Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Nov 18:JCO2500596.
doi: 10.1200/JCO-25-00596. Online ahead of print.

Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Consensus Molecular Subtypes as Biomarkers of First-Line Treatment in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Affiliations

Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Consensus Molecular Subtypes as Biomarkers of First-Line Treatment in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Arndt Stahler et al. J Clin Oncol. .

Abstract

Purpose: Consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are debatable biomarkers. An individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was performed to test for impact on objective response rates (ORRs), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), and treatment interaction.

Methods: IPD (RAS wild-type [WT] tumors treated per protocol [fluorouracil/capecitabine, irinotecan/oxaliplatin, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor {VEGF}/anti-epidermal growth factor receptor {EGFR} antibodies] and with evaluable CMSs) were collected from five trials identified in PubMed, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, and proceedings of ASCO/European Society for Medical Oncology: FIRE1 (no identifier), FIRE3 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00433927), XELAVIRI (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01249638), PanaMa (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01991873), and TRIBE2 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02339116). The one-step IPD meta-analysis approach assessed data taking the clustering of patients in the studies into account (ORR: generalized estimating equations models; PFS/OS: Cox models).

Results: Seven hundred ninety patients were included: CMS1, n = 77 (9.7%); CMS2, n = 345 (43.7%); CMS3, n = 74 (9.4%); and CMS4, n = 294 (37.2%). Between-study heterogeneity was negligible (variance < 1 × 10-6). Compared with CMS1, CMS2 and CMS4 tumors had numerically higher odds ratios (OR) for ORR (CMS2: OR, 1.668 [95% CI, 0.982 to 2.836]; P = .059; CMS4: OR, 1.369 [95% CI, 0.874 to 2.146]; P = .170), and longer PFS (CMS2: hazard ratios [HR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.85]; P = .002; CMS4: HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.50 to 0.91]; P = .009) and OS (CMS2: HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.80]; P < .001; CMS4: HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.49 to 0.92]; P = .01). The use of anti-EGFR versus anti-VEGF antibodies meaningfully improved PFS (HR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.46 to 0.97]; P = .03) and OS (HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.72]; P < .001) in CMS4 tumors and was consistently observed for CMS4 RAS/BRAF WT (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.83]; P = .004) or microsatellite stable status (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0.86]; P = .01). The interaction test of antibody treatment with CMSs was significant for PFS (P < .001) and OS (P < .001) in all patients and for OS in patients with RAS/BRAF WT tumors (P = .02).

Conclusion: CMS4 might be an additional biomarker of anti-EGFR treatment efficacy in RAS (and BRAF) WT mCRC.

PubMed Disclaimer

Associated data