RAS mutations and cetuximab in locally advanced rectal cancer: results of the EXPERT-C trial.

Background: RAS mutations predict resistance to anti-epidermal growthfactor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancer. We analysed RAS mutations in 30 non-metastatic rectal cancer patients treated with or without cetuximab within the 31 EXPERT-C trial.

Methods: Ninety of 149 patients with tumours available for analysis were KRAS/BRAF wild-type, and randomly assigned to capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) followed by chemoradiotherapy, surgery and adjuvant CAPOX or the same regimen plus cetuximab (CAPOX-C). Of these, four had a mutation of NRAS exon 3, and 84 were retrospectively analysed for additional KRAS (exon 4) and NRAS (exons 2/4) mutations by using bi-directional Sanger sequencing. The effect of cetuximab on study end-points in the RAS wild-type population was analysed.

Results: Eleven (13%) of 84 patients initially classified as KRAS/BRAF wild-type were found to have a mutation in KRAS exon 4 (11%) or NRAS exons 2/4 (2%). Overall, 78/149 (52%) assessable patients were RAS wild-type (CAPOX, n = 40; CAPOX-C, n = 38). In this population, after a median follow-up of 63.8 months, in line with the initial analysis, the addition of cetuximab was associated with numerically higher, but not statistically significant, rates of complete response (15.8% versus 7.5%, p = 0.31), 5-year progression-free survival (75.5% versus 67.5%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.61, p = 0.25) and 5-year overall survival (83.8% versus 70%, HR 0.54, p = 0.20).

Conclusions: RAS mutations beyond KRAS exon 2 and 3 were identified in 17% of locally advanced rectal cancer patients. Given the small sample size, no definitive conclusions on the effect of additional RAS mutations on cetuximab treatment in this setting can be drawn and further investigation of RAS in larger studies is warranted.

Familial idiopathic methemoglobinemia revisited: original cases reveal 2 novel mutations in NADH cytochrome b5 reductase

In 1943, the first description of familial idiopathic methemoglobinemia in the United Kingdom was reported in 2 members of one family. Five years later, Quentin Gibson (then of Queen's University, Belfast, Ireland) correctly identified the pathway involved in the reduction of methemoglobin in the family, thereby describing the first hereditary trait involving a specific enzyme deficiency. Recessive congenital methemoglobinemia (RCM) is caused by a deficiency of reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NADH)-cytochrome b5 reductase. One of the original propositi with the type 1 disorder has now been traced. He was found to be a compound heterozygote harboring 2 previously undescribed mutations in exon 9, a point mutation Gly873Ala predicting a Gly291Asp substitution, and a 3-bp in-frame deletion of codon 255 (GAG), predicting loss of glutamic acid. A brother and a surviving sister are heterozygous; each bears one of the mutations. Thirty-three different mutations have now been recorded for RCM. The original authors' optimism that RCM would provide material for future genetic studies has been amply justified.

Is screening for Factor V Leiden and Prothrombin G20210A Mutations in Renal Transplantation worthwhile? Results of a large single-center U.K. study

This single center study is the largest series of renal transplant recipients and donors screened for the commonest prothrombotic genotypes. A total of 562 transplant recipients and 457 kidney donors were genotyped for the factor V Leiden and prothrombin G20210A mutations. The prevalence of heterozygous factor V Leiden was 3.4% and 2.6% and prothrombin G20210A was 2.0% and 1.1% in recipients and donors, respectively, similar frequencies to that of the general U.K. population. The 30-day and 1-year graft survival rates in recipients with thrombophilic mutations were 93% and 93%, compared with 88% and 82% in patients without these mutations (log-rank P =0.34). Thrombophilia in recipients (odds ratio 0.55; confidence interval 0.06-2.29; P =0.56) or in donors (odds ratio 1.53; confidence interval 0.27-5.74; P =0.46) did not correlate with graft loss at 30 days after transplantation. In contrast to recent reports, this study did not demonstrate an association between thrombophilia and renal allograft loss, and routine screening is not recommended.