LGCmain
Indian Journal of Pathology and Microbiology
Home About us Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Ahead Of Print Login 
Users Online: 1139
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size


 
  Table of Contents    
REVIEW ARTICLE  
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 64  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 43-51
Molecular targets in GI malignancies – A pathologist's perspective


Department of Medical Oncology, Dr. B. R. A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission04-Dec-2020
Date of Decision08-Feb-2021
Date of Acceptance07-Mar-2021
Date of Web Publication7-Jun-2021
 

   Abstract 


Newer molecular diagnostics and improved understanding of cancer pathogenesis have identified multiple pathways that can be potentially targeted with the use of novel therapeutics in development. These developments have ushered cancer therapeutics in newer era of personalized medicine. Same is reflected on current management strategies for advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. Molecular profiling for BRAF and RAS is standard for colorectal cancer while Her2 and PDL1 status is needed for planning therapy of advanced gastroesophageal cancers. Tissue agnostic markers like MSI, TMB and NTRK are making headways in therapeutic armamentarium. While newer targeted therapies against FGFR, EGFR, PI3K-AKT, DDR pathways are showing promising results in initial studies. Here we review traditional as well as upcoming molecular markers in field of GI malignancies, methods of testing and evidence for rational use in clinical practice.

Keywords: Gastrointestinal cancer, molecular targets, monoclonal antibodies, targeted therapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors

How to cite this article:
Pawar S, Sharma A. Molecular targets in GI malignancies – A pathologist's perspective. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2021;64:43-51

How to cite this URL:
Pawar S, Sharma A. Molecular targets in GI malignancies – A pathologist's perspective. Indian J Pathol Microbiol [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Jun 13];64:43-51. Available from: https://www.ijpmonline.org/text.asp?2021/64/5/43/317902





   Introduction Top


Treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) cancers has changed drastically over the last few decades. With the advent of newer and rapid sequencing techniques, and discovery of molecular targets, the use of drugs targeting these pathways has increased dramatically. Antibodies targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and angiogenic pathways are routinely used in the management of colon cancer.[1],[2] Most recently, immunotherapy has shown promising clinical efficacy in multiple types of GI cancers.[3] Although chemotherapy is the mainstay of treatments for the majority of GI cancers, novel agents either as single agents or in combination are being evaluated in clinical trials at an accelerated pace. Here, we review molecular biology of GI malignancies in short along with the major molecular targets that have demonstrated promising therapeutic activity in clinical trials. Literature search was done by PubMed using the Mesh headings “GI malignancy” and “molecular targets” or “targeted therapy”. We also searched Google Scholar with “allintitle: “GI Cancer” or “GI malignancy”, “Targeted therapy.”

Molecular alterations involved in pathogenesis of GI malignancies

With the description of hallmarks of cancers by Hanahan and Weinberg, we have understood that tumorigenesis involves complex interplay of various signaling pathways.[4] These signals can be autocrine, paracrine or endocrine in nature and act via various membrane/nuclear receptors including, but not limited to, G-protein-coupled receptors or enzyme-linked receptors. Interactions of these various pathways and genes regulating them as well as their role in cancer development has attracted a lot of attention over the last few decades leading to better understanding of pathogenesis and development of newer treatment options. Here, we will be reviewing, in short, major molecular pathways involved in the pathogenesis of common GI malignancies.

Esophageal and gastric cancers

Gastroesophageal cancers (GEJ) represent a major public health burden and prognosis remains poor even with current multimodality management. Overall, a 5-year survival rate of gastric cancer (GC) is 30% while it is 19% for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).[5],[6] Currently, with the use of gene expression profiling The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) research group and Asian Cancer Research Group (ACRG) has subdivided GC into four distinct molecular subtypes [Table 1] with different pathogenesis, prognosis and potentially targetable alterations.[7],[8] In contrast to GC, molecular mutational landscape for esophageal cancer (EC) is less well-studied. It is well-known that EC has two distinct clinic-pathological subtypes with different risk factors and molecular pathogenesis: adenocarcinoma (EAC) and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).[9] EAC is preceded by Barret's esophagus while ESCC is preceded by dysplasia; while exome sequencing has revealed mutations in TP53 (72%), engulfment and cell motility 1 (ELMO1) (25%), dedicator of cytokinesis 2 (DOCK2) (12%) and cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A (CDNK2A (12%). In addition, potentially targetable alterations in several oncogenes were also identified: Kirsten rat sarcoma (KRAS) (21%), humane epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) (19%), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) (16%) and mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor MET (6%),[9] which are summarized in [Table 2].
Table 1: TCGA and ACRG molecular subtypes of Gastric cancer

Click here to view
Table 2: Molecular alteration in ESCC and EAC

Click here to view


Biliary tract cancers and carcinoma gall bladder

Biliary tract cancers (BTC) which include cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and gallbladder cancer (GBC) carry poor prognosis with 5-year survival rates of 5-15%.[10],[11] Even after curative resection, the chances of relapse are high. With the ongoing research, it is now widely accepted that BTCs are a heterogeneous groups of disease with varied demographics, risk factors, pathogenesis, clinical presentation, treatment modalities and outcome [Table 3]. And these differences have paved the way for better understanding of molecular pathogenesis of BTCs. Multiple studies have identified various genetic alterations affecting specific molecular pathways [Table 3] based on whole-exome sequencing which can be exploited in clinical practice.[12],[13]
Table 3: Demographic, molecular and clinical heterogeneity of BTCs

