4.7 Article

Expression of pEGFR and pAKT as response-predictive biomarkers for RAS wild-type patients to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancers

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 113, Issue 4, Pages 680-685

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2015.250

Keywords

metastatic colorectal cancer; cetuximab; panitumumab; RAS; EGFR; AKT; phosphoproteins; pEGFR; pAKT

Categories

Funding

  1. translational research programme INCa [2009-1-RT-03]
  2. FP7 APODECIDE

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: RAS wild-type (RAS(w/t)) tumours have been associated with better outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (mAb). We investigated the expression of EGFR downstream proteins under their active phosphorylated forms as potential markers in response to these patients. Methods: One-hundred tumour samples were collected from patients with mCRC refractory to FOLFOX and/or FOLFIRI and treated by a combination of chemotherapy with anti-EGFR mAb. The outcomes were measured on response evaluation criteria in solid tumour (RECIST), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). All samples were assessed for RAS and BRAF mutations, and the key phosphorylated proteins of EGFR downstream signalling were quantitatively analysed using the BioPlex Protein array. Results: Among the 60 RAS(w/t) patients, 45.0% achieved a complete or partial response when treated with anti-EGFR mAb. Expression of pAKT, pERK1/2 and pMEK1 was significantly lower in RAS(w/t) patients (P = 0.0246; P = 0.004; P = 0.0110, respectively). The response rate was significantly higher for RAS(w/t) patients who express pEGFR and pAKT (P = 0.0258; P = 0.0277, respectively). Conclusions: Overexpression of pEGFR and pAKT may predict the response rate in RAS(w/t) patients treated with anti-EGFR mAb. On the basis of our results, we hypothesise that the association of anti-EGFR mAb and anti-AKT therapies could be of interest.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available