Although therapeutically actionable molecular alterations are widely distributed across many cancer types, only a handful of them show evidence of clinical utility and are recommended for routine clinical practice in the management of cancers of colon and rectum (CRC). This 2021 update aims to provide a succinct summary on the use of prognostic and/or predictive biomarkers (expanded RAS, BRAF, microsatellite-high [MSI-H] or deficient mismatch repair [dMMR], neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase [NTRK] fusion genes, and human epidermal growth factor receptor type II [HER2] gene amplification) associated with CRC. Therapeutic implications of each relevant predictive or prognostic biomarker for patients with CRC are described, along with discussion on new developments on (1) biomarker-driven therapies such as testing of BRAF, MLH1 promoter methylation and MMR germline genes in differentiating sporadic CRC or hereditary conditions such as Lynch syndrome; (2) first-line use of immune checkpoint inhibitors in metastatic CRC; (3) risk stratification and therapy selection based on primary tumor location (left-sided vs. right-sided colon cancer); (3) atypical BRAF mutations; (4) use of EGFR directed therapy in the perioperative oligometastatic disease setting; (5) re-challenge of EGFR directed therapy and (6) personalizing therapy of fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan based on new evidence in pharmacogenomic testing. Data are collected and analyzed from available systematic reviews and meta-analyses of treatments with known therapeutic targets in CRC, which may be associated with predictive and/or prognostic biomarkers. Discussions are presented in an application-based format, with goal to empower pharmacists or other clinicians to gain awareness and understanding in biomarker-driven cancer therapy issues.
ChungCChristiansonM.Predictive and prognostic biomarkers with therapeutic targets in breast, colorectal, and non-small cell lung cancers: a systemic review of current development, evidence, and recommendation. J Oncol Pharm Pract2014;
20: 11–28.
2.
GaoXKahlARGoffredoP, et al.
Treatment of stage IV Colon cancer in the United States: a patterns-of-care analysis. J Natl Compr Canc Netw2020;
18: 689–699.
3.
PetrelliFTomaselloGBorgonovoK, et al.
Prognostic survival associated with left-sided vs right-sided colon cancer: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol2017;
3: 211–219.
De' AngelisGLBottarelliLAzzoniC, et al.
Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Acta Biomed2018;
89: 97–101.
6.
LaiYSunF.The relationship between microsatellite slippage mutation rate and the number of repeat units. Mol Biol Evol2003;
20: 2123–2131.
7.
RyanESheahanKCreavinB, et al.
The current value of determining mismatch repair status of colorectal cancer: a rational for routine testing. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol2017;
116: 38–57.
8.
BonnevilleRKrookMAKauttoEA, et al.
Landscape of microsatellite instability across 39 cancer types. JCO Precis Oncol2017;
1: 1–15.
9.
BacherJWClipsonLSteffenLS, et al. Microsatellite instability and its significance to hereditary andSporadic Cancer,http://doi.org/10.5772/65065 (accessed 1 October 2020).
10.
BolandCRThibodeauSNHamiltonSR, et al.
A National Cancer Institute Workshop on Microsatellite Instability for cancer detection and familial predisposition: development of international criteria for the determination of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer.Cancer Res1998.
58:5248–5257.
11.
UmarABolandCRTerdimanJP, et al.
Revised Bethesda guidelines for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (lynch syndrome) and microsatellite instability. J Natl Cancer Inst2004;
96: 261–268.
12.
XicolaRMLlorXPonsE, et al.; Gastrointestinal Oncology Group of the Spanish Gastroenterological Association.
Performance of different microsatellite marker panels for detection of mismatch repair deficient colorectal tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst2007;
99: 244–252.
13.
BartleyANHamiltonSRAlsabehR, et al.; Members of the Cancer Biomarker Reporting Workgroup, College of American Pathologists.Template for reporting results of biomarker testing of specimens from patients with carcinoma of the Colon and rectum. Arch Pathol Lab Med2014;
138: 166–170.