Click here to view


Pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) is the most common type of pancreatic cancer accounting for >90% cases. As per surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database, 5-year overall survival (OS) for localized, locally advanced and metastatic disease is 29%, 11% and 3%, respectively.[14] Most commonly mutated pathways in PDA are those affecting telomere function and chromosome stability. Most commonly mutated gene in PDA is KRAS followed by p16. While rare but clinically actionable mutations are also seen in PDAs such as BRAC, BRAF, partner and localizer of BRCA2 (PALB2) and EGFR. The mutational landscape of most common and clinically actionable mutations in PDA is summarized in [Table 4].[15] Mutational signature patterns similar to breast cancer gene (BRCA2) are seen in around 12% cases, which can be targeted in clinical practice with the use of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors.[16] While mutations in microsatellite instability (MSI) genes are seen in around 1.5% cases.[17]
Table 4: Mutational landscape of PDA – Common and clinically actionable mutations

Click here to view


Adenocarcinoma colon

Globally, colorectal cancer (CRC) accounts for 10% of all the incidents of cancers, while it is accountable for 8% of cancer deaths.[6] The 5-year relative survival rate for stage I CRC is 92%. It ranges from 90 to 53% for stage IIA to IIIC, while for stage IV it is only 12%.[18] Whole-genome sequencing has identified molecular heterogeneity in colon cancer and has divided them into four consensus molecular subtypes (CMS): CMS1 (MSI immune), CMS2 (canonical), CMS3 (metabolic) and CMS4 (mesenchymal). CMS1 tumors are more common in females with right-sided lesions and are enriched in BRAF mutations. CMS2 tumors are mainly left sided. CMS4 tumors have a universally worse OS.[19] Most commonly mutated gene in CRC is adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) (85%) followed by TP53 (50%). While clinically actionable mutations like KRAS (35-40%), phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha (PIK3CA) (18-20%), BRAF (7-15%), NRAS (9%), mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (MET) (2-5%) and Her2 (2-3%) are also identified.[20] This molecular heterogeneity is summarized in [Figure 1] and can be used for identifying subgroups of colon cancer patients who can benefit with the use of targeted therapy.
Figure 1: Molecular heterogeneity in colon cancer

Click here to view


With the understanding of common molecular alterations and pathways involved according to specific site, we will now look into how each of these pathways can be targeted with the use of various agents in clinical practice.

Molecular pathways targeted in clinical trials

Antiangiogenic pathway

Angiogenesis is regulated by a complex interplay of various antiangiogenic and pro-angiogenic compounds like VEGF, platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), transforming growth factor (TGF), FGF and angiopoietin. With the discovery of VEGF and its effect on tumor proliferation, antiangiogenic agents targeting the VEGF pathway have been tried in various malignancies.[21] The VEGF family consists of five members (A, B, C, D and placental growth factor), which binds to VEGF receptors and are divided into three types (Types 1 to 3).[22] In clinical trials, VEGF pathway is targeted with the use of antibodies against VEGF like bevacizumab (monoclonal antibody against VEGF-A), vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) like ramucirumab (antibody against VEGFR-2) or TKIs with activity against VEGFR such as regorafenib.

In metastatic gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas, drugs targeting VEGF have failed to show survival benefit when used as upfront setting based on data from RAINFALL and RAINSTORM (for ramucirumab) and AVAGAST (for bevacizumab).[23],[24],[25] But when used in 2nd line with taxane -based chemotherapy, ramucirumab, which is a fully humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody against VEGFR-2, had shown improvement in the OS (5.2 months vs 3.8 months; HR 0.776, P = 0.047).[26] None of the TKIs targeting VEGF, like sorafenib (STARGATE), regorafenib (INTEGRATE) and pazopanib had shown benefit in gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas.[27],[28] Similarly, for BTCs, inhibition of VEGF pathway with the use of sorafenib and cediranib had failed to show any improvement in response rates as well as survival.[29],[30] In metastatic adenocarcinoma colon, addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy has shown improvement in progression free survival (PFS) in both 1st and 2nd line settings.[1],[31] Other antiangiogenic agents like ramucirumab, regorafenib or aflibercept had not shown improvement in survival when used in 1st line, but had been approved for use in 2nd line setting after progression on bevacizumab.[32],[33],[34]

Resistance to antiangiogenic agents is mediated by upregulation of bypass pathways like angiopoietin-mediated upregulation of RAS/RAF and PI3K/AKT pathway or upregulation of fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) pathway.[35] Dual blockage of VEGF along with angiopoietin-2 or FGF has shown positive effect in preclinical models and clinical trials are underway.

EGFR pathway

EGFR belongs to the ErbB/Her family, which has four members: ErbB1 to ErbB4. These get activated after homo- or heterodimerization through binding of specific ligands, mainly EGF and TGF-alpha. This leads to activation of downstream signaling pathways in the form of RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK, PI3K/AKT and JAK/STAT3 which are essential in cell growth, survival and migration.[36] Methods to target the EGFR pathway include anti-EGFR antibodies and TKIs targeting intracellular kinases.[37]

Targeting EGFR pathway has not met with much success in gastroesophageal or BTCs. Addition of anti-EGFR antibody to chemotherapy in 1st line metastatic GC has failed to improve PFS as shown in two phase III studies, EXPAND (Cetuximab) and REAL3 (Panitumumab).[38],[39] Similarly, for metastatic BTCs, addition of EGFR antibody or TKI to chemotherapy has failed to improve survival.[40] In contrast, the role of anti-EGFR antibodies is well-established in metastatic colorectal malignancies. Both Cetuximab and Panitumumab have been approved with chemotherapy in metastatic RAS wild-type CRC in 1st line, and 2nd line as well as in maintenance settings. In phase III CRYSTAL trial, it was found that Cetuximab plus had improved PFS (8.9 vs. 8 months, HR - 0.85; P - 0.048) than FOLFIRI alone, although the OS was not significant.[41] Similarly, in the PRIME trial combination of panitumumab with FOLFOX had better PFS (10 vs. 8.6 months, HR 0.80, P = 0.01) as compared to panitumumab alone.[42] Presence of RAS mutations (KRAS and NRAS exon 2, 3 and 4), BRAF mutations, Her2 amplifications as well as right-sided tumors are predictors for poor response to anti-EGFR therapy. Tumor sidedness has emerged as one of the important prognostic and predictive marker over the last few years in metastatic CRCs. Righ-sided tumors are enriched in MSI, BRAF or Her2 amplifications and respond poorly to anti-EGFR therapy than left-sided tumors.[43]

