Molecular subtypes and outcomes in regorafenib-treated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) enrolled in the CORRECT trial
Abstract
3558 Background: In the CORRECT Ph3 trial (NCT01103323), regorafenib improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo in patients with mCRC who progressed on standard therapies (Grothey 2013). Initial biomarker analyses suggested that regorafenib provides a clinical benefit in various mutational subgroups (Jeffers 2013). Here we present additional exploratory analyses to evaluate clinical benefit in CRC subgroups defined by gene expression. Methods: Gene expression analysis (Affymetrix ST1.0 array) was conducted on archival tumor tissue from 281 of the 760 patients (37%) enrolled in CORRECT. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was done on 239 specimens (FoundationONE). Gene expression data were subjected to hierarchical molecular tumor classification (Marisa 2013). Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify potential prognostic or predictive biomarkers. Results: The distribution of the 6 different CRC subtypes characterized by gene expression clusters originally defined by Marisa and the classification of the 281 patients from CORRECT are shown in the table. The six Marisa subtypes derived a similar OS benefit from regorafenib. Although the numbers of patients in the subgroups are small, a greater PFS benefit for regorafenib was seen in patients in the ‘high-risk’ subgroup (C4 +C6, n = 26; HR = 0.10; 95%CI 0.02 - 0.35; p = 0.0009) than the ‘low-risk’ subgroup (C1+C2+C3+C5, n = 255; HR = 0.58; 95%CI 0.44 - 0.77; p = 0.002). NGS analyses suggested that the chromosomal instability group (CIN) was the predominant subgroup in CORRECT. Conclusions: Molecular characterization by gene expression analysis may allow the identification of CRC subgroups that correlate with regorafenib clinical benefit. Data suggest this does not depend on the presence of mutations. Additional exploratory analyses, including the use of the recently defined Consensus molecular subtypes (Dienstmann ASCO 2014), to validate these results are ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT01103323. Subtype CINImmuneDown (C1) dMMR (C2) KRASmutant (C3) CSC (C4) CINWntUp (C5) CINnormL (C6) Marisa (2013) 21% 19% 13% 10% 27% 10% CORRECT (n) 36% (100) 12% (33) 11% (32) 7% (19) 32% (90) 2% (7)
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Regorafenib increased progression-free survival versus placebo in CMS4 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (n = 26).
“| Kinases | Regorafenib | Increased PFS with regorafenib vs. placebo (n = 26 CMS4 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer) | (66) |”
From Clinical Challenges of Consensus Molecular Subtype CMS4 Colon Cancer in the Era of Precision Medicine (2024) · cites this paper as [66]
Positive responses have been reported for CMS4 patients treated with the multikinase inhibitor regorafenib.
“(iv) the multikinase inhibitor regorafenib (CORRECT trial; ref. 66; Table 2).”
From Clinical Challenges of Consensus Molecular Subtype CMS4 Colon Cancer in the Era of Precision Medicine (2024) · cites this paper as [66]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Molecular Insight of Regorafenib Treatment for Colorectal Cancer
Arai, H., Battaglin, F., Wang, J., Lo, J. H., Soni, S., Zhang, W., & Lenz, H.-J. (2019) · Cancer Treatment Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2019.101912 · Cited by 191 · see citing works
Self-citationMouillet-Richard, S., Cazelles, A., Sroussi, M., Gallois, C., Taieb, J., & Laurent-Puig, P. (2024) · Clinical Cancer Research · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-23-3964 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
- Authors
- Teufel, M., Schwenke, S., Seidel, H., Beckmann, G., Reischl, J., Vonk, R., Lenz, H.-J., Tabernero, J., Siena, S., Grothey, A., Van Cutsem, E., Jeffers, M., Wilhelm, S., Wagner, A., Laurent, D., Kobina, S., Rutstein, M. D., Wirapati, P., Guinney, J., & Tejpar, S.
- Affiliations
- Bayer Pharma AG, Berlin, Germany
- USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center (US)
- Vall d'Hebron Hospital Universitari (ES)
- Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda (IT)
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- University Hospitals Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium
- Bayer (United States) (US)
- Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Montville, NJ
- Bayer (Germany) (DE)
- SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (CH)
- Sage Bionetworks (US)
- KU Leuven (BE)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 2015-05-20
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 15_suppl
- Pages
- 3558-3558
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2592898585
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
- Type
- conference abstract
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
- Keywords
- metastatic colorectal cancer, regorafenib, molecular subtypes, gene expression clusters, chromosomal instability, consensus molecular subtypes, prognostic factors, predictive biomarkers, overall survival, progression-free survival, CORRECT trial, second-line therapy, tumor mutational burden, microsatellite instability, KRAS, BRAF, EGFR, PIK3CA
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review