14.
GuillotinDMartinS.Exploiting DNA mismatch repair deficiency as a therapeutic strategy. Exp Cell Res2014;
329: 110–115.
15.
ShiaJKlimstraDSNafaK, et al.
Value of immunohistochemical detection of DNA mismatch repair proteins in predicting germline mutation in hereditary colorectal neoplasms. Am J Surg Pathol2005;
29: 96–104.
16.
ToyotaMAhujaNOhe-ToyotaM, et al.
CpG island methylator phenotype in colorectal cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA1999;
96: 8681–8686.
17.
HampelHFrankelWLMartinE, et al.
Feasibility of screening for lynch syndrome among patients with colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol2008;
26: 5783–5788.
KuiperRPVissersLEVenkatachalamR, et al.
Recurrence and variability of germline EPCAM deletions in lynch syndrome. Hum Mutat2011;
32: 407–414.
20.
ShiaJTangLHVakianiE, et al.
Immunohistochemistry as first-line screening for detecting colorectal cancer patients at risk for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer syndrome: a 2-antibody panel may be as predictive as a 4-antibody panel. Am J Surg Pathol2009;
33: 1639–1645.
21.
MvunduraMGrosseSDHampelH, et al.
The cost-effectiveness of genetic testing strategies for lynch syndrome among newly diagnosed patients with colorectal cancer. Genet Med2010;
12: 93–104.
22.
LeDTDurhamJNSmithKN, et al.
Mismatch repair deficiency predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade. Science2017;
357: 409–413.
23.
KoopmanMKortmanGAMMekenkampL, et al.
Deficient mismatch repair system in patients with sporadic advanced colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer2009;
100: 266–273.
24.
BolandCRGoelA.Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Gastroenterol2010;
138: 2073–2087.
25.
CunninghamJMChristensenERTesterDJ, et al.
Hypermethylation of the hMLH1 promoter in Colon cancer with microsatellite instability. Cancer Res1998;
58: 3455–3460.
26.
KaneMFLodaMGaidaGM, et al.
Methylation of the hMLH1 promoter correlates with lack of expression of hMLH1 in sporadic Colon tumors and mismatch repair-defective human tumor cell lines. Cancer Res1997;
57: 808–811.
27.
HutchinsGSouthwardKHandleyK, et al.
Value of mismatch repair, KRAS, and BRAF mutations in predicting recurrence and benefits from chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. JCO2011;
29: 1261–1270.
28.
JassJRDoKASimmsLA, et al.
Morphology of sporadic colorectal cancer with DNA replication errors. Gut1998;
42: 673–679.
29.
BenattiPGafàRBaranaD, et al.
Microsatellite instability and colorectal cancer prognosis. Clin Cancer Res2005;
11: 8332–8834.
30.
PopatSHubnerRHoulstonRS.Systematic review of microsatellite instability and colorectal cancer prognosis. J Clin Oncol2005;
23: 609–618.
31.
NCCN. Practice guidelines in oncology – colon cancer. V.4. 2020-June 15, 2020. Fort Washington, PA: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/colon.pdf (accessed 15 September 2020).
32.
NCCN. Practice guidelines in oncology – rectal cancer.V.6. 2020-June 25, 2020. Fort Washington, PA: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/rectal.pdf (accessed 15 September 2020).
33.
LabiancaRNordlingerBBerettaGD, et al.
Early colon cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol2013;
24: vi64–72.
34.
Van CutsemECervantesANordlingerB, et al.
Metastatic colorectal cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol2014;
25: iii1–9.
35.
Costas-ChavarriANandakumarGTeminS, et al.
Treatment of patients with early-stage colorectal cancer: ASCO resource-stratified guideline. J Glob Oncol2019;
5: 1–19.
36.
ArgilésGTaberneroJLabiancaR, et al.
Localised Colon cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol2020;
31: 1291–1305.
37.