RAF/MEK/ERK pathway

RAF is a part of the MAPK pathway which is one of the most commonly mutated oncogenic pathways in cancers. It is one of the most important downstream signaling part of the RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway. Mutations in RAS are most common, followed by RAF and MEK mutations. BRAF mutations are seen in 7-10% of all malignancies, commonly observed in melanoma, thyroid cancer, colon cancer and lung adenocarcinoma.[44] These are divided into three classes, class 1 being most common. Class 1 mutations currently include only BRAFv600 mutations, which are seen in over 90% of all BRAF alterations. Currently, approved RAF inhibitors do not selectively inhibit BRAF and are active against ARAF and CRAF with similar potency, but they are approved only against class 1 mutations.[45] Inhibition of RAF signaling leads to independent activation of downstream MEK/ERK pathways, which is responsible for the increase in incidence of cutaneous adverse events and malignancies in patients receiving BRAF inhibitors, hence, combined blockage of RAF and MEK is commonly employed in clinical trials.

In GI malignancies, the best evidence for clinical activity of RAF inhibitors comes from trials in CRCs. In phase III BEACON trial, a combination regime of encorafenib, binimetinib and cetuximab led to better OS in patients with BRAF-mutated metastatic CRC than that achieved historically with a comparable rate of adverse events (OS: 9 vs. 5.4 months, HR – 0.52, P < 0.001).[46] Similarly, in gastric cancer, MEK inhibitor selumetinib combined with docetaxel has shown improvement in response rates in patients with RAS mutations.[47]

Her2 pathway

Her2 is one of the four human epidermal growth factor receptors. It forms homo/heterodimers with other Her family members and leads to downstream signaling activation.[48] Overexpression of Her2 can be detected using immuno-histo-chemistry (IHC), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) or next-generation sequencing (NGS). In GI malignancies, modified Hoffmann's method is used to determine degree of Her2 overexpression by IHC.[49] Most of the clinical trials have used IHC as well as FISH to determine Her2 expression. Her2 overexpression is seen in approximately 20% of gastric cancers. It is more common in GEJ tumors (33%) than in distal tumors (20%). It is also less commonly seen in diffuse gastric cancers (6%).[50] In BTCs, Her2 overexpression is common in gall bladder carcinomas ranging from 10 to 20% across various studies,[12],[13] while around 2-3% of CRCs show Her2 amplifications. There are multiple drugs which act on Her2 pathway which include 1. Anti-Her2 antibodies – trastuzumab and pertuzumab 2. Anti-Her2 antibody drug conjugates (ADC) – TDM1 and TDXd 3. Anti-Her TKI – lapatinib and neratinib.[51]

In metastatic Her2-positive gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas addition of chemotherapy with trastuzumab had shown to improve survival based on ToGA trial and is currently standard of care (SOC).[16] While other drugs like lapatinib, TDM1 and pertuzumab had failed to show benefit in 1st as well as 2nd line. Recently, another ADC trastuzumab deruxtican (TDXd) had shown OS benefit based on results of DESTINY Gastric 01 study.[52] There is limited retrospective data on the use of Her2-directed therapy in biliary cancers, and prospective trials are underway.[53] Similarly, evidence for use of Her2-directed therapy in colonic adenocarcinomas is based on phase 2 studies like Mypathway (for pertuzumab + Trastuzumab) and HERACLES (for trastuzumab + lapatinib).[54],[55]

MET pathway

Dysregulated MET pathway is an established oncogenic driver. MET is a proto-oncogene which codes for tyrosine kinase receptor c-MET for hepatocyte growth factor (HGF). Binding of HGF to MET receptors leads to dimerization and activation of downstream MAPK, PI3K, SRC and signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) pathways.[56] MET alterations occur as a result of three different genomic alterations: amplifications, mutations and fusions. These can be primary or secondary which can be de-novo or acquired following selective pressure of other TKIs.[57] In malignancies, increased MET activity promotes anti-apoptotic and pro-migratory signals. MET alterations can be detected with the use of NGS, PCR or FISH. Currently, MET amplification is defined as MET gene copy number >5. Other cutoffs like >6 or >15 are also followed according to various studies.[58],[59] In GI malignancies, MET alterations are seen between 6 and 17% depending on the type of method used. It is seen in around 4-10% of upper GI malignancies, while it is rare in colon cancers.[60] MET pathway can be targeted with the use of antibodies/ADCs against MET or HGF and selective MET TKIs.

