Ctdna Assays Identify Alterations in RAS, EGFR, and Cmet That Are Unique to RAS-WT Patients Progressing on Anti-Egfr Therapy

R. Gupta,D. Chevalier,J. Saluja,C. Lau,C. Wang,M. Fakih
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy281.090
IF: 51.769
2018-01-01
Annals of Oncology
Abstract:Background: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) assays and tumor sequencing provide insight to tumor heterogeneity and mechanism of resistance in patients with MCRC. Direct comparisons between Guardant360® (G360) ctDNA panel and the comprehensive Foundation One® NGS (FO) panel in MCRC patients (pts) are limited. Methods: We identified MCRC pts with FO at diagnosis and subsequent G360 ctDNA assays. Pts were divided into 3 categories based on ctDNA collection date: 1) ctDNA testing prior to any treatment, 2) ctDNA following non-anti-EGFR therapy and 3) ctDNA following anti-EGFR progression (PD). We compared genomic alterations by FO and G360 within the same pts to characterize clonal evolution and its impact on outcome. Results: 43 pts with MCRC with FO had at least one ctDNA assay. High concordance between ctDNA and FO was noted in untreated pts (n = 11) for common oncogenic drivers, including RAS and BRAF. In 2/11 cases, 2 RAS mutations were identified on G360 only: NRAS E31D (unknown significance), and a low frequency G12D (0.3%) which may have been below the reporting limits for FO. Concordance was also noted in pts pre-treated with non-anti-EGFR therapy (n = 11). In contrast, ctDNA assays of RAS-wild type pts with PD following anti-EGFR (n = 19) showed a high rate of emergent activating KRAS [Q61H (3/19 cfDNA 0.08% -9.8%) and L19F (1/19 cfDNA 1.1%)], EGFR V441G (3/19 cfDNA 0.4%-7.9%), and FGFR2 mutations (2/19 cfDNA 1.8%-2.1%), suggesting that these are common mechanisms of resistance[VR1] . 1 pt had emergence of EGFR V441G mutation without any KRAS or NRAS mutations. Only 3 pts had serial ctDNA assays. 1 pt with BRAF V600E mutation developed cMET amplification after progressing following 6 months of response on BRAF + MEK + EGFR inhibitors. Upon withdrawal of targeted therapy, his cMET amplification resolved and he responded again to BRAF + EGFR inhibitors (5 months and ongoing), confirming clonal evolution in response to BRAF inhibitors and their withdrawal. Conclusions: In untreated and progressing anti-EGFR naïve pts, ctDNA provides an accurate assessment of oncogenic RAS and BRAF status. Clonal evolution is captured on ctDNA in response to anti-EGFR therapy and extends beyond emerging RAS mutations to EGFR mutations and cMET amplification. Legal entity responsible for the study: Marwan Fakih. Funding: Has not received any funding. Disclosure: All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?