Keywords
colon - neoplasm - Ras - Braf - ctDNA
Introduction
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second cause of death globally and the third most common
type of neoplasm.[1] When molecular targeted therapy and chemotherapy are combined, the median overall
survival (OS) for patients with metastatic disease is between 25 and 30 months.[2]
Surgery and chemotherapy are the backbones of treatment for localized CRC. The development
of biomarkers for targeted therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs):
epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors, BRAF inhibitors, HER2 inhibitors,
or NTRK inhibitors, have improved therapeutic strategies in metastatic setting. RAS and BRAF mutations, microsatellite instability (MSI), and mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR),
HER2 amplifications, and NTRK fusions are now predictive indicators for patients with metastatic disease.
In this review, we examine the latest predictive biomarkers for patients with metastatic
CRC (mCRC) and the new targeted therapy that include new developments for cancers
with BRAFV600E mutation, anti-HER2 therapies, NTRK inhibitors, and emerging issues
for anti-EGFR agents, such as primary tumor sidedness (PTS) and longitudinal follow-up
using circulating tumor deoxyribonucleic acid (ctDNA).
Materials and Methods
We have searched PubMed (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) for full-text articles published from 2017 to January 31, 2025, using the keywords
“colon,” “neoplasm,” “RAS,” ”BRAF,” and “ctDNA.” The full-text articles found were
carefully examined. In addition, all abstracts presented at international conferences
between January 2020 and January 2025 were reviewed.
Anti-EGFR Therapy and RAS/RAF Wild-Type mCRC
Anti-EGFR Therapy and RAS/RAF Wild-Type mCRC
Predictive Drivers of Anti-EGFR Agent Effectiveness
Anti-EGFR resistance in CRC patients is caused by activating mutations of KRAS and NRAS.[3] Thus, 40 to 50% of patients with CRCs have a KRAS mutation, while 4 to 8% have an NRAS mutation.[4]
KRAS exons 2, 3, and 4 (codons 12, 13, 59, 61, 117, and 146) and NRAS exons 2, 3, and 4 (codons 12, 13, 59, 61, and 117) are recommended for RAS mutation testing before starting any treatment in metastatic setting.[5]
[6] Anti-EGFR-targeting therapies are available for patients with KRAS/NRAS wild-type
(WT).
There exists additional mechanism of resistance, like the mutations of the EGFR ectodomain
that may implicate ineffectiveness of anti-EGFR.[7] In addition, although the BRAFV600E mutation was not officially shown to be a cause
of resistance to anti-EGFR (see below), it may also be connected to the overactivation
of a protein downstream from the EGFR in the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK)
pathway.[8] Monoclonal antibody (mAb) resistance may be a result of constitutional activation
of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR pathway by PIK3CA exon 20 mutation or PTEN deletion.[9]
[10] Also, resistance to anti-EGFR therapy appears to be linked to amplifications of
HER2, HER3, or MET and HER2-activating mutations.[11] Finally, the predictive significance of the microRNA miR-31-3p was recently revealed.