In gastric cancer, phase III randomized control trials (RCTs) of MET inhibitors, rilotumumab and ornatuzumab in combination with chemotherapy have failed to show benefit as compared to chemotherapy alone.[61],[62] Similarly, in metastatic CRC, rilotumumab as well as ornatuzumab had failed to benefit in survival. TKIs targeting MET amplification or mutations, e.g., Capmatinib, Tepotinib and Savolitinib, are under clinical trial.[63],[64]

IDH1 mutations

Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH1) mutations were first identified in integrated genomic analysis of human glioblastomas.[65] In GI malignancies, the highest incidence is seen with CCA (20%) while rarely seen in CRC (1.19%) and pancreatic cancer (0.43%). These mutations are less common in eCCA (0-7.4%) and GBC (1.5%).[66] Mutated IDH1 leads to accumulation of 2-hydroxyglutarate (2-HG) which divers tumorigenesis. IDH1 mutations can be detected by use of next-generation sequencing or targeted PCR for hotspot codon 132 mutations on biopsy samples.[67] Ivosedinib is an oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH protein which was tried in phase III randomized ClarIDHy trial in mIDH1 BTCs, who had progressed on 1 or 2 prior lines of therapy. Ivosedinib improved PFS) from 1.4 to 2.4 months which was statistically significant.[68] It is seen in cell models that 2-HG accumulation also affects homologous recombination pathways and makes cells sensitive to PARP inhibitors.[69] A trial with olaparib in mIDH1 CCA is currently underway.

FGFR pathway aberrations

The FGFR family is characterized by seven receptors encoded by four FGFR genes. These are a class of receptor tyrosine kinases which need appropriate ligands for dimerization leading to activation of downstream signaling pathways such as PI3K-AKT pathway and Raf-MEK-ERK pathway. The downstream signaling regulates mesenchymal, antiapoptotic and mitogenic responses in cells. Till now, different aberrations leading to activation of the FGFR pathway have been identified which include 1. FGFR fusions 2. FGFR amplifications 3. FGFR mutations 4. Alternate splicing.[70] Of all GI malignancies, FGFR pathway aberrations specifically affecting FGFR2 are most commonly seen in ICCA (11-45%).[12] FGFR2 amplifications are also commonly reported from GC with frequencies ranging from 2 to 9% according to cohort studied,[71] while these are rare (0.5-1.5%) in PDA and carcinoma colon. Similarly, FGFR4 is also overexpressed in 38-44% of gastric cancers as has been associated with poor prognosis.[72] FGFR pathway aberration which include amplifications, mutations, fusion as well as splicing alterations can be collectively detected by use of NGS, while fusions and amplifications can be detected with the use of FISH.

There has been a growing interest in targeting these FGFR aberrations, especially in CCA. FIGHT-202 is a phase 2 trial of pemgatinib which is a selective oral inhibitor of FGFR1, 2 and 3 in previously treated CCA. The most common fusion partners seen in CCA were BicC family RNA binding protein 1 (BICC1) followed by KIAA1217 genes. Median OS in patients with FGFR fusions was 21.1 months, while it was 6.7 months in the other types of FGFR alterations as compared to 4 months in the comparator arm.[73] Similarly, FGFR signaling pathway has been targeted in GC with the use of various drugs like anti-FGFR monoclonal antibodies, FGF traps, selective and non-selective tyrosine kinase inhibitors, summarized in [Table 5].[74]
Table 5: List of drugs in clinical trials targeting FGFR pathway

Click here to view


Tissue agnostic biomarkers

Tissue agnostic approach is a highly personalized approach to cancer treatment emphasizing on detection of particular molecular alteration regardless of tumor type. FDA has given tumor agnostic approval for pembrolizumab and neurotrophic receptor tyrosine kinase (NTRK) inhibitors if a specific biomarker is present.

NTRK pathway

NTRK gene fusions involving NTRK1/2/3 are oncogenic drivers in various pediatric as well as adult tumors. These are proto-oncogenes which when constitutively activate drive oncogenesis.[75] The most common mechanism by which this occurs is NTRK fusions, while other mechanisms like alternate splicing, overexpression and mutations are also reported. Some malignancies are specially enriched in NTRK fusions such as secretory breast carcinoma, congenital mesoblastic nephroma and infantile fibrosarcomas with a prevalence of >90%.[76],[77] While these are rarely (<5%) seen in GI malignancies, available targeted therapies make them important. NTRK alterations can be detected by multiple ways, e.g., IHC, PCR, FISH and NGS. Most of the clinical trials have used NGS-based techniques for detection. It is important to note that even advanced DNA-based NGS assays miss some of the NTRK fusions specially involving NTRK2 and NTRK3, which can be identified with RNA NGS.[78] Targeted RNA sequencing in companion with DNA-based NGS is the most effective way of identifying NTRK fusions. FISH and RT-PCR are also acceptable alternatives, especially in tumors known to be rich in NTRK fusions. IHC using pan-TRK antibody for TRK overexpression is another surrogate of NTRK fusion, with specificity of 98% and sensitivity of 97%.[79] In resource-limited settings, it can be used as an initial screening following which positive results need to be confirmed with NGS.

Various multi-kinase inhibitors like crizotinib, ponatinib, nintedanib and nintedanib have activity against TRK receptors, while Larotrectinib and Entrectinib are selective 1st generation TRK inhibitors and furthest along clinical development. Both have shown response rates of 75% in heavily pretreated patients regardless of tumor histology and are FDA approved.[76],[80]

Microsatellite instability

Microsatellite unstable phenotype is the result of defective DNA mismatch repair (MMR) system leading to accumulation of mutations in DNA. This can be seen due to germline mutation in MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 or PMS2 or due to somatic mutations in these genes.[81] Most common somatic as well as genetic mechanism is promoter hypermethylation of MLH1 leading to silencing. It can be assessed with IHC or sequencing by PCR or NGS. As compared to PCR, IHC has a sensitivity of 90% and specificity of 99%.[82] In GI cancers, percentage of MSI phenotype is – EC (1.5%), GC (22%), CCA (1.5%), pancreatic cancer (1.5%) and colon cancer (20%).[83]

