Joanne B Weidhaas1, Jonathan Harris2, Dörthe Schaue1, Allen M Chen1, Robert Chin1, Rita Axelrod3, Adel K El-Naggar4, Anurag K Singh5, Thomas J Galloway6, David Raben7, Dian Wang8, Chance Matthiesen9, Vilija N Avizonis10, Rafael R Manon11, Omar Yumen12, Phuc Felix Nguyen-Tan13, Andy Trotti14, Heath Skinner4, Qiang Zhang2, Robert L Ferris15, David Sidransky16, Christine H Chung17. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles), Los Angeles, California. 2. NRG Oncology Statistics and Data Management Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, Kimmel Cancer Center, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. 5. Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York. 6. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. 9. Department of Radiation Oncology, Oklahoma University Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, Intermountain Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah. 11. University of Florida Health Cancer Center, Orlando Health, Orlando. 12. Department of Radiation Oncology, Geisinger Medical Center CCOP, Danville, Pennsylvania. 13. Department of Radiation Oncology, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 14. Department of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida. 15. Cancer Immunology Program and Tumor Microvenvironment Center, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 16. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 17. Department of Head and Neck-Endocrine Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: There is a significant need to find biomarkers of response to radiotherapy and cetuximab in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and biomarkers that predict altered immunity, thereby enabling personalized treatment. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS)-variant, a germline mutation in a microRNA-binding site in KRAS, is a predictive biomarker of cetuximab response and altered immunity in the setting of radiotherapy and cisplatin treatment and to evaluate the interaction of the KRAS-variant with p16 status and blood-based transforming growth factor β1 (TGF-β1). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 891 patients with advanced HNSCC from a phase 3 trial of cisplatin plus radiotherapy with or without cetuximab (NRG Oncology RTOG 0522) were included in this study, and 413 patients with available samples were genotyped for the KRAS-variant. Genomic DNA was tested for the KRAS-variant in a CLIA-certified laboratory. Correlation of the KRAS-variant, p16 positivity, outcome, and TGF-β1 levels was evaluated. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated with the Cox proportional hazards model. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The correlation of KRAS-variant status with cetuximab response and outcome, p16 status, and plasma TGF-β1 levels was tested. RESULTS: Of 891 patients eligible for protocol analyses (786 male [88.2%], 105 [11.2%] female, 810 white [90.9%], 81 nonwhite [9.1%]), 413 had biological samples for KRAS-variant testing, and 376 had plasma samples for TGF-β1 measurement. Seventy patients (16.9%) had the KRAS-variant. Overall, for patients with the KRAS-variant, cetuximab improved both progression-free survival (PFS) for the first year (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.94; P = .04) and overall survival (OS) in years 1 to 2 (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.86; P = .03). There was a significant interaction of the KRAS-variant with p16 status for PFS in patients treated without cetuximab. The p16-positive patients with the KRAS-variant treated without cetuximab had worse PFS than patients without the KRAS-variant (HR, 2.59; 95% CI, 0.91-7.33; P = .07). There was a significant 3-way interaction among the KRAS-variant, p16 status, and treatment for OS (HR, for KRAS-variant, cetuximab and p16 positive, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.03-1.66; HR for KRAS-variant, cetuximab and p16 negative, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.48-4.26; HR for KRAS-variant, no cetuximab and p16 positive, 2.48; 95% CI, 0.64-9.65; and HR for KRAS-variant, no cetuximab and p16 negative, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.23-1.59; P = .02). Patients with the KRAS-variant had significantly elevated TGF-β1 plasma levels (median, 23 376.49 vs 18 476.52 pg/mL; P = .03) and worse treatment-related toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients with the KRAS-variant with HNSCC significantly benefit from the addition of cetuximab to radiotherapy and cisplatin, and there is a significant interaction between the KRAS-variant and p16 status. Elevated TGF-β1 levels in patients with the KRAS-variant suggests that cetuximab may help these patients by overcoming TGF-β1-induced suppression of antitumor immunity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00265941.