The RAS signaling pathway is largely activated by Mir-31, and elevated expression
of miR-31-3p may be an indication of the tumor's EGFR independence and, hence, its
resistance to anti-EGFR. Numerous post hoc analyses of randomized trials demonstrated
that miR-31-3p expression is a reliable indicator of anti-EGFR effectiveness.[12]
[13]
[14]
Management of Anti-EGFR Therapy
In adjuvant setting, resected stage III colon cancer, anti-EGFR mAbs do not improve
outcomes.[15] The NEW EPOC study raises concerns about the use of anti-EGFR mAbs in the perioperative
setting for patients with resectable liver metastasis in mCRC. According to this study,
cetuximab is detrimental to OS and disease-free survival when combined with chemotherapy.[16] Anti-EGFR mAbs may be useful as a converting therapy to reduce resectable metastatic
disease; however, they should not be used as a perioperative treatment for patients
with resectable mCRC.[17]
Cetuximab and panitumumab, two anti-EGFR mAbs largely used in clinical practice, have
been linked to better response rates, OS, and progression-free survival (PFS) in first-line
mCRC, in combination with regimens based on oxaliplatin or irinotecan, as well as
in second or later lines alone or in combination with chemotherapy.[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29] Recent data from the phase III study TAILOR reveal that cetuximab can be safely
added to FOLFOX for RAS WT mCRC patients,[30] even though NORDIC VII and COIN studies did not demonstrate a meaningful effect
of cetuximab in combination with an oxaliplatin-based regimen.[31]
[32] Except for chemoresistant disease, where the ASPECCT study demonstrated the noninferiority
of panitumumab compared to cetuximab in patients with chemotherapy-refractory KRAS
WT (exon 2) mCRC, there is no direct comparative study between cetuximab and panitumumab.[30]
[33]
The Role of the Sidedness
Anti-EGFR activity appears to be determined by PTS. There is mounting evidence that
PTS predicts responsiveness to anti-EGFR mAbs and it is a prognostic factor in RAS
WT population.[34] A retrospective study of six randomized trials (CRYSTAL, FIRE-3, CALGB 80405, PRIME,
PEAK, and 20050181) revealed that right-sided colon cancer had worse outcomes (OS,
PFS, and response rates) than left-sided tumors. In patients with left-side mCRC,
this meta-analysis demonstrated a predictive role of PTS. Indeed, chemotherapy plus
anti-EGFR mAbs had a better outcome than chemotherapy with bevacizumab in left side
mCRC.[35] The predictive role of PTS was limited to the KRAS WT population, according to a
recent retrospective analysis of the ARCAD database. This analysis also validated
the predictive role of PTS for cetuximab efficacy, with better results for patients
with left-sided mCRC.[36] Conversely, anti-EGFR therapies appear to have a worse effect on patients with RAS
WT right side mCRC.
Due to their retrospective nature, these results should be interpreted carefully,
but they indicate that anti-EGFR mAbs plus chemotherapy should only be used as first
line for patients with left-sided tumors KRAS/NRAS WT and that patients with right-sided
mCRC may benefit more from chemotherapy plus an antiangiogenic agent.[37]
Rechallenge and Liquid Biopsy
Tumor clones with an intrinsic mutation of resistance are selected during treatment
with anti-EGFR, causing acquired resistance to this drug. The tumor can recover sensitivity
when the anti-EGFR mAb is discontinued, since this removes the positive pression selection
on the sensitive clones. Tumor resistance can be overcome by a variety of methods,
including reintroduction, dose intensification, sequential therapy, and rechallenge;
in the case of anti-EGFR mAbs, rechallenge, this strategy appears to be the most promising.[38] For a tumor that first showed sensitivity to anti-EGFR therapy, retreatment following
a progression could be referred to as a challenge of anti-EGFR therapy.[39]
For rechallenge strategy, longitudinal follow-up of mutant clones is interesting.
According to studies using longitudinal ctDNA monitoring, RAS mutant clones developed
in blood during anti-EGFR therapy have a half-life of 4 to 5 months before declining
rapidly after end treatment.[40] The first prospective trial that demonstrated that a rechallenge strategy using
cetuximab and irinotecan might be effective in RAS/BRAF WT mCRC patients with acquired
resistance to cetuximab was the CRICKET phase II study. Blood samples from patients
who reported partial response did not show any RAS mutation.[41]
[42] The utility of liquid biopsy in the context of anti-EGFR rechallenge was assessed
in several clinical trials (i.e., CHRONOS, RASINTRO) that demonstrated the same results.[41]
Braf Mutation in mCRC
About 8 to 10% of mCRC exhibit BRAFV600E mutation, which causes a RAS- independent constitutional activation of the MAPK pathway promoting cell survival
and proliferation and being linked to a poor prognosis.[43] While 22% of all BRAF mutations in CRC occur outside of the V600E hotspot, these mutations do not have
the same biochemical, clinical, and therapeutic effects as the V600E mutation.[44] Although some may be responsive to EGFR, these BRAF non-V600E mutant tumors are
more likely to be left-sided, have a lower grade of differentiation, and have a better
prognosis. They are also resistant to BRAF inhibitors.[45]
[46] These genetic changes appear to not provide resistance to anti-EGFR therapy and
are linked to malignancies on the right side.[47]
[48]
Patients with BRAFV600E CRC are more likely to be older, female, and have right-sided
tumors with a mucinous component. Furthermore, these patients are also most prone
to have distant lymph node and peritoneal metastases, but fewer pulmonary metastases.[49] Significantly, the MSI phenotype, which is indicative of the effectiveness of ICIs
regardless of the BRAF mutational status, is present in around 22% of BRAFV600E mCRC.[50]
Compared to BRAF WT, BRAFV600E-mutated mCRC are less likely to get second- line therapies.