As somatic mutations have a chance of coding “non-self” immunogenic antigen, tumors with large numbers of somatic mutations as seen with MSI phenotype have a chance of responding to immunotherapy. Based on the results of five multicenter single-arm studies (Keynote-016, -164, -012, -028, -158) in patients with metastatic MSI-H tumors, pembrolizumab was approved by FDA as “first tissue agnostic approval.” It had shown overall response rates of 39.6% with median duration of response ranging from 1.6 to 22.7 months.[84],[85],[86]

Tumor mutational burden (TMB)

TMB is defined as the number of nonsynonymous somatic mutations per megabase in the coding region of DNA.[87] High TMB as a result of higher number of somatic mutations has the possibility of responding to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Keynote-158, tested pembrolizumab in a cohort of high TMB (defined as >10 mutations/megabase), which showed RR of 29% and median survival of 11.7 months.[86] Based on this, pembrolizumab was given tissue agnostic indication by FDA in high TMB tumors. Testing for TMB is currently done by using NGS for either whole-genome sequencing or whole-exome sequencing. Most of the clinical trials have utilized whole-genome sequencing. FDA has currently approved Foundation One CDx and MSK-IMPACT as companion diagnostic tests for detection of TMB.[88]


   Conclusion and Future Directions Top


Human genomic, transcriptional, proteomic and epigenetic details have been readily available in the past few decades, owing to evolving sequencing technologies. With the use of newer sequencing and molecular techniques, newer oncogenic driver pathways as well as resistance mechanisms to chemotherapy/targeted therapy are being elucidated. While the role of drugs targeting EGFR, Her2, BRAF or antiangiogenic pathways is already established with evidence from large clinical trials, there have been few clinical trials with drugs targeting alternative pathways like insulin like growth factor receptor (IGF-R), WNT, TGF-beta, NOTCH and Sonic Hedgehog (SHH). There is a large cross-talk between these pathways and the drugs targeting single molecular target have been largely unsuccessful.