GoldsteinJTranBEnsorJ, et al.
Multicenter retrospective analysis of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) with high-level microsatellite instability (MSI-H). Ann Oncol2014;
25: 1032–1038.
38.
VenderboschSNagtegaalIDMaughanTS, et al.
Mismatch repair status and BRAF mutation status in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: a pooled analysis of the CAIRO, CAIRO2, COIN, and FOCUS studies. Clin Cancer Res2014;
20: 5322–5330.
39.
JoWSCarethersJM.Chemotherapeutic implications in microsatellite unstable colorectal cancer. Cancer Biomark2006;
2: 51–60.
40.
SargentDJMarsoniSMongesG, et al.
Defective mismatch repair as a predictive marker for lack of efficacy of fluorouracil-based adjuvant therapy in Colon cancer. J Clin Oncol2010;
28: 3219–3226.
41.
InnocentiFOuFSQuX, et al.
Mutational analysis of patients with colorectal cancer in calgb/swog 80405 identifies new roles of microsatellite instability and tumor mutational burden for patient outcome. JCO2019;
37: 1217–1227.
42.
LeeMKCLoreeJM.Current and emerging biomarkers in metastatic colorectal cancer. Curr Oncol2019;
26: S7–S15.
43.
ValeroCLeeMHoenD, et al.
Response rates to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in microsatellite-stable solid tumors with 10 or more mutations per megabase. JAMA Oncol. Published online February 18, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.7684
44.
LeDTUramJNWangH, et al.
PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N Engl J Med2015;
372: 2509–2520.
45.
OvermanMJMcDermottRLeachJL, et al.
Nivolumab in patients with metastatic DNA mismatch repair-deficient or microsatellite instability-high colorectal cancer (CheckMate 142): an open-label, multicentre, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol2017;
18: 1182–1191.
46.
MarcusLLemerySJKeeganP, et al.
FDA approval summary: pembrolizumab for the treatment of microsatellite instability-high solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res2019;
25: 3753–3758.
47.
ChioreanEGNandakumarGFadeluT, et al.
Treatment of patients with late-stage colorectal cancer: ASCO resource-stratified guideline. JCO Glob Oncol2020;
6: 414–438.
48.
SepulvedaARHamiltonSRAllegraCJ, et al.
Molecular biomarkers for the evaluation of colorectal cancer: Guideline from the American Society for Clinical Pathology, College of American Pathologists, Association for Molecular Pathology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol2017;
35: 1453–1486.
49.
AndréTShiuKKKimTW, et al.; KEYNOTE-177 Investigators.
Pembrolizumab in microsatellite-instability-high advanced colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med2020;
383: 2207–2218.
50.
HeWZHuWMWangF, et al.
Comparison of mismatch repair status between primary and matched metastatic sites in patients with colorectal cancer. J Natl Compr Can Netw2019;
17: 1174–1183.
51.
YaegerR.Heterogeneity in microsatellite instability in metastatic colorectal cancer: mechanisms and clinical implications. J Natl Compr Canc Netw2019;
17: 1263–1264.
52.
YuGWuYWangW, et al.
Low-dose decitabine enhances the effect of PD-1 blockade in colorectal cancer with microsatellite stability by re-modulating the tumor microenvironment. Cell Mol Immunol2019;
16: 401–409.
53.
ChungKYShiaJKemenyNE, et al.
Cetuximab shows activity in colorectal cancer patients with tumors that do not express the epidermal growth factor receptor by immunohistochemistry. J Clin Oncol2005;
23: 1803–1810.
54.
Sartore-BianchiAMoroniMVeroneseS, et al.
Epidermal growth factor receptor gene copy number and clinical outcome of metastatic colorectal cancer treated with panitumumab. J Clin Oncol2007;
25: 3238–3245.
55.
CappuzzoFFinocchiaroGRossiE, et al.