Intensification therapies appear to work well for these patients.[51]
[52]
[53] Compared to FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab,
first-line FOLFOXIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) plus
bevacizumab was linked to a nonsignificant improvement in OS for BRAFV600E mutants
in the TRIBE study.[54] For patients with BRAFV600E mCRC chemotherapy-naive, FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab is regarded
as a viable treatment choice, notwithstanding the limited population sample included
in this subgroup analysis. Crucially, a subgroup analysis on 33 patients BRAF Mut
V600E in the TRIBE2 phase III trial, which compared mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed
at progression from FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab like TML strategy, with FOLFOXIRI plus
bevacizumab stop and go did not reveal any survival benefit for BRAFV600E patients.[55] The Fire 4.5 study (AIO-KRK-0116) phase II trial evaluated the triplet chemotherapy
regimen with either cetuximab or bevacizumab (NCT04034459; see [Table 1]). The primary endpoint objective response rate (ORR) was on experimental arm of
51% and in the control arm of 61%.
Table 1
Ongoing clinical trials for patients with BRAFV600E metastatic colorectal cancer
|
Therapy
|
Phase
|
Condition
|
Primary endpoint
|
NCT identifier
|
|
Encorafenib1 + cetuximab2 + nivolumab4
|
1/2
|
2nd or 3rd line
|
ORR, DLT
|
NCT04017650
|
|
Encorafenib1 + binimetinib3 + nivolumab4
|
1/2
|
> 1st line
|
ORR, DLT
|
NCT04044430
|
|
Dabrafenib1 + trametinib3 + PDR 0014
|
2
|
Any line
|
ORR, DLT
|
NCT03668431
|
|
FOLFOXIRI + cetuximab2 or bevacizumab5
|
2
|
1st line
|
ORR
|
NCT04034459
|
|
FOLFIRI + cetuximab2 + vemurafenib1
|
2
|
−
|
ORR
|
NCT03727763
|
|
Irinotecan + AZD 17756
|
1
|
> 1st line
|
DLT
|
NCT02906059
|
|
Panitumumab2 + trametinib3
|
2
|
> 2nd line
|
ORR
|
NCT03087071
|
Abbreviations: DLT, dose-limiting toxicities; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor;
NCT, National Clinical Trial; ORR: objective response rate; VEGF, vascular endothelial
growth factor.
Note: 1RAF inhibitor; 2EGFR inhibitor; 3MEK inhibitor; 4anti-PD(L)-1; 5anti-VEGF; 6Wee-1 inhibitor.