While addition of targeted therapy is associated with improved outcomes there are also important drawbacks: 1. While there is improvement in response rates as well as PFS, very few agents have shown improvement in OS which is one of the important oncological end-point. 2. The cost effectiveness remains questionable as drugs are costly, need additional molecular/genetic testing and are not curative. 3. Additional targeted therapy can cause extra adverse events, some of which may be life threatening. 4. Efficacy is different among different people and currently there is a lack of good predictive marker to better select patient population. 5. As there is cross-talk between various pathways and existence of bypass mechanisms, emergence of drug resistance is inevitable for which cost=-effective solutions are not yet available. Even with the above challenges, addition of targeted therapy has improved outcomes in metastatic gastrointestinal malignancies. While newer targeted agents are being used in advanced settings either alone or in combination with existing therapies, trials are currently investigating the efficacy of established therapy in the front line and adjuvant curative setting.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Hurwitz H, Fehrenbacher L, Novotny W, Cartwright T, Hainsworth J, Heim W, et al. Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;350:2335–42.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Cunningham D, Humblet Y, Siena S, Khayat D, Bleiberg H, Santoro A, et al. Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2004;351:337–45.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Le DT, Uram JN, Wang H, Bartlett BR, Kemberling H, Eyring AD, et al. PD-1 Blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N Engl J Med 2015;372:2509–20.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: The next generation. Cell 2011;144:646–74.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Cancer of the Stomach - Cancer Stat Facts [Internet]. SEER. [Last cited on 2020 Jul 23]. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/stomach.html.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Cancer of the Esophagus - Cancer Stat Facts [Internet]. SEER. [Last cited on 2020 Jul 23]. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/esoph.html.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Bass AJ, Thorsson V, Shmulevich I, Reynolds SM, Miller M, Bernard B, et al. Comprehensive molecular characterization of gastric adenocarcinoma. Nature 2014;513:202–9.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Cristescu R, Lee J, Nebozhyn M, Kim K-M, Ting JC, Wong SS, et al. Molecular analysis of gastric cancer identifies subtypes associated with distinct clinical outcomes. Nat Med 2015;21:449–56.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Kim J, Bowlby R, Mungall AJ, Robertson AG, Odze RD, Cherniack AD, et al. Integrated genomic characterization of oesophageal carcinoma. Nature 2017;541:169–75.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Cancer of the Liver and Intrahepatic Bile Duct - Cancer Stat Facts [Internet]. SEER. [Last cited on 2020 Jul 23]. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/livibd.html.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Rahman R, Simoes EJ, Schmaltz C, Jackson CS, Ibdah JA. Trend analysis and survival of primary gallbladder cancer in the United States: A 1973–2009 population-based study. Cancer Med 2017;6:874–80.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Holcombe RF, Xiu J, Pishvaian MJ, Millis SZ, Gatalica Z, Reddy SK, et al. Tumor profiling of biliary tract carcinomas to reveal distinct molecular alterations and potential therapeutic targets. J Clin Oncol 2015;33(3 Suppl):285–285.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Javle M, Bekaii-Saab T, Jain A, Wang Y, Kelley RK, Wang K, et al. Biliary cancer: Utility of next-generation sequencing for clinical management. Cancer 2016;122:3838–47.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Cancer of the Pancreas - Cancer Stat Facts [Internet]. SEER. [Last cited on 2020 Jul 23]. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/pancreas.html.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Jones S, Zhang X, Parsons DW, Lin JC-H, Leary RJ, Angenendt P, et al. Core signaling pathways in human pancreatic cancers revealed by global genomic analyses. Science 2008;321:1801–6.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Golan T, Hammel P, Reni M, Van Cutsem E, Macarulla T, Hall MJ, et al. Maintenance olaparib for germline BRCA-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med 2019;381:317–27.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Dong X, Li Y, Chang P, Hess KR, Abbruzzese JL, Li D. DNA mismatch repair network gene polymorphism as a susceptibility factor for pancreatic cancer. Mol Carcinog 2012;51:491–9.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Cancer of the Colon and Rectum - Cancer Stat Facts [Internet]. SEER. [Last cited on 2020 Jul 23]. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/colorect.html.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Guinney J, Dienstmann R, Wang X, de Reyniès A, Schlicker A, Soneson C, et al. The consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer. Nat Med 2015;21:1350–6.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer. Nature 2012;487:330–7.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Goel HL, Mercurio AM. VEGF targets the tumour cell. Nat Rev Cancer 2013;13:871–82.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Ferrara N, Gerber H-P, LeCouter J. The biology of VEGF and its receptors. Nat Med 2003;9:669–76.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Fuchs CS, Shitara K, Bartolomeo MD, Lonardi S, Al-Batran S-E, Cutsem EV, et al. Ramucirumab with cisplatin and fluoropyrimidine as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic gastric or junctional adenocarcinoma (RAINFALL): A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:420–35.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Yoshikawa T, Muro K, Shitara K, Oh D-Y, Kang Y-K, Chung HC, et al. Effect of first-line S-1 plus oxaliplatin with or without ramucirumab followed by paclitaxel plus ramucirumab on advanced gastric cancer in east asia: The phase 2 rainstorm randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 2019;2:e198243.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Ohtsu A, Shah MA, Van Cutsem E, Rha SY, Sawaki A, Park SR, et al. Bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy as first-line therapy in advanced gastric cancer: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:3968–76.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Wilke H, Muro K, Cutsem EV, Oh S-C, Bodoky G, Shimada Y, et al. Ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in patients with previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (RAINBOW): A double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 20141;15:1224–35.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Kang Y, Lee KH, Shen L, Yeh K, Hong YS, Park YI, et al. Randomized phase Ii study of capecitabine and cisplatin with or without sorafenib in patients with metastatic gastric cancer: Stargate study. Ann Oncol 2014;25:iv210.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Pavlakis N, Sjoquist KM, Martin AJ, Tsobanis E, Yip S, Kang Y-K, et al. Regorafenib for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer (INTEGRATE): A multinational placebo-controlled phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:2728–35.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Moehler M, Maderer A, Schimanski C, Kanzler S, Denzer U, Kolligs FT, et al. Gemcitabine plus sorafenib versus gemcitabine alone in advanced biliary tract cancer: A double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre phase II AIO study with biomarker and serum programme. Eur J Cancer Oxf Engl 1990 2014;50:3125–35.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Valle JW, Wasan H, Lopes A, Backen AC, Palmer DH, Morris K, et al. Cediranib or placebo in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC-03): A randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:967–78.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Saltz LB, Clarke S, Díaz-Rubio E, Scheithauer W, Figer A, Wong R, et al. Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: A randomized phase III study. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2013–9.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Tabernero J, Yoshino T, Cohn AL, Obermannova R, Bodoky G, Garcia-Carbonero R, et al. Ramucirumab versus placebo in combination with second-line FOLFIRI in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma that progressed during or after first-line therapy with bevacizumab, oxaliplatin, and a fluoropyrimidine (RAISE): A randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 2015;16:499–508.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Grothey A, Cutsem EV, Sobrero A, Siena S, Falcone A, Ychou M, et al. Regorafenib monotherapy for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CORRECT): An international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2013;381:303–12.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Van Cutsem E, Tabernero J, Lakomy R, Prenen H, Prausová J, Macarulla T, et al. Addition of aflibercept to fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan improves survival in a phase III randomized trial in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated with an oxaliplatin-based regimen. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:3499–506.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Rigamonti N, Kadioglu E, Keklikoglou I, Wyser Rmili C, Leow CC, De Palma M. Role of angiopoietin-2 in adaptive tumor resistance to VEGF signaling blockade Cell Rep 2014;8:696–706.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Arteaga CL, Engelman JA. ERBB receptors: From oncogene discovery to basic science to mechanism - based cancer therapeutics. Cancer Cell 2014;25:282–303.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Tebbutt N, Pedersen MW, Johns TG. Targeting the ERBB family in cancer: Couples therapy. Nat Rev Cancer 2013;13:663–73.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Lordick F, Kang Y-K, Chung H-C, Salman P, Oh SC, Bodoky G, et al. Capecitabine and cisplatin with or without cetuximab for patients with previously untreated advanced gastric cancer (EXPAND): A randomised, open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:490–9.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Waddell T, Chau I, Cunningham D, Gonzalez D, Okines AFC, Wotherspoon A, et al. Epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine with or without panitumumab for patients with previously untreated advanced oesophagogastric cancer (REAL3): A randomised, open-label phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2013;14:481–9.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Malka D, Cervera P, Foulon S, Trarbach T, de la Fouchardière C, Boucher E, et al. Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin with or without cetuximab in advanced biliary-tract cancer (BINGO): A randomised, open-label, non-comparative phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014;15:819–28.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Van Cutsem E, Köhne C-H, Hitre E, Zaluski J, Chang Chien C-R, Makhson A, et al. Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1408–17.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Douillard JY, Siena S, Cassidy J, Tabernero J, Burkes R, Barugel M, et al. Final results from PRIME: Randomized phase III study of panitumumab with FOLFOX4 for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2014;25:1346–55.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Missiaglia E, Jacobs B, D'Ario G, Di Narzo AF, Soneson C, Budinska E, et al. Distal and proximal colon cancers differ in terms of molecular, pathological, and clinical features. Ann Oncol 2014;25:1995–2001.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Davies H, Bignell GR, Cox C, Stephens P, Edkins S, Clegg S, et al. Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature 2002;417:949–54.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Degirmenci U, Wang M, Hu J. Targeting aberrant RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling for cancer therapy. Cells 2020;9:198.  Back to cited text no. 45
    
