4893

NRAS

neuroblastoma RAS viral (v-ras) oncogene homolog;NRAS;neuroblastoma RAS viral (v-ras) oncogene homolog

GTPase NRas|N-ras protein part 4|transforming protein N-Ras|v-ras neuroblastoma RAS viral oncogene homolog

1p13.2

protein-coding

BACKGROUND: Following the discovery that mutant KRAS is associated with resistance to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies, the tumours of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer are now profiled for seven KRAS mutations before receiving cetuximab or panitumumab. However, most patients with KRAS wild-type tumours still do not respond. We studied the effect of other downstream mutations on the efficacy of cetuximab in, to our knowledge, the largest cohort to date of patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab plus chemotherapy in the pre-KRAS selection era. METHODS: 1022 tumour DNA samples (73 from fresh-frozen and 949 from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue) from patients treated with cetuximab between 2001 and 2008 were gathered from 11 centres in seven European countries. 773 primary tumour samples had sufficient quality DNA and were included in mutation frequency analyses; mass spectrometry genotyping of tumour samples for KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA was done centrally. We analysed objective response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival in molecularly defined subgroups of the 649 chemotherapy-refractory patients treated with cetuximab plus chemotherapy. FINDINGS: 40.0% (299/747) of the tumours harboured a KRAS mutation, 14.5% (108/743) harboured a PIK3CA mutation (of which 68.5% [74/108] were located in exon 9 and 20.4% [22/108] in exon 20), 4.7% (36/761) harboured a BRAF mutation, and 2.6% (17/644) harboured an NRAS mutation. KRAS mutants did not derive benefit compared with wild types, with a response rate of 6.7% (17/253) versus 35.8% (126/352; odds ratio [OR] 0.13, 95% CI 0.07-0.22; p<0.0001), a median PFS of 12 weeks versus 24 weeks (hazard ratio [HR] 1.98, 1.66-2.36; p<0.0001), and a median overall survival of 32 weeks versus 50 weeks (1.75, 1.47-2.09; p<0.0001). In KRAS wild types, carriers of BRAF and NRAS mutations had a significantly lower response rate than did BRAF and NRAS wild types, with a response rate of 8.3% (2/24) in carriers of BRAF mutations versus 38.0% in BRAF wild types (124/326; OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02-0.51; p=0.0012); and 7.7% (1/13) in carriers of NRAS mutations versus 38.1% in NRAS wild types (110/289; OR 0.14, 0.007-0.70; p=0.013). PIK3CA exon 9 mutations had no effect, whereas exon 20 mutations were associated with a worse outcome compared with wild types, with a response rate of 0.0% (0/9) versus 36.8% (121/329; OR 0.00, 0.00-0.89; p=0.029), a median PFS of 11.5 weeks versus 24 weeks (HR 2.52, 1.33-4.78; p=0.013), and a median overall survival of 34 weeks versus 51 weeks (3.29, 1.60-6.74; p=0.0057). Multivariate analysis and conditional inference trees confirmed that, if KRAS is not mutated, assessing BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA exon 20 mutations (in that order) gives additional information about outcome. Objective response rates in our series were 24.4% in the unselected population, 36.3% in the KRAS wild-type selected population, and 41.2% in the KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA exon 20 wild-type population. INTERPRETATION: While confirming the negative effect of KRAS mutations on outcome after cetuximab, we show that BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA exon 20 mutations are significantly associated with a low response rate. Objective response rates could be improved by additional genotyping of BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA exon 20 mutations in a KRAS wild-type population. FUNDING: Belgian Federation against cancer (Stichting tegen Kanker).

There is conflicting evidence on the predictive role of KRAS status when cetuximab is added to oxaliplatin-based regimens. This study investigated the impact of KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, PI3KCA and TP53 status on outcome of elderly metastatic colorectal cancer patients enrolled in TEGAFOX-E (cetuximab, oxaliplatin and oral uracil/ftorafur--UFT) phase II study. Twenty-eight patients were enrolled and all were evaluable for safety and activity. Twenty-three specimens were analysed for KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, PI3KCA and TP53 mutational status by means of polymerase chain reaction and correlated with objective response, progression-free survival and overall survival. An evident increase of response rate was noted in KRAS/NRAS wild-type cases (70 versus 33%, P = 0.198). KRAS/NRAS wild-type status showed an independent association with a longer progression-free survival (44 versus 9 weeks, P = 0.009). Considering the combined assessment of BRAF, KRAS/NRAS and TP53, a trend towards an increase of response rate was noted in patients without mutations (83 versus 33%, P = 0.063). Moreover, patients with all wild-type genes had significantly longer progression-free survival than patients with any mutation (48 versus 10 weeks, P = 0.007). As a single biomarker, only KRAS/NRAS proteins maintained an independent value for outcome prediction. Patients with KRAS/NRAS, BRAF and TP53 wild-type tumours could derive the maximal benefits from treatment with cetuximab, oxaliplatin and UFT.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer that harbors KRAS mutations in exon 2 do not benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy. Other activating RAS mutations may also be negative predictive biomarkers for anti-EGFR therapy. METHODS: In this prospective-retrospective analysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX4) as compared with FOLFOX4 alone, according to RAS (KRAS or NRAS) or BRAF mutation status. A total of 639 patients who had metastatic colorectal cancer without KRAS mutations in exon 2 had results for at least one of the following: KRAS exon 3 or 4; NRAS exon 2, 3, or 4; or BRAF exon 15. The overall rate of ascertainment of RAS status was 90%. RESULTS: Among 512 patients without RAS mutations, progression-free survival was 10.1 months with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus 7.9 months with FOLFOX4 alone (hazard ratio for progression or death with combination therapy, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.90; P=0.004). Overall survival was 26.0 months in the panitumumab-FOLFOX4 group versus 20.2 months in the FOLFOX4-alone group (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.99; P=0.04). A total of 108 patients (17%) with nonmutated KRAS exon 2 had other RAS mutations. These mutations were associated with inferior progression-free survival and overall survival with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment, which was consistent with the findings in patients with KRAS mutations in exon 2. BRAF mutations were a negative prognostic factor. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Additional RAS mutations predicted a lack of response in patients who received panitumumab-FOLFOX4. In patients who had metastatic colorectal cancer without RAS mutations, improvements in overall survival were observed with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 therapy. (Funded by Amgen and others; PRIME ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00364013.).

NRAS mutations occur in 3-5% of colorectal cancer. Differently from KRAS and BRAF mutations, the role of NRAS mutations as prognostic and predictive markers in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been investigated to a lesser extent. A retrospective series suggested the role of NRAS mutations as predictors of resistance to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) in chemo-refractory patients with mCRC. In our study, KRAS codons 12, 13, 61 and BRAF codon 600 mutational status were evaluated in mCRCs referred to our Institution from 2009 to 2012. NRAS codons 12, 13 and 61 mutational status was analyzed in KRAS/BRAF wt patients. We collected pathological and clinical features in the overall population and outcome data in a subset of NRAS mutated chemo-refractory patients treated with anti-EGFR MoAbs in advanced lines. NRAS was mutated in 47/786 (6%) mCRCs. NRAS and KRAS mutated tumors did not show significant differences in terms of clinical and pathological characteristics, except for a lower prevalence of mucinous histology (p = 0.012) and lung metastases (p = 0.012) among NRAS mutated tumors. In the uni- and multivariate model, NRAS mutations were associated with shorter overall survival (OS) compared to all wt patients (median OS 25.6 vs 42.7 months; univ: HR = 1.91, 95% CI 1.39-3.86, p = 0.0013; multiv: HR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.1.3-2.72, p = 0.013). None of the chemo-refractory NRAS mutated patients evaluable for response to anti-EGFRs achieved response. In conclusion, NRAS mutations have a relevant incidence in patients with mCRC and showed an association with specific clinical and pathological features. NRAS mutations affect mCRC patients prognosis and predict lack of response to anti-EGFRs.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic significance of BRAF and NRAS mutations in metastatic melanoma patients remains uncertain, with several studies reporting conflicting results, often biased by the inclusion of patients treated with BRAF and MEK (MAPK) inhibitors. We therefore interrogated a historical cohort of patients free of the confounding influence of MAPK inhibitor therapy. METHODS: Patients with available archival tissue first diagnosed with metastatic melanoma between 2002 and 2006 were analysed. mutational analysis was performed using the OncoCarta Panel. Patient characteristics, treatment outcome and survival were correlated with BRAF/NRAS mutation status. RESULTS: In 193 patients, 92 (48%) melanomas were BRAF-mutant, 39 (20%) were NRAS-mutant and 62 (32%) were wild-type for BRAF/NRAS mutations (wt). There was no difference in response to chemotherapy based on mutation status (35-37%). The distant disease-free interval (DDFI) was significantly shorter in patients with wt melanoma (27.9 months vs 35.1 for BRAF and 49.1 for NRAS) although this was not significant in multivariate analysis. Survival from stage IV melanoma diagnosis was not significantly different based on mutation status. The DDFI was significantly shorter in patients with BRAF(V600K/R) versus BRAF(V600E) melanoma in univariate and multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: BRAF and NRAS mutation status does not influence survival in metastatic melanoma.