IMPORTANCE: There is a significant need to find biomarkers of response to radiotherapy and cetuximab in locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and biomarkers that predict altered immunity, thereby enabling personalized treatment. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS)-variant, a germline mutation in a microRNA-binding site in KRAS, is a predictive biomarker of cetuximab response and altered immunity in the setting of radiotherapy and cisplatin treatment and to evaluate the interaction of the KRAS-variant with p16 status and blood-based transforming growth factor β1 (TGF-β1). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 891 patients with advanced HNSCC from a phase 3 trial of cisplatin plus radiotherapy with or without cetuximab (NRG Oncology RTOG 0522) were included in this study, and 413 patients with available samples were genotyped for the KRAS-variant. Genomic DNA was tested for the KRAS-variant in a CLIA-certified laboratory. Correlation of the KRAS-variant, p16 positivity, outcome, and TGF-β1 levels was evaluated. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated with the Cox proportional hazards model. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The correlation of KRAS-variant status with cetuximab response and outcome, p16 status, and plasma TGF-β1 levels was tested. RESULTS: Of 891 patients eligible for protocol analyses (786 male [88.2%], 105 [11.2%] female, 810 white [90.9%], 81 nonwhite [9.1%]), 413 had biological samples for KRAS-variant testing, and 376 had plasma samples for TGF-β1 measurement. Seventy patients (16.9%) had the KRAS-variant. Overall, for patients with the KRAS-variant, cetuximab improved both progression-free survival (PFS) for the first year (HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.94; P = .04) and overall survival (OS) in years 1 to 2 (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.86; P = .03). There was a significant interaction of the KRAS-variant with p16 status for PFS in patients treated without cetuximab. The p16-positive patients with the KRAS-variant treated without cetuximab had worse PFS than patients without the KRAS-variant (HR, 2.59; 95% CI, 0.91-7.33; P = .07). There was a significant 3-way interaction among the KRAS-variant, p16 status, and treatment for OS (HR, for KRAS-variant, cetuximab and p16 positive, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.03-1.66; HR for KRAS-variant, cetuximab and p16 negative, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.48-4.26; HR for KRAS-variant, no cetuximab and p16 positive, 2.48; 95% CI, 0.64-9.65; and HR for KRAS-variant, no cetuximab and p16 negative, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.23-1.59; P = .02). Patients with the KRAS-variant had significantly elevated TGF-β1 plasma levels (median, 23 376.49 vs 18 476.52 pg/mL; P = .03) and worse treatment-related toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients with the KRAS-variant with HNSCC significantly benefit from the addition of cetuximab to radiotherapy and cisplatin, and there is a significant interaction between the KRAS-variant and p16 status. Elevated TGF-β1 levels in patients with the KRAS-variant suggests that cetuximab may help these patients by overcoming TGF-β1-induced suppression of antitumor immunity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00265941.
Authors: Elena Ratner; Lingeng Lu; Marta Boeke; Rachel Barnett; Sunitha Nallur; Lena J Chin; Cory Pelletier; Rachel Blitzblau; Renata Tassi; Trupti Paranjape; Pei Hui; Andrew K Godwin; Herbert Yu; Harvey Risch; Thomas Rutherford; Peter Schwartz; Alessandro Santin; Ellen Matloff; Daniel Zelterman; Frank J Slack; Joanne B Weidhaas Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2010-07-20 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Christine H Chung; Qiang Zhang; Christina S Kong; Jonathan Harris; Elana J Fertig; Paul M Harari; Dian Wang; Kevin P Redmond; George Shenouda; Andy Trotti; David Raben; Maura L Gillison; Richard C Jordan; Quynh-Thu Le Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Kim De Ruyck; Fréderic Duprez; Liesbeth Ferdinande; Chamberlain Mbah; Emmanuel Rios-Velazquez; Frank Hoebers; Marleen Praet; Philippe Deron; Katrien Bonte; Ernst-Jan Speel; Louis Libbrecht; Wilfried De Neve; Philippe Lambin; Hubert Thierens Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2014-08-12 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Ilona Gutcher; Moses K Donkor; Qian Ma; Alexander Y Rudensky; Richard A Flavell; Ming O Li Journal: Immunity Date: 2011-03-25 Impact factor: 31.745
Authors: Brock C Christensen; Benjamin J Moyer; Michele Avissar; Lauren G Ouellet; Silvia L Plaza; Michael D McClean; Carmen J Marsit; Karl T Kelsey Journal: Carcinogenesis Date: 2009-04-20 Impact factor: 4.944
Authors: William C Spanos; Paul Nowicki; Dong Wook Lee; Andrew Hoover; Bruce Hostager; Anjali Gupta; Mary E Anderson; John H Lee Journal: Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2009-11
Authors: Robert Pilarski; Divya A Patel; Jeffrey Weitzel; Terri McVeigh; Jemima J Dorairaj; Helen M Heneghan; Nicola Miller; Joanne B Weidhaas; Michael J Kerin; Megan McKenna; Xifeng Wu; Michelle Hildebrandt; Daniel Zelterman; Sharon Sand; Lee P Shulman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-05-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: W Zhang; T Winder; Y Ning; A Pohl; D Yang; M Kahn; G Lurje; M J LaBonte; P M Wilson; M A Gordon; S Hu-Lieskovan; D J Mauro; C Langer; E K Rowinsky; H-J Lenz Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2010-07-05 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Paul L Swiecicki; Pin Li; Emily Bellile; Chaz Stucken; Kelly Malloy; Andrew Shuman; Matthew E Spector; Steven Chinn; Keith Casper; Scott McLean; Jeffery Moyer; Douglas Chepeha; Gregory T Wolf; Mark Prince; Carol Bradford; Mukesh Nyati; Avraham Eisbruch; Francis P Worden; Shruti Jolly; Michelle Mierzwa Journal: Head Neck Date: 2020-01-27 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Amar U Kishan; Nicholas Marco; Melanie-Birte Schulz-Jaavall; Michael L Steinberg; Phuoc T Tran; Jesus E Juarez; Audrey Dang; Donatello Telesca; Wolfgang A Lilleby; Joanne B Weidhaas Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 6.901