46.
Kopetz S, Grothey A, Yaeger R, Van Cutsem E, Desai J, Yoshino T, et al. Encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab in BRAF V600E–mutated colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1632–43.  Back to cited text no. 46
    
47.
Lee J, Kim ST, Kozarewa I, Kim HK, Kim K, Mortimer PG, et al. Selumetinib plus docetaxel as second-line chemotherapy in KRAS mutant, KRAS amplified or MEK signatured gastric cancer patients: First arm of the umbrella trial in GC though the molecular screening, VIKTORY trial. J Clin Oncol 20180;36(15 Suppl):4061–4061.  Back to cited text no. 47
    
48.
Olayioye MA. Intracellular signaling pathways of ErbB2/HER-2 and family members. Breast Cancer Res 2001;3:385.  Back to cited text no. 48
    
49.
Hofmann M, Stoss O, Shi D, Büttner R, van de Vijver M, Kim W, et al. Assessment of a HER2 scoring system for gastric cancer: Results from a validation study. Histopathology 2008;52:797–805.  Back to cited text no. 49
    
50.
Abrahao-Machado LF, Scapulatempo-Neto C. HER2 testing in gastric cancer: An update. World J Gastroenterol 2016;22:4619–25.  Back to cited text no. 50
    
51.
Gerson JN, Skiara S, Denlinger CS, Astsaturov I. Perspectives of HER2-targeting in gastric and esophageal cancer. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2017;26:531–40.  Back to cited text no. 51
    
52.
Meeting Library | Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd; DS-8201) in patients with HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma: A randomized, phase II, multicenter, open-label study (DESTINY-Gastric01). [Internet]. Last cited on 2020 Jul 25]. Available from: https://meetinglibrary.asco.org/record/185492/abstract.  Back to cited text no. 52
    
53.
Javle M, Churi C, Kang HC, Shroff R, Janku F, Surapaneni R, et al. HER2/neu-directed therapy for biliary tract cancer. J Hematol Oncol 2015;8:58.  Back to cited text no. 53
    
54.
Meric-Bernstam F, Hurwitz H, Raghav KPS, McWilliams RR, Fakih M, VanderWalde A, et al. Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab for HER2-amplified metastatic colorectal cancer (MyPathway): An updated report from a multicentre, open-label, phase 2a, multiple basket study. Lancet Oncol 2019;20:518–30.  Back to cited text no. 54
    
55.
Sartore-Bianchi A, Trusolino L, Martino C, Bencardino K, Lonardi S, Bergamo F, et al. Dual-targeted therapy with trastuzumab and lapatinib in treatment-refractory, KRAS codon 12/13 wild-type, HER2-positive metastatic colorectal cancer (HERACLES): A proof-of-concept, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2016;17:738–46.  Back to cited text no. 55
    
56.
Ma PC, Maulik G, Christensen J, Salgia R. c-Met: Structure, functions and potential for therapeutic inhibition. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2003;22:309–25.  Back to cited text no. 56
    
57.
Lai GGY, Lim TH, Lim J, Liew PJR, Kwang XL, Nahar R, et al. Clonal MET amplification as a determinant of tyrosine kinase inhibitor resistance in epidermal growth factor receptor-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2019 10;37:876–84.  Back to cited text no. 57
    
58.
Cappuzzo F, Marchetti A, Skokan M, Rossi E, Gajapathy S, Felicioni L, et al. Increased MET gene copy number negatively affects survival of surgically resected non–small-cell lung cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2009;27:1667–74.  Back to cited text no. 58
    
59.
Graziano F, Galluccio N, Lorenzini P, Ruzzo A, Canestrari E, D'Emidio S, et al. Genetic activation of the MET pathway and prognosis of patients with high-risk, radically resected gastric cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011;29:4789–95.  Back to cited text no. 59
    
60.
Tovar EA, Graveel CR. MET in human cancer: Germline and somatic mutations. Ann Transl Med 2017;5:205.  Back to cited text no. 60
    
61.
Catenacci DVT, Tebbutt NC, Davidenko I, Murad AM, Al-Batran SE, Ilson DH, et al. Rilotumumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine as first-line therapy in advanced MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (RILOMET-1): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1467–82.  Back to cited text no. 61
    
62.
Shah MA, Bang Y-J, Lordick F, Tabernero J, Chen M, Hack SP, et al. METGastric: A phase III study of onartuzumab plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with metastatic HER2-negative (HER2-) and MET-positive (MET+) adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction (GEC). J Clin Oncol 2015;33(15 Suppl):4012–4012.  Back to cited text no. 62
    
63.
Mo H-N, Liu P. Targeting MET in cancer therapy. Chronic Dis Transl Med 2017;3:148–53.  Back to cited text no. 63
    
64.
Guo R, Luo J, Chang J, Rekhtman N, Arcila M, Drilon A. MET-dependent solid tumours — Molecular diagnosis and targeted therapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2020;17:569-87.  Back to cited text no. 64
    
65.
Yan H, Parsons DW, Jin G, McLendon R, Rasheed BA, Yuan W, et al. IDH1 and IDH2 mutations in gliomas. N Engl J Med 2009;360:765–73.  Back to cited text no. 65
    
66.
Borger DR, Tanabe KK, Fan KC, Lopez HU, Fantin VR, Straley KS, et al. Frequent mutation of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) 1 and IDH2 in cholangiocarcinoma identified through broad-based tumor genotyping. The Oncologist 2012;17:72–9.  Back to cited text no. 66
    
67.
Dang L, Yen K, Attar EC. IDH mutations in cancer and progress toward development of targeted therapeutics. Ann Oncol 2016;27:599–608.  Back to cited text no. 67
    
