Associations between AI-Assisted Tumor Amphiregulin and Epiregulin IHC and Outcomes from Anti-EGFR Therapy in the Routine Management of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE: High tumor production of the EGFR ligands, amphiregulin (AREG) and epiregulin (EREG), predicted benefit from anti-EGFR therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a retrospective analysis of clinical trial data. Here, AREG/EREG IHC was analyzed in a cohort of patients who received anti-EGFR therapy as part of routine care, including key clinical contexts not investigated in the previous analysis. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients who received panitumumab or cetuximab ± chemotherapy for treatment of RAS wild-type mCRC at eight UK cancer centers were eligible. Archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue was analyzed for AREG and EREG IHC in six regional laboratories using previously developed artificial intelligence technologies. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 494 of 541 patients (91.3%) had adequate tissue for analysis. A total of 45 were excluded after central extended RAS testing, leaving 449 patients in the primary analysis population. After adjustment for additional prognostic factors, high AREG/EREG expression (n = 360; 80.2%) was associated with significantly prolonged PFS [median: 8.5 vs. 4.4 months; HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56–0.95; P = 0.02] and OS [median: 16.4 vs. 8.9 months; HR, 0.66 95% CI, 0.50–0.86; P = 0.002]. The significant OS benefit was maintained among patients with right primary tumor location (PTL), those receiving cetuximab or panitumumab, those with an oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based chemotherapy backbone, and those with tumor tissue obtained by biopsy or surgical resection. CONCLUSIONS: High tumor AREG/EREG expression was associated with superior survival outcomes from anti-EGFR therapy in mCRC, including in right PTL disease. AREG/EREG IHC assessment could aid therapeutic decisions in routine practice. See related commentary by Randon and Pietrantonio, p. 4021