Investigating the clinical and molecular characteristics of class II and III BRAF mutations and their response to anti-EGFR therapy in MSS CRC: A comprehensive analysis.

274 Background: BRAF mutations (mts) are a heterogeneous group of molecular alterations seen in colorectal cancer (CRC). Class I BRAF mts (V600) are known to be associated with aggressive biology to CRC, but the knowledge of clinical characteristics of class II and III BRAF mts is limited. In this large cohort analysis, we evaluated the clinical and molecular features of class II and III BRAF mts and performed comparative analyses for their impact on survival outcomes. Methods: A total of 24402 MSS CRC samples were profiled by NGS (592-gene, NextSeq; WES, WTS NovaSeq) (Caris Life Sciences, Phoenix, AZ). BRAF mts were detected by NGS and classified using published literature (1). MAPK pathway activity score (MPAS) was calculated using RNA expression data. Real-world overall survival (OS) was obtained from insurance claims and calculated from tissue collection to last contact, while post-treatment survival from first treatment to last contact. KM estimates were calculated for defined patient cohorts. Significance was determined as P<0.05. Results: A total of 1270, 134, and 327 patients with class I, II, and III BRAF mts were identified. BRAF mts overall and class I BRAF mts were significantly less common among younger pts (age<50) compared to patients ≥ 50 (4.7% vs. 7.4 %; P< 0.001 and 3.2% vs. 5.7%, respectively, P<0.001). Class I BRAF mts were enriched with consensus molecular subtype 1 (CMS1) (class I, II, and III: 46% vs. 14% vs. 18% respectively) while class II and III mts had more CMS2 subtype compared to class I (2%, 30% and 29%, p<0.05). Higher MPAS scores were noted among patients with class I BRAF mts than those with class II and III mts (1.73 versus 0.38 vs 0.79). Class I BRAF mts and KRAS mts were nearly mutually exclusive (0.5%), while KRAS mts were relatively common among class II and III mts (12.8% and 27.4%, respectively). Median OS for patients with wild-type BRAF , class I, II, and III BRAF mts were significantly different (29.8, 17.3, 21.8, and 24.6 months, respectively, p<0.01). Similar OS was seen among patients who did not receive anti-EGFR therapy (28.3, 15.2, 20.7- and 21.9 months P<0.001). Patients with class III mts had significantly better OS compared to patients with class I mts (HR=1.28 CI: 1.09-1.48 p=0.002), and while no significant difference was noted for patients with class II vs class I mts, numerically more favorable outcomes were noted (mOS 21.8 vs 17.3 months P=0.133). Among treated with anti-EGFR, patients with class II and III BRAF mts had numerically better post-anti-EGFR survival compared to class I mts; however, this was not statistically significant (21.2 vs 14.2 vs. 10.4 respectively P=0.3). Conclusions: Class II and III BRAF mts represent a distinct biological subgroup of MSS CRC with distinct prognoses. Class II and III BRAF mts are associated with improved survival outcomes compared to patients with class I mts. 1. Sahin et al. JCO OP 2021.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2025-01-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2025.43.4_suppl.274
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Melanoma and MAPK Pathways
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.81
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Investigating the clinical and molecular characteristics of class II and III BRAF mutations and their response to anti-EGFR therapy in MSS CRC: A comprehensive analysis.

Emily Palumbo, Anup Kasi, John Paul Shen, Mohamedtaki Abdulaziz Tejani et al.
1 citations
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Melanoma and MAPK Pathways
0.81
article

Investigating the clinical and molecular characteristics of class II and III BRAF mutations and their response to anti-EGFR therapy in MSS CRC: A comprehensive analysis.

Emily Palumbo, Anup Kasi, John Paul Shen, Mohamedtaki Abdulaziz Tejani, Aatur Dilip Singhi, Sanjay Goel, İbrahim Halil Şahin, Anwaar Saeed, Matthew James Oberley, Benjamin A. Weinberg, Emil Lou, George W. Sledge, Anthony F. Shields, Mehmet Akce, Joanne Xiu, Moh’d Khushman, Vikram Gorantla
article en
1 citations

Abstract

274 Background: BRAF mutations (mts) are a heterogeneous group of molecular alterations seen in colorectal cancer (CRC). Class I BRAF mts (V600) are known to be associated with aggressive biology to CRC, but the knowledge of clinical characteristics of class II and III BRAF mts is limited. In this large cohort analysis, we evaluated the clinical and molecular features of class II and III BRAF mts and performed comparative analyses for their impact on survival outcomes. Methods: A total of 24402 MSS CRC samples were profiled by NGS (592-gene, NextSeq; WES, WTS NovaSeq) (Caris Life Sciences, Phoenix, AZ). BRAF mts were detected by NGS and classified using published literature (1). MAPK pathway activity score (MPAS) was calculated using RNA expression data. Real-world overall survival (OS) was obtained from insurance claims and calculated from tissue collection to last contact, while post-treatment survival from first treatment to last contact. KM estimates were calculated for defined patient cohorts. Significance was determined as P<0.05. Results: A total of 1270, 134, and 327 patients with class I, II, and III BRAF mts were identified. BRAF mts overall and class I BRAF mts were significantly less common among younger pts (age<50) compared to patients ≥ 50 (4.7% vs. 7.4 %; P< 0.001 and 3.2% vs. 5.7%, respectively, P<0.001). Class I BRAF mts were enriched with consensus molecular subtype 1 (CMS1) (class I, II, and III: 46% vs. 14% vs. 18% respectively) while class II and III mts had more CMS2 subtype compared to class I (2%, 30% and 29%, p<0.05). Higher MPAS scores were noted among patients with class I BRAF mts than those with class II and III mts (1.73 versus 0.38 vs 0.79). Class I BRAF mts and KRAS mts were nearly mutually exclusive (0.5%), while KRAS mts were relatively common among class II and III mts (12.8% and 27.4%, respectively). Median OS for patients with wild-type BRAF , class I, II, and III BRAF mts were significantly different (29.8, 17.3, 21.8, and 24.6 months, respectively, p<0.01). Similar OS was seen among patients who did not receive anti-EGFR therapy (28.3, 15.2, 20.7- and 21.9 months P<0.001). Patients with class III mts had significantly better OS compared to patients with class I mts (HR=1.28 CI: 1.09-1.48 p=0.002), and while no significant difference was noted for patients with class II vs class I mts, numerically more favorable outcomes were noted (mOS 21.8 vs 17.3 months P=0.133). Among treated with anti-EGFR, patients with class II and III BRAF mts had numerically better post-anti-EGFR survival compared to class I mts; however, this was not statistically significant (21.2 vs 14.2 vs. 10.4 respectively P=0.3). Conclusions: Class II and III BRAF mts represent a distinct biological subgroup of MSS CRC with distinct prognoses. Class II and III BRAF mts are associated with improved survival outcomes compared to patients with class I mts. 1. Sahin et al. JCO OP 2021.

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 43(4_suppl)
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US), University of Minnesota (US), The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US), University of Pittsburgh (US), Georgetown University (US), Wayne State University (US), Washington University in St. Louis (US), Georgetown University Medical Center (US), University of Alabama at Birmingham (US), Florida Hospital Cancer Institute (US), The Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute (US), The University of Kansas Cancer Center (US), UPMC Hillman Cancer Center (US), University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (US), Caris Life Sciences (United States) (US), Rutgers Cancer Institute (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 31%
Melanoma and MAPK Pathways
0.81
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.