68.
Abou-Alfa G, Mercade T, Javle M, Kelley R, Lubner S, Adeva J, et al. LBA10_PRClarIDHy: A global, phase III, randomized, double-blind study of ivosidenib (IVO) vs placebo in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma (CC) with an isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutation. Ann Oncol 2019;30. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz394.027.  Back to cited text no. 68
    
69.
Sulkowski PL, Corso CD, Robinson ND, Scanlon SE, Purshouse KR, Bai H, et al. 2-Hydroxyglutarate produced by neomorphic IDH mutations suppresses homologous recombination and induces PARP inhibitor sensitivity. Sci Transl Med 2017;9:eaal2463.  Back to cited text no. 69
    
70.
Katoh M, Nakagama H. FGF receptors: Cancer biology and therapeutics. Med Res Rev 2014;34:280–300.  Back to cited text no. 70
    
71.
Das K, Gunasegaran B, Tan IB, Deng N, Lim KH, Tan P. Mutually exclusive FGFR2, HER2, and KRAS gene amplifications in gastric cancer revealed by multicolour FISH. Cancer Lett 2014;353:167–75.  Back to cited text no. 71
    
72.
Chen H, Shen D-P, Zhang Z-Z, Liu J-H, Shen Y-Y, Ni X-Z. Fibroblast growth factor receptor 4 protein expression and clinicopathological features in gastric cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2015;21:1838–44.  Back to cited text no. 72
    
73.
Abou-Alfa GK, Sahai V, Hollebecque A, Vaccaro G, Melisi D, Al-Rajabi R, et al. Pemigatinib for previously treated, locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma: A multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2020;21:671–84.  Back to cited text no. 73
    
74.
Yashiro M, Matsuoka T. Fibroblast growth factor receptor signaling as therapeutic targets in gastric cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2016;22:2415–23.  Back to cited text no. 74
    
75.
Vaishnavi A, Le AT, Doebele RC. TRKing down an old oncogene in a new era of targeted therapy. Cancer Discov 2015;5:25–34.  Back to cited text no. 75
    
76.
Drilon A, Laetsch TW, Kummar S, DuBois SG, Lassen UN, Demetri GD, et al. Efficacy of larotrectinib in TRK fusion-positive cancers in adults and children. N Engl J Med 2018;378:731–9.  Back to cited text no. 76
    
77.
Amatu A, Sartore-Bianchi A, Siena S. NTRK gene fusions as novel targets of cancer therapy across multiple tumour types. ESMO Open 2016;1:e000023.  Back to cited text no. 77
    
78.
Solomon JP, Benayed R, Hechtman JF, Ladanyi M. Identifying patients with NTRK fusion cancer. Ann Oncol 2019;30(Suppl 8):viii16–22.  Back to cited text no. 78
    
79.
Rudzinski ER, Lockwood CM, Stohr BA, Vargas SO, Sheridan R, Black JO, et al. Pan-Trk Immunohistochemistry Identifies NTRK rearrangements in pediatric mesenchymal tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 2018;42:927–35.  Back to cited text no. 79
    
80.
Drilon A, Siena S, Ou S-HI, Patel M, Ahn MJ, Lee J, et al. Safety and antitumor activity of the multitargeted Pan-TRK, ROS1, and ALK inhibitor entrectinib: Combined results from two phase I trials (ALKA-372-001 and STARTRK-1). Cancer Discov 2017;7:400–9.  Back to cited text no. 80
    
81.
Bonneville R, Krook MA, Chen H-Z, Smith A, Samorodnitsky E, Wing MR, et al. Detection of microsatellite instability biomarkers via Next-Generation Sequencing. Methods Mol Biol Clifton NJ 2020;2055:119–32.  Back to cited text no. 81
    
82.
Lindor NM, Burgart LJ, Leontovich O, Goldberg RM, Cunningham JM, Sargent DJ, et al. Immunohistochemistry versus microsatellite instability testing in phenotyping colorectal tumors. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:1043–8.  Back to cited text no. 82
    
83.
Bonneville R, Krook MA, Kautto EA, Miya J, Wing MR, Chen H-Z, et al. Landscape of microsatellite instability across 39 cancer types. JCO Precis Oncol 2017;2017:1–15.  Back to cited text no. 83
    
84.
Diaz LA, Le DT. PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N Engl J Med 2015;373:1979.  Back to cited text no. 84
    
85.
Le DT, Kim TW, Van Cutsem E, Geva R, Jäger D, Hara H, et al. Phase II open-label study of pembrolizumab in treatment-refractory, microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: KEYNOTE-164. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:11–9.  Back to cited text no. 85
    
86.
Marabelle A, Le DT, Ascierto PA, Di Giacomo AM, De Jesus-Acosta A, Delord J-P, et al. Efficacy of pembrolizumab in patients with noncolorectal high microsatellite instability/mismatch repair-deficient cancer: Results from the phase II KEYNOTE-158 study. J Clin Oncol 2020;38:1–10.  Back to cited text no. 86
    
87.
Alexandrov LB, Nik-Zainal S, Wedge DC, Aparicio SAJR, Behjati S, Biankin AV, et al. Signatures of mutational processes in human cancer. Nature 2013;500:415–21.  Back to cited text no. 87
    
88.
Meléndez B, Van Campenhout C, Rorive S, Remmelink M, Salmon I, D'Haene N. Methods of measurement for tumor mutational burden in tumor tissue. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2018;7:661–7.  Back to cited text no. 88
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Atul Sharma
Department of Medical Oncology, Dr. B. R. A. Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi - 110 029
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/IJPM.IJPM_1239_20

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Conclusion and F...
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed46    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded5    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal