reported in 10-15% of cases of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) but they appear to be less frequent among patients with myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). The impact of RAS mutations in patients with MDS is unclear. We conducted a retrospective study in 1,067 patients with newly diagnosed MDS for whom RAS mutational analysis was available. Overall, 4% of patients carried mutant RAS alleles. Notably, FLT3 mutations, which were found in 2% of patients, were mutually exclusive with RAS mutations. Patients with RAS mutations had a higher white blood cell count as well as bone marrow blasts compared with patients carrying wild-type RAS. However, no differences were observed between both groups regarding the risk of AML transformation (9% vs. 7%) and overall survival (395 days vs. 500 days, P = 0.057). In summary, RAS mutations are infrequent in patients with MDS and do not appear to negatively impact their outcome.

Current Management of Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia and the Impact of RAS Mutations

Juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia (JMML) is a rare clonal myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative disorder that affects young children. It is characterized by hypersensitivity of JMML cells to granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in vitro. The pathogenesis of JMML seems to arise from constitutional activation of the GM-CSF/RAS (a GTPase) signaling pathway, a result of mutations in RAS, NF1, PTPN11, and CBL that interfere with downstream components of the pathway. Most patients with JMML usually experience an aggressive clinical course, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is currently the only curative treatment, although the high rates of relapses and graft failures are of great concern. In contrast, a certain proportion of patients experience a stable clinical course for a considerable period of time, and sometimes the disease even spontaneously resolves without any treatment. Recent studies have provided us with increased knowledge of genotype-phenotype correlations in JMML, and suggested that differences in clinical courses may reflect genetic status. Thus, genotype-based management is of current international interest, especially for JMML with RAS mutations. Cumulative evidence suggests that RAS mutations can be related to favorable clinical outcomes, and HSCT may not have to be a mandatory therapeutic option for a portion of patients with this mutation, although a consensus regarding genotype-based management has not yet been achieved. Further efforts toward identifying which patients who will do well without HSCT are required.