EGFR FISH assay predicts for response to cetuximab in chemotherapy refractory colorectal cancer patients. Ann Oncol2008;
19: 717–723.
56.
DaviesHBignellGRCoxC, et al.
Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature2002;
417: 949–954.
57.
Cantwell-DorrisERO'LearyJJSheilsOM.BRAFV600E: implications for carcinogenesis and molecular therapy. Mol Cancer Ther2011;
10: 385–394.
58.
WanPTCGarnettMJRoeSM, et al.; Cancer Genome Project.
Mechanism of activation of the RAF-ERK signaling pathway by oncogenic mutations of B-RAF. Cell2004;
116: 855–867.
59.
RajagopalanHBardelliALengauerC, et al.
Tumorigenesis: RAF/RAS oncogenes and mismatch repair status. Nature2002;
418: 934.
60.
AllegraCJJessupJMSomerfieldMR, et al.
American society of clinical oncology provisional clinical opinion: testing for KRAS gene mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. J Clin Oncol2009;
27: 2091–2096.
61.
Laurent-PuigPCayreAManceauG, et al.
Analysis of PTEN, BRAF, and EGFR status in determining benefit from cetuximab therapy in wild-type KRAS metastatic Colon cancer. JCO2009;
27: 5924–5930.
62.
WangLCunninghamJMWintersJL, et al.
BRAF mutations in colon cancer are not likely attributable to defective DNA mismatch repair. Cancer Res2003;
63: 5209–5212.
63.
DomingoENiessenRCOliveiraC, et al.
BRAF-V600E is not involved in the colorectal tumorigenesis of HNPCC in patients with functional MLH1 and MSH2 genes. Oncogene2005;
24: 3995–3998.
64.
StricklerJHWuCBekaii-SaabT.Targeting BRAF in metastatic colorectal cancer: maximizing molecular approaches. Cancer Treat Rev2017;
60: 109–119.
65.
De RoockWClaesBBernasconiD, et al.
Effects of KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations on the efficacy of cetuximab plus chemotherapy in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective consortium analysis. Lancet Oncol2010;
11: 753–762.
66.
KopetzSGrotheyAYaegerR, et al.
Encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab in BRAF V600E-mutated colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med2019;
381: 1632–1643.
67.
TaberneroJGrotheyAVan CutsemE, et al.
Encorafenib plus cetuximab as a new standard of care for previously treated BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer: updated survival results and subgroup analyses from the BEACON study. J Clin Oncol2021;
39: 273–284.
68.
CremoliniCAntoniottiCLonardiS, et al.
Primary tumor sidedness and benefit from folfoxiri plus bevacizumab as initial therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Retrospective analysis of the tribe trial by gono. Ann Oncol2018;
29: 1528–1534.
69.
GeisslerMRiera-KnorrenschildJTannapfelA, et al.
mFOLFOXIRI + panitumumab versus FOLFOXIRI as first-line treatment in patients with RAS wild- type metastatic colorectal cancer m(CRC): a randomized phase II VOLFI trial of the AIO (AIO- KRK0109). JCO2018;
36: 3509–3509.
70.
JonesJCRenfroLAAl-ShamsiHO, et al.
Non-V600 BRAF mutations define a clinically distinct molecular subtype of metastatic colorectal cancer. JCO2017;
35: 2624–2630.
71.
WangYJonesJCKippBR, et al.
Activity of EGFR antibody in non-V600 BRAF mutant metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol2019;
30: 147–149.
72.
YaoZYaegerRRodrik-OutmezguineVS, et al.
Tumours with class 3 BRAF mutants are sensitive to the inhibition of activated RAS. Nature2017;
548: 234–238.
73.
KarouliaZWuYAhmedTA, et al.
An integrated model of RAF inhibitor action predicts inhibitor activity against oncogenic BRAF signaling. Cancer Cell2016;
30: 485–498.
74.
ConlinASmithGCareyFA, et al.
