EGFR Protein Expression of KRAS Wild-Type Colorectal Cancer: Predictive Value of the Sidedness for Efficacy of Anti-EGFR Therapy
- 79 Downloads
Right- and left-sided colorectal cancers (RSCRC and LSCRC, respectively) are different developmentally, genetically and prognostically. Clinical data also indicate that they respond differently to anti-EGFR therapies. The role of EGFR protein expression in KRAS wild type colorectal cancer is also controversial. Here we have used a cohort of anti-EGFR antibody treated KRAS-wild type colorectal cancer patients (n = 97) to analyse the prognostic role of EGFR protein expression in relation to sidedness. In our cohort EGFR copy number, determined by FISH, was not associated with the level of EGFR protein, assessed by immunohistochemistry and measured by H-scoring. There was a significantly higher EGFR H-score detected in RSCRC as compared to LSCRC in primary tumors (p = 0.04). Furthermore, in a proportion of cases (n = 31) metastatic tissues were also available and their analysis also found a significantly higher EGFR H-score in metastases of RSCRC compared to LSCRC (p = 0.018). Kaplan Meyer survival analysis demonstrated that anti-EGFR antibody therapies were more effective in case of LSCRC compared to RSCRC. Although in case of progression-free survival data just indicated a trend (p = 0.065), in case of overall survival the difference was significant favouring LSCRC (p = 0.047). These data demonstrated for the first time that the EGFR protein expression is significantly higher in KRAS wild type RSLCL as compared to LSCRC. Meanwhile it is somewhat unexpected that the lower EGFR protein expression was found to be associated with better efficacy of anti-EGFR antibody therapies of colorectal cancer, the finding of which must be further validated.
KeywordsColon cancer EGFR protein Sidedness Anti-EGFR therapy
This work was supported by MKOT (AU), NKFIH K-116151 (JT) and NVKP-16-1-2016-0004.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors do not report any conflict of interest concerning this manuscript.
- 4.Loree JM, Pereira AAL, Lam M, Willauer AN, Raghav K, Dasari A, Morris VK, Advani S, Menter DG, Eng C, Shaw K, Broaddus R, Routbort MJ, Liu Y, Morris JS, Luthra R, Meric-Bernstam F, Overman MJ, Maru D, Kopetz S (2018) Classifying colorectal cancer by tumor location rather than sidedness highlights a continuum in mutation profiles and consensus molecular subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 24:1062–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Tejpar S, Stintzing S, Ciardiello F, Tabernero J, van Cutsem E, Beier F, Esser R, Lenz HJ, Heinemann V (2017) Prognostic and predictive relevance of primary tumor location in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: retrospective analyses of the CRYSTAL and FIRE-3 trials. JAMA Oncol 3:194–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Cao DD, Xu HL, Xu XM, Ge W (2017) The impact of primary tumor location on efficacy of cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with different KRAS status: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget 8:53631–53641Google Scholar
- 15.Hecht JR, Mitchell E, Neubauer MA, Burris HA, Swanson P, Lopez T, Buchanan G, Reiner M, Gansert J, Berlin J (2010) Lack of correlation between epidermal growth factor receptor status and response to Panitumumab monotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res 16:2205–2213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Licitra L, Störkel S, Kerr KM, van Cutsem E, Pirker R, Hirsch FR, Vermorken JB, von Heydebreck A, Esser R, Celik I, Ciardiello F (2013) Predicitive value of epidermal growth factor receptor expression for first-line chenmotherapy plus cetuximab in patients with head and neck and colorectal cancer: analysis of data from the EXTREME and CRYSTAL studies. Eur J Cancer 49:1161–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Chung KY, Shia J, Kemeny NE, Shah M, Schwartz GK, Tse A, Hamilton A, Pan D, Schrag D, Schwartz L, Klimstra DS, Fridman D, Kelsen DP, Saltz LB (2005) Cetuximab shows activity in colorectal cancer patients with tumors that do not express the epidermal growth factor receptor by immunohistochemistry. J Clin Oncol 23:1803–1810CrossRefGoogle Scholar