Braf V600E Mutations and Antiangiogenic Drugs
To date, there are no studies that have demonstrated predictive markers for antiangiogenic
drugs, and their efficacy in BRAFV600E mCRC patients has not been demonstrated. Adding
bevacizumab to first-line IFL (bolus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and folinic acid) or
capecitabine did not increase survival, according to the AVF2107 and AGITG MAX36 studies.[56]
[57] Although the limited size of the patients did not allow the evaluation of statistical
significance, the VELOUR trial (FOLFIRI ± aflibercept) and the RAISE study (FOLFIRI
plus ramucirumab) demonstrated that patients with BRAF V600E mutations tended to benefit
from the antiangiogenic drugs in second line.[58]
[59] All things considered, this retrospective analyses imply that antiangiogenics in
first line may be helpful for patients with BRAFV600E mCRC.[60]
Anti-EGFR and BRAFV600E Mutations
It is unclear if anti-EGFR treatments, either alone or with chemotherapy, are effective
for BRAFV600E patients. There were two meta-analyses conducted. According to a meta-analysis
by Pietrantonio et al, patients with BRAFV600E do not respond well to anti-EGFR drugs.[61] However, no discernible difference in the impact of anti-EGFR drugs between the
BRAFV600E and BRAF WT populations was seen in another meta-analysis conducted by Rowland
et al.[62] Furthermore, the FIRE-3 study (first-line FOLFIRI plus cetuximab vs. FOLFIRI plus
bevacizumab in KRAS WT mCRC patients) revealed a greater response rate in the cetuximab
arm, according to a retrospective analysis of the BRAFV600E subgroup.[63] Also, the subset of BRAFV600E patients showed a significant increase in objective
response (71% vs. 22%, n = 14) in a recent study (VOLFI AIO KRK0109) evaluating the effectiveness of first-line
FOLFOXIRI with or without panitumumab.[18]
. However, despite the conflicting data, the European Society for Medical Oncology
and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines do not recommend the first-line
use of anti-EGFR in patients with Braf V600E mutated mCRC.
Inhibitors of BRAF
Unlike melanoma, BRAF inhibitors in mCRC alone were linked to unsatisfactory outcomes.
One theory is that BRAF inhibition may encourage MAPK constitutive signaling by triggering
feedback EGFR activation. One factor contributing to these cancers' innate resistance
to BRAF inhibitor monotherapy is the EGFR-mediated reactivation of downstream signaling
cascades.[64]
[65] Several combinations of BRAF inhibitors, anti-EGFR, PI3K inhibitors, or MEK inhibitors
were explored with this problem in mind, and the findings were intriguing.[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70] These studies provided support for the design of the phase III BEACON, which compared
chemotherapy (investigator choice regimen of cetuximab plus irinotecan or FOLFIRI)
with encorafenib and cetuximab ± binimetinib. Randomization was performed on 665 BRAFV600E
mCRC patients whose disease had progressed after one or two prior lines of chemotherapy.
In the triplet and doublet experimental arms, the median OS was 9.3 months, while
in the control arm, it was 5.9 months (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.60, 95% confidence interval
[CI] 0.47–0.75 and HR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.48–0.77, respectively).[64]
[71] A statistical improvement was observed in the ORR, which was 2% in the control group
and 20 and 26% in the doublet and triplet arms, respectively. The experimental groups
experienced cutaneous and gastrointestinal side effects, but the toxicity was tolerable,
with grade 3 or higher toxicities being similar across the three arms. Both the doublet
and triplet groups had a lower chance of quality-of-life decline by over 40%, according
to a supplemental quality-of-life analysis.
Recently was presented at ASCO GI 2025 the abstract of Breakwater study, a phase III
that compares first-line Braf Mut V600E mCRC, encorafenib plus cetuximab and FOLFOX
versus SOC. The primary endpoint, ORR, was met with a ORR of 60.9% for the experimental
arm and 40.0% (p = 0.0008) for the control arm.[72]
Targeted Therapies in Patients with Ras Mutations
Targeted Therapies in Patients with Ras Mutations
KRAS/NRAS mutations are present in more than 50% of patients with mCRC. As shown above,
they are inherently resistant to anti-EGFR mAbs. Although there are no predictive
biomarkers for the effectiveness of antiangiogenics (bevacizumab, aflibercept, and
ramucirumab), these drugs appear to be beneficial in this population.[59]
[73]
[74]
One of the mutations for which a drug target is being studied is G12C (glycine 12
to aspartic acid). For this population, a novel class of KRAS inhibitors may prove
revolutionary.[75] In the phase III Codebreak 300 study, AMG 510 (sotorasib) was administered in later
lines to patients with G12C mutation mCRC. The study included three arms. The first
enrolled patients with sotorasib 960 mg with panitumumab, the second arm sotorasib
240 mg with panitumumab. In the third arm, patients were started on treatment with
TAS 102 or regorafenib at the investigator's choice. The primary endpoint was PFS.