The prognostic significance of K-ras, p53, and APC mutations in colorectal carcinoma. Gut2005;
54: 1283– 1286.
75.
LiZNZhaoLYuLF, et al.
BRAF and KRAS mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer: future perspectives for personalized therapy. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf)2020;
8: 192–205.
76.
KarapetisCSKhambata-FordSJonkerDJ, et al.
K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med2008;
359: 1757–1765.
77.
BardelliASienaS.Molecular mechanisms of resistance to cetuximab and panitumumab in colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol2010;
28: 1254–1261.
78.
ScheffzekKAhmadianMRKabschW, et al.
The Ras-RasGAP complex: structural basis for GTPase activation and its loss in oncogenic ras mutants. Science1997;
277: 333–338.
79.
EdkinsSO'MearaSParkerA, et al.
Recurrent KRAS codon 146 mutations in human colorectal cancer. Cancer Biol Ther2006;
5: 928– 932.
80.
De RoockWJonkerDJDi NicolantonioF, et al.
Association of KRAS p.G13D mutation with outcome in patients with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab. JAMA2010;
304: 1812–1820.
81.
TejparSCelikISchlichtingM, et al.
Association of KRAS G13D tumor mutations with outcome in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy with or without cetuximab. J Clin Oncol2012;
30: 3570–3577.
82.
PeetersMDouillardJYVan CutsemE, et al.
Mutant KRAS codon 12 and 13 alleles in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: assessment as prognostic and predictive biomarkers of response to panitumumab. J Clin Oncol2013;
31: 759–765.
83.
RowlandADiasMMWieseMD, et al.
Meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy between KRAS G13D and other KRAS mutant metastatic colorectal cancer tumours. Eur J Cancer2016;
55: 122–130.
84.
IraharaNBabaYNoshoK, et al.
NRAS mutations are rare in colorectal cancer. Diagn Mol Pathol2010;
19: 157–163.
85.
CercekABraghiroliMIChouJF, et al.
Clinical features and outcomes of patients with colorectal cancers harboring NRAS mutations. Clin Cancer Res2017;
23: 4753–4760.
86.
NordlingerBSorbyeHGlimeliusB, et al.; Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive (FFCD).
Perioperative chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 and surgery versus surgery alone for resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer (EORTC intergroup trial 40983): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet2008;
371: 1007–1016.
87.
PrimroseJFalkSFinch-JonesM, et al.
Systemic chemotherapy with or without cetuximab in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis: the new EPOC randomized controlled trial. Lancet Oncol2014;
15: 601–611.
88.
OkiEEmiYYamanakaT, et al.
Randomised phase II trial of mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab versus mFOLFOX6 plus cetuximab as first-line treatment for colorectal liver metastasis (ATOM trial). Br J Cancer2019;
121: 222–229.
89.
StricklerJHLoreeJMAhronianLG, et al.
Genomic landscape of cell-free DNA in patients with colorectal cancer. Cancer Discov2018;
8: 164–173.
90.
SiravegnaGMussolinBBuscarinoM, et al.
Clonal evolution and resistance to EGFR blockade in the blood of colorectal cancer patients. Nat Med2015;
21: 795–801.
91.
MorelliMPOvermanMJDasariA, et al.
Characterizing the patterns of clonal selection in circulating tumor DNA from patients with colorectal cancer refractory to anti-EGFR treatment. Ann Oncol2015;
26: 731–736.
92.
LiuXGeorgeGCTsimberidouAM, et al.
Retreatment with anti-EGFR based therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer: impact of intervening time interval and prior anti-EGFR response. BMC Cancer2015;
15: 713.
93.
ParseghianCMLoreeJMMorrisVK, et al.
Anti-EGFR-resistant clones decay exponentially after progression: implications for anti-EGFR re-challenge. Ann Oncol2019;
30: 243–249.
94.
CremoliniCRossiniDDell'AquilaE, et al.
