Predictive biomarkers in metastatic colorectal cancer: A systematic review
Identificadores
Identificadores
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11940/15797
PMID: 32914007
DOI: 10.1200/PO.18.00260
ISSN: 2473-4284
Visualización ou descarga de ficheiros
Visualización ou descarga de ficheiros
Data de publicación
2019Título da revista
JCO PRECISION ONCOLOGY
Tipo de contido
Artigo
Resumo
PURPOSE: The development and use of predictive biomarkers to guide treatment decisions are paramount not only for improving survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but also for sparing them from unnecessary toxicity and reducing the economic burden of expensive treatments. We conducted a systematic review of published studies and evaluated the predictive biomarker landscape in the mCRC setting from a molecular and clinical viewpoint. METHODS: Studies analyzing predictive biomarkers for approved therapies in patients with mCRC were identified systematically using electronic databases. Preclinical studies and those providing no relevant information were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 173 studies comprising 148 biomarkers were selected for final analysis. Of all the biomarkers analyzed, 1.4% (two of 148) were explored in a prospective manner, whereas 98.6% (146 of 148) were evaluated in retrospective studies. Of the latter group, 78.8% (115 of 146) were not tested in subsequent phases, 9.6% (14 of 146) were tested in other retrospective cohorts, 8.9% (13 of 146) were retrospectively tested in at least one or more randomized cohorts, and only 2.7% (four of 146) were prospectively tested in a clinical trial. Finally, only 1.4% (two of 148) were validated sufficiently and are recognized as biomarkers for guiding treatment decision making in patients with mCRC. These markers were RAS mutational status for anti-EGFR antibodies and microsatellite instability status for anti-programmed cell death-1 drugs. CONCLUSION: Despite notable efforts to identify predictive biomarkers for various therapies used in the mCRC setting, because of a lack of data beyond retrospective studies and successful biomarker-driven approaches, only two molecular biomarkers have thus far found their translation into the clinic, highlighting the imperative need for implementing novel strategies and additional research in this clinically important field.