After a median follow-up of 7.8 months, PFS was 5.6, 3.9, and 2 months, respectively.
The statistical comparison between the first arm and the third arm was statistically
significant in favor of the experimental arm (95% CI, 0.30–0.78; p = 0.005).[76]
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Microsatellite Instability
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Microsatellite Instability
Microsatellite Instability, Mismatch Repair Deficiency, and Colorectal Cancers
From 10 to 15% of CRCs originate from the MSI pathway, the majority grow through the
chromosomal instability pathway (aneuploidy and loss of genetic material). A germline
mutation in the MMR genes (MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, MSH6) that predispose to Lynch syndrome or an epigenetic inactivation of MLH1 (i.e., sporadic
malignancies) results in a deficiency of the DNA dMMR pathway, so-called MSI. The
BRAFV600E mutation is commonly linked to these isolated occurrences.[77] About 10 to 15% of localized CRC and 4 to 5% of mCRC at the fourth stage, have MSI/dMMR.[43]
[78] The right colon is the primary site of origin for MSI/dMMR CRCs, which exhibit distinct
characteristics such as low differentiation, a high number of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes,
and characteristic metastatic patterns, including frequent distant lymph node metastases
and peritoneal involvement.[49] MSI/dMMR is linked to a good prognosis in localized CRC.[79]
[80] In metastatic disease, data are more controversial. However, the existing trials
indicates that, in comparison to microsatellite stable/MMR-proficient (MSS/pMMR) cancers,
MSI/dMMR mCRC are less susceptible to traditional treatment.[81]
[82]
[83]
High tumor mutational burden (hypermutated phenotype) and highly immunogenic neoantigens
resulting from frameshift mutations that cause high infiltration through activated
cytotoxic T CD8+ cells are characteristics of MSI/dMMR CRCs.[84]
[85]
[86] Nevertheless, immunological checkpoints are upregulated in MSI/dMMR cancers, shielding
MSI cancer cells from their tough immune environment.[87]
[88]
Immune System as a Target of Therapy
For patients with mCRC, MSI/dMMR has become a considerable prognostic biomarker for
the effectiveness of ICIs. MSI/dMMR cancers were linked to significant sensitivity
to immunotherapy (i.e., hot tumors), whereas MSS/pMMR CRCs are mostly resistant to
ICIs (i.e., cold tumors). Several phase II trials have shown that ICIs are effective
for patients with chemoresistant MSI/dMMR mCRC, with ORRs ranging from 33 to 58% and
12-month PFS rates between 31 and 71%.[50]
[89]
[90]
[91]
[92]
[93]
[94] Anti-PD1 and anti-CTLA4 mAb combinations may be more effective than anti-PD1 or
anti-PDL1 alone, according to the findings of the nonrandomized CheckMate-142 trial.
Indeed, in a third cohort of the CheckMate-142 study, 45 patients received nivolumab + ipilimumab
in first-line chemotherapy-naive MSI/dMMR mCRC, demonstrating the effectiveness of
ICIs as front-line treatment. The 1-year PFS estimate was 77%, and the ORR was 77%.[95] Another trial, the phase III KEYNOTE 177, demonstrated in fist line that pembrolizumab
monotherapy had better PFS in MSI/dMMR mCRC patients compared to standard-of-care
(investigator's choice of FOLFOX or FOLFIRI, with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab).
The primary endpoint, median PFS, were 16.5 and 8.2 months (HR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.45–0.80).
With pembrolizumab, the 12- and 24-month PFS rates were 55 and 48%, respectively,
while with chemotherapy, they were 37 and 19%. For patients with newly diagnosed MSI/dMMR
mCRC, pembrolizumab has become the standard of therapy.[96]
For patients with localized MSI/dMMR colon cancer, ICIs are presently being assessed.
Their development in this context was made possible by the NICHE phase II trial, which
may also improve treatment approaches for MSI/dMMR CRC in its early stages.[97] All 21 dMMR CRC patients experienced a pathological response in this trial evaluating
nivolumab with ipilimumab as a neoadjuvant treatment; 12 full pathological responses
were among the 95% of major responses. These remarkable outcomes demonstrate that
neoadjuvant immunotherapy is a viable approach that merits more investigation. In
the ATOMIC trial (NCT02912559; FOLFOX ± atezolizumab) and the POLEM trial (NCT03827044;
24 weeks of single agent fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy or 12 weeks of oxaliplatin-based
chemotherapy ± avelumab), ICIs are also assessed in conjunction with adjuvant chemotherapy
for patients with stage III MSI/dMMR colon cancer.[28]
Predictive Biomarkers in Immunotherapy
MSI/pMMR patients respond to ICIs for a short period and then develop resistance to
them. No other biomarkers are known to predict response to immunotherapy in this cohort
of patients. Interestingly, a considerable number of cases with primary resistance
to ICIs are caused by misinterpretation of MSI/dMMR status.[98]
[99]
The patients with tumors MSI/dMMR BRAF WT appear to be highly sensitive to ICI as
the patients with MSI/dMMR, BRAFV600E mutated.[50] The resistance to ICI was not linked to major histocompatibility complex class I
expression, beta-2-microglobulin mutations, or PD-1 expression.[100] ICI resistance in MSI/dMMR mCRC may be caused by loss-of-function mutations in Janus
kinases JAK1/2.[101] Remarkably, in two small cohort trials (less than 33 patients), the tumor mutational
burden was found to predict the effectiveness of ICI.[102]
[103] Interesting data, but not yet translatable to clinical practice, are available on
the immune infiltrate. The degree of T cell infiltration was associated with improved
response, PFS, and OS in a recent study by Loupakis et al.[99] Larger prospective studies should corroborate all of these findings.
HER2 and Anti-HER2
HER2 gene amplification is present between 1 and 8% of patients with CRC.[104]
[105]
[106]
[107]
KRAS WT status and HER2 overexpression are linked and are more present in left mCRC, with
a frequency of 4.3 to 5.4%.[108]
[109] To date, we know the role of HER2 as a negative prognostic factor for resistance
to anti-EGFR.[110]
[111]
The Heracles diagnostic criteria established a standard procedure for HER2 testing
in CRC, which included before immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis and, if necessary,
fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). An IHC 3+ score or an IHC 2+ score linked
to FISH positivity is used to define positivity.[112]
The effectiveness of anti-HER2 drugs for patients with HER2-positive mCRC is verified.
Phase II studies evaluated trastuzumab with lapatinib, trastuzumab plus pertuzumab,
and trastuzumab plus tucatinib (Heracles-A, MyPathway, and Mountaneer, respectively).
The median PFS was 4.7, 2.9, and 6.2 months, respectively, and response rates were
30, 32, and 55%.[113]
[114] The Mountaneer and Heracles-A studies did not include patients with HER2-positive
and KRAS-mutated mCRC; nevertheless, it is noteworthy that one patient with HER2-positive
and KRAS-mutated mCRC had an objective response in the MyPathway study.[113]
[114] The Heracles-B study, which involved the combination of pertuzumab and trastuzumab
emtansine, did not achieve its primary endpoint (ORR) but had a median PFS of 4.7
months.[115] According to a recent study from the DESTINY-CRC01 phase II trial, trastuzumab–deruxtecan
may change the future. This antibody drug conjugated, which consists of a topoisomerase
I inhibitor and an anti-HER2 antibody, was used to treat 50 patients with chemoresistant
HER2-positive mCRC. A confirmed ORR of 45% was obtained. With an ORR of 43.8%, this
treatment was beneficial even for individuals who had previously used anti-HER2 drugs.