Rechallenge for patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer with acquired resistance to first-line cetuximab and irinotecan: a phase 2 single-arm clinical trial. JAMA Oncol2019;
5: 343–350.
95.
TolJKoopmanMCatsA, et al.
Chemotherapy, bevacizumab, and cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med2009;
360: 563–572.
96.
HechtJRMitchellEChidiacT, et al.
A randomized phase IIIB trial of chemotherapy, bevacizumab, and panitumumab compared with chemotherapy and bevacizumab alone for metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol2009;
27: 672–680.
97.
EllisLM.Epidermal growth factor receptor in tumor angiogenesis. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am2004;
18: 1007–1021.
98.
VallbohmerDZhangWGordonM, et al.
Molecular determinants of cetuximab efficacy. J Clin Oncol2005;
23: 3536–3544.
99.
SaltzLBadarinathSDakhilS, et al.
Phase III trial of cetuximab, bevacizumab, and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin vs. FOLFOX-bevacizumab in colorectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer2012;
11: 101–111.
100.
Sartore-BianchiATrusolinoLMartinoC, et al.
Dual-targeted therapy with trastuzumab and lapatinib in treatment-refractory, KRAS codon 12/13 wild-type, HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer (HERACLES): a proof-of-concept, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol2016;
17: 738–746.
101.
RaghavKPSOvermanMJYuR, et al.
HER2 amplification as a negative predictive biomarker for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. JCO2016;
34: 3517–3517. Abstract
102.
Sartore-BianchiAAmatuAPorcuL, et al.
HER2 positivity predicts unresponsiveness to EGFR-targeted treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncologist2019;
24: 1395–1402.
103.
Meric-BernstamFHurwitzHRaghavKPS, et al.
Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab for HER2-amplified metastatic colorectal cancer (MyPathway): an updated report from a multicentre, open-label, phase 2a, multiple basket study. Lancet Oncol2019;
20: 518–530.
104.
VaishnaviALeATDoebeleRC.TRKing down an old oncogene in a new era of targeted therapy. Cancer Discov2015;
5: 25–34.
105.
NakagawaraA.Trk receptor tyrosine kinases: a bridge between cancer and neural development. Cancer Lett2001;
169: 107–114.
106.
RubinJBSegalRA.Growth, survival and migration: the trk to cancer. Cancer Treat Res2003;
115: 1–18.
CoccoEBenhamidaJMiddhaS, et al.
Colorectal carcinomas containing hypermethylated MLH1 promoter and wild type BRAF/KRAS are enriched for targetable kinase fusions. Cancer Res2019;
79: 1047–1053.
109.
KhederESHongDS.Emerging targeted therapy for tumors with NTRK fusion proteins. Clin Cancer Res2018;
24: 5807–5814.
110.
ArdiniEBosottiRBorgiaAL, et al.
The TPM3–NTRK1 rearrangement is a recurring event in colorectal carcinoma and is associated with tumor sensitivity to TrkA kinase inhibition. Mol Oncol2014;
8: 1495–1507.
111.
Sartore-BianchiAAmatuABonazzinaE, et al.
Pooled analysis of clinical outcome of patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer treated within phase i/ii clinical studies based on individual biomarkers of susceptibility: a single-institution experience. Target Oncol2017;
12: 525–533.
112.
DrilonALaetschTWKummarS, et al.
Efficacy of larotrectinib in TRK fusion-positive cancers in adults and children. N Engl J Med2018;
378: 731–739.
113.
DemetriGDPaz-AresLFaragoAF, et al.
Efficacy and safety of entrectinib in patients with NTRK fusion-positive tumours: pooled analysis of STARTRK-2, STARTRK-1, and ALKA-372-001. Ann Oncol2018;
29: LBA17. abstract
CoccoESchramAMKulickA, et al.
Resistance to TRK inhibition mediated by convergent MAPK pathway activation. Nat Med2019;
25: 1422–1427.
116.
