Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Nationwide evaluation of mutation-tailored anti-EGFR therapy selection in patients with colorectal cancer in daily clinical practice

  • Elisabeth M.P. Steeghs
  • , Geraldine R. Vink
  • , Marloes A.G. Elferink
  • , Quirinus J.M. Voorham
  • , Hans Gelderblom
  • , Iris D. Nagtegaal
  • , Katrien Grünberg
  • , Marjolijn J.L. Ligtenberg*
  • ,
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

4 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

For a nationwide real-word data study on the application of predictive mutation testing of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy stratification, pathology data were collected from the Dutch Pathology Registry from October 2017 until June 2019 (N=4060) and linked with the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Mutation testing rates increased from 24% at diagnosis of stage IV disease to 60% after 20–23 months of follow-up (p<0.001). Application of anti-EGFR therapy in KRAS/ NRAS wild-type patients was mainly observed from the third treatment line onwards (65% vs 17% in first/ second treatment line (p<0.001)). The national average KRAS/NRAS/BRAF mutation rate was 63.9%, being similar for next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based approaches and single gene tests (64.4% vs 61.2%, p=ns). NGS-based approaches detected more additional potential biomarkers, for example, ERBB2 amplifications (p<0.05). Therefore, single gene tests are suitable to stratify patients with mCRC for anti-EGFR therapy, but NGS is superior enabling upfront identification of therapy resistance or facilitate enrolment into clinical trials.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)706-711
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Clinical Pathology
Volume75
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2022

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Nationwide evaluation of mutation-tailored anti-EGFR therapy selection in patients with colorectal cancer in daily clinical practice'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this