Two patients succumbed to interstitial lung disease due to the drugs.
Although randomized trial data are insufficient for a thorough assessment of the additional
value of anti-HER2, these drugs are generally very appealing treatments for the HER2-positive
population. In patients with HER2-positive RAS/RAF WT mCRC, the only randomized study
currently in progress is a phase II trial that compares trastuzumab and pertuzumab
to cetuximab and irinotecan (SWOG S 1613 NCT03365882).
TRK Inhibitors and NTRK Gene Fusions
TRK Inhibitors and NTRK Gene Fusions
Recently, NTRK gene fusions have become a very appealing therapeutic target for cancer
patients. Regardless of the histology type, TRK inhibitors (entrectinib, larotrectinib)
showed remarkable therapeutic activity in various types of cancers. In single-arm
trials, entrectinib had an ORR of 57% with a time of response greater than 6 months
in 68% of patients, and larotrectinib demonstrated an ORR of 75% with a time of response
greater than 6 months in 73% of cases.[116]
[117] Due to these findings, the Food and Drug Administration has arranged a fast-track
approval for the use of the NTRK gene fusion to treat refractory solid tumors, regardless
of the kind of tumor.
Depending on the likelihood of NTRK fusion, screening methods for this mutation rely
on next-generation sequencing, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, and
immunohistochemical FISH.[118]
[119] With an incidence of 0.23 to 0.97%, NTRK fusions are uncommon in CRCs.[120]
[121]
[122]
[123] Females, right-sided initial tumor site, RAS/RAF WT status, and MSI phenotype are
characteristics of individuals with CRC that have NTRK fusion.[121] Interestingly, NTRK fusions were consistently linked to the MSI phenotype. More
specifically, hypermethylation of the MLH1 gene promoter appeared to be associated
with these genetic changes in BRAF WT tumors.[124]
[125] In this molecularly chosen sample, the estimated incidence of NTRK fusions was 42%.[48] The effectiveness of ICIs and NTRK inhibitors in this particular biological entity
is not yet known.
Conclusion
Over the past 10 years, notable progress has been achieved in tailoring treatment
plans for patients with mCRC. An expanded panel of biomarkers can be used to specifically
identify responders to anti-EGFR therapy, and ctDNA longitudinal follow-up can be
used to optimize therapeutic approaches. Previously untreated patients with BRAFV600E
mCRC now have access to efficient treatment alternatives. Beyond extremely attractive
but extremely uncommon targets like NTRK fusions and HER2 amplification, ICIs—a breakthrough
for patients with MSI/dMMR tumors—have brought about the most notable change in targeted
therapy for patients with CRC. Because of the significant improvement in patient outcomes,
researchers and clinicians were forced to consider CRC as at least two different diseases:
the MSI/dMMR tumors and the rest ([Table 2]). Crucially, methodological problems with the pseudoprogression phenomena and long-term
survivals are linked to the creation of ICIs. This finding emphasizes the need to
create novel study designs and to account for these problems in statistical analyses
that are planned in the future.
Table 2
Molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer and targeted treatment options
|
Molecular subtypes
|
Targeted therapies
|
|
MSI, whatever the RAS/RAF mutational status
|
Immune checkpoint inhibitor(s)
|
|
RAS/RAF wild-type
|
Anti-EGRF mAbs
|
|
BRAFV600E mutated
|
Encorafenib + cetuximab ± binimetinib
|
|
RAS mutated
|
No current targeted therapy, ongoing trials with new-generation KRAS inhibitors
|
|
HER2 amplified/mutated
|
Anti-HER2 mAbs/inhibitors (trastuzumab, pertuzumab, lapatinib), anti-HER2 antibody-drug
conjugate (trastuzumab deruxtecan)
|
|
NTRK fusion-positive
|
TRK inhibitor (larotrectinib, entrectinib)
|
Abbreviations: mAb, monoclonal antibody; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; MSI,
microsatellite instability; TRK, tropomycin receptor kinase.