BessaXBallesteBAndreuM, et al.; Gastrointestinal Oncology Group of Spanish Gastroenterological Association.A prospective, multicenter, population-based study of BRAF mutational analysis for lynch syndrome screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol2008;
6: 206–214.
117.
MezaRJeonJRenehanAG, et al.
Colorectal cancer incidence trends in the United States and United Kingdom: evidence of right- to left-sided biological gradients with implications for screening. Cancer Res2010;
70: 5419–5429.
118.
BillerLHSchragD.Diagnosis and treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a review. JAMA2021;
325: 669–685.
119.
MissiagliaEJacobsBD'ArioG, et al.
Distal and proximal Colon cancers differ in terms of molecular, pathological, and clinical features. Ann Oncol2014;
25: 1995–2001.
120.
WangZXWuHXHeMM, et al.
Chemotherapy with or without anti-EGFR agents in left- and right-sided metastatic colorectal cancer: an updated meta-analysis. J Natl Compr Canc Netw2019;
17: 805–811.
121.
TranBKopetzSTieJ, et al.
Impact of BRAF mutation and microsatellite instability on the pattern of metastatic spread and prognosis in metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer2011;
117: 4623–4632.
122.
BufillJA.Colorectal cancer: evidence for distinct genetic categories based on proximal or distal tumor location. Ann Intern Med1990;
113: 779–788.
123.
MeguidRASlidellMBWolfgangCL, et al.
Is there a difference in survival between right- versus left-sided Colon cancers?Ann Surg Oncol2008;
15: 2388–2394.
124.
NawaTKatoJKawamotoH, et al.
Differences between right- and left-sided Colon cancer in patient characteristics, cancer morphology and histology. J Gastroenterol Hepatol2008;
23: 418–423.
125.
KirbyJABoneMRobertsonH, et al.
The number of intraepithelial T cells decreases from ascending Colon to rectum. J Clin Pathol2003;
56: 158.
126.
GillSRPopMDeboyRT, et al.
Metagenomic analysis of the human distal gut microbiome. Science2006;
312: 1355–1359.
127.
HolchJWRicardIStintzingS, et al.
The relevance of primary tumour location in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a Meta-analysis of first-line clinical trials. Eur J Cancer2017;
70: 87–98.
128.
TherkildsenCBergmannTKHenrichsen-SchnackT, et al.
The predictive value of KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA and PTEN for anti-EGFR treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Oncol2014;
53: 852–864.
129.
LoupakisFRuzzoACremoliniC, et al.
KRAS codon 61, 146 and BRAF mutations predict resistance to cetuximab plus irinotecan in KRAS codon 12 and 13 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer2009;
101: 715–721.
130.
ArnoldDLuezaBDouillardJY, et al.
Prognostic and predictive value of primary tumour side in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy and EGFR directed antibodies in six randomized trials. Ann Oncol2017;
28: 1713–1729.
131.
LongleyDHarkinDJohnstonP.5-Fluorouracil: mechanisms of action and clinical strategies. Nat Rev Cancer2003;
3: 330–338.
132.
Van KuilenburgABP.Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase and the efficacy and toxicity of 5-fluorouracil. Eur J Cancer2004;
40: 939–950.
133.
RosmarinDPallesCChurchD, et al.
Genetic markers of toxicity from capecitabine and other fluorouracil-based regimens: investigation in the QUASAR2 study, systematic review, and Meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol2014;
32: 1031–1039.
134.
MeulendijksDHenricksLMAmstutzU, et al.
Rs895819 in MIR27A improves the predictive value of DPYD variants to identify patients at risk of severe fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity. Int J Cancer2016;
138: 2752–2761.
135.
AmstutzUHenricksLMOfferSM, et al.
Clinical pharmacogenetics implementation consortium (CPIC) guideline for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase genotype and fluoropyrimidine dosing: 2017 update. Clin Pharmacol Ther2018;
103: 210–216.
136.
DeenenMJCatsAJSechterbergerMK, et al.
Safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and cost-effectiveness of upfront genotyping of DPYD in fluoropyrimidine therapy. JCO2011;
29: 3606–3606. Abstract
137.
HertzDLSahaiV.Including DPYD on cancer genetic panels to prevent fatal fluoropyrimidine toxicity. J Natl Compr Canc Netw2020;
18: 372–374.
138.
YoshinoTArnoldDTaniguchiH, et al.
Pan-Asian adapted ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a JSMO-ESMO initiative endorsed by CSCO, KACO, MOS, SSO and TOS. Ann Oncol2018;
29: 44–70.
139.
MeulendijksDHenricksLMSonkeGS, et al.
Clinical relevance of DPYD variants c.1679T>G, c.1236G>a/HapB3, and c.1601G>a as predictors of severe fluoropyrimidine-associated toxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Oncol2015;
16: 1639–1650.
140.
InnocentiFUndeviaSDIyerL, et al.
Genetic variants in the UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 gene predict the risk of severe neutropenia of irinotecan. JCO2004;
22: 1382–1388.
141.
GongQHChoJWHuangT, et al.
Thirteen UDPglucuronosyltransferase genes are encoded at the human UGT1 gene complex locus. Pharmacogenetics2001;
11: 357–368.
142.
BeutlerEGelbartTDeminaA.Racial variability in the UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 1 (UGT1A1) promoter: a balanced polymorphism for regulation of bilirubin metabolism?Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A1998;
95: 8170–8174.
143.
HallDYbazetaGDestro-BisolG, et al.
Variability at the uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase 1A1 promoter in human populations and primates. Pharmacogenetics1999;
9: 591–599.
de ManFMGoeyAKLvan SchaikRHN, et al.
Individualization of irinotecan treatment: a review of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacogenetics. Clin Pharmacokinet2018;
57: 1229–1254.
HahnRZAntunesMVVerzaSG, et al.
Pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenetic markers of irinotecan toxicity. Curr Med Chem2019;
26: 2085–2107.
151.
KumamotoKIshibashiKOkadaN, et al.
Polymorphisms of GSTP1, ERCC2 and TS-3'UTR are associated with the clinical outcome of mFOLFOX6 in colorectal cancer patients. Oncol Lett2013;
6: 648–654.
152.
ParkDJZhangWStoehlmacherJ, et al.
ERCC1 gene polymorphism as a predictor for clinical outcome in advanced colorectal cancer patients treated with platinum-based chemo- therapy. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol2003;
1: 162–166.
153.
NakajimaTEYamadaYShimodaT, et al.
Combination of O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase and thymidylate synthase for the prediction of fluoropyrimidine efficacy. Eur J Cancer2008;
44: 400–407.
154.
SakamotoJHamashimaHSuzukiH, et al.
Thymidylate synthase expression as a predictor of the prognosis of curatively resected colon carcinoma in patients registered in an adjuvant immunochemotherapy clinical trial. Oncol Rep2003;
10: 1081–1090.
155.
TianSSimonIMorenoV, et al.
A combined oncogenic pathway signature of BRAF, KRAS and PI3KCA mutation improves colorectal cancer classification and cetuximab treatment prediction. Gut2013;
62: 540–549.
156.
VelhoSOliveiraCFerreiraA, et al.
The prevalence of PIK3CA mutations in gastric and Colon cancer. Eur J Cancer2005;
41: 1649–1654.
157.
CauletMLecomteTBouchéO, et al.
Bevacizumab pharmacokinetics influence overall and progression-free survival in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Clin Pharmacokinet2016;
55: 1381–1394.
158.
PapachristosAKemosPKalofonosH, et al.
Correlation between bevacizumab exposure and survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncologist2020;
25: 853–858.
159.
AzzopardiNLecomteTTernantD, et al.
Cetuximab pharmacokinetics influences progression-free survival of metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res2011;
17: 6329–6337.
