Miriam Koopman

Miriam Koopman


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

18Years (2009-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
14 October 2014 in Clinical Cancer Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
SVSabine Venderbosch
Sabine Venderbosch
INIris D. Nagtegaal
Iris D. Nagtegaal
TMTim S. Maughan
Tim S. Maughan
CSChristopher G. Smith
Christopher G. Smith
JCJeremy P. Cheadle
Jeremy P. Cheadle
MKMiriam Koopman
Miriam Koopman
Purpose: To determine the prevalence and prognostic value of mismatch repair (MMR) status and its relation to BRAF mutation (BRAFMT) status in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Experimental Design: A pooled analysis of four phase III studies in first-line treatment of mCRC (CAIRO, CAIRO2, COIN, and FOCUS) was performed. Primary outcome parameter was the hazard ratio (HR) for median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in relation to MMR and BRAF. For the pooled analysis, Cox regression analysis was performed on individual patient data. Results: The primary tumors of 3,063 patients were analyzed, of which 153 (5.0%) exhibited deficient MMR (dMMR) and 250 (8.2%) a BRAFMT. BRAFMT was observed in 53 (34.6%) of patients with dMMR tumors compared with 197 (6.8%) of patients with proficient MMR (pMMR) tumors (P < 0.001). In the pooled dataset, median PFS and OS were significantly worse for patients with dMMR compared with pMMR tumors [HR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12–1.57 and HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.13–1.61, respectively), and for patients with BRAFMT compared with BRAF wild-type (BRAFWT) tumors (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.17–1.54 and HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.66–2.19, respectively). PFS and OS were significantly decreased for patients with BRAFMT within the group of patients with pMMR, but not for BRAF status within dMMR, or MMR status within BRAFWT or BRAFMT. Conclusions: Prevalence of dMMR and BRAFMT in patients with mCRC is low and both biomarkers confer an inferior prognosis. Our data suggest that the poor prognosis of dMMR is driven by the BRAFMT status. Clin Cancer Res; 20(20); 5322–30. ©2014 AACR.

1 May 2015 in The Lancet
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
LSLieke H J Simkens
Lieke H J Simkens
HTHarm van Tinteren
Harm van Tinteren
AMAnne May
Anne May
ATAlbert J Ten Tije
Albert J Ten Tije
GCGeert-Jan M Creemers
Geert-Jan M Creemers
MKMiriam Koopman
Miriam Koopman

6 August 2011 in Annals of Surgical Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SVSabine Venderbosch
Sabine Venderbosch
JWJohannes H. de Wilt
Johannes H. de Wilt
STSteven Teerenstra
Steven Teerenstra
OLOlaf J. Loosveld
Olaf J. Loosveld
ABAart van Bochove
Aart van Bochove
MKMiriam Koopman
Miriam Koopman
In patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with an asymptomatic primary tumor, there is no consensus on the indication for resection of the prima

25 April 2019 in BMC Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KRKoen P. Rovers
Koen P. Rovers
CBChecca Bakkers
Checca Bakkers
GSGeert A. A. M. Simkens
Geert A. A. M. Simkens
JBJacobus W. A. Burger
Jacobus W. A. Burger
SNSimon W. Nienhuijs
Simon W. Nienhuijs
D(Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG)
Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG)
Background: Upfront cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC (CRS-HIPEC) is the standard treatment for isolated resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (PM) in the Netherlands. This study investigates whether addition of perioperative systemic therapy to CRS-HIPEC improves oncological outcomes. Methods: This open-label, parallel-group, phase II-III, randomised, superiority study is performed in nine Dutch tertiary referral centres. Eligible patients are adults who have a good performance status, histologically or cytologically proven resectable PM of a colorectal adenocarcinoma, no systemic colorectal metastases, no systemic therapy for colorectal cancer within six months prior to enrolment, and no previous CRS-HIPEC. Eligible patients are randomised (1:1) to perioperative systemic therapy and CRS-HIPEC (experimental arm) or upfront CRS-HIPEC alone (control arm) by using central randomisation software with minimisation stratified by a peritoneal cancer index of 0–10 or 11–20, metachronous or synchronous PM, previous systemic therapy for colorectal cancer, and HIPEC with oxaliplatin or mitomycin C. At the treating physician’s discretion, perioperative systemic therapy consists of either four 3-weekly neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of capecitabine with oxaliplatin (CAPOX), six 2-weekly neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin with oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), or six 2-weekly neoadjuvant cycles of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin with irinotecan (FOLFIRI) followed by four 3-weekly (capecitabine) or six 2-weekly (5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) adjuvant cycles of fluoropyrimidine monotherapy. Bevacizumab is added to the first three (CAPOX) or four (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI) neoadjuvant cycles. The first 80 patients are enrolled in a phase II study to explore the feasibility of accrual and the feasibility, safety, and tolerance of perioperative systemic therapy. If predefined criteria of feasibility and safety are met, the study continues as a phase III study with 3-year overall survival as primary endpoint. A total of 358 patients is needed to detect the hypothesised 15% increase in 3-year overall survival (control arm 50%; experimental arm 65%). Secondary endpoints are surgical characteristics, major postoperative morbidity, progression-free survival, disease-free survival, health-related quality of life, costs, major systemic therapy related toxicity, and objective radiological and histopathological response rates. Discussion: This is the first randomised study that prospectively compares oncological outcomes of perioperative systemic therapy and CRS-HIPEC with upfront CRS-HIPEC alone for isolated resectable colorectal PM. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov/NCT02758951, NTR/NTR6301, ISRCTN/ISRCTN15977568, EudraCT/2016–001865-99.

25 August 2016 in Acta Oncologica
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
JBJ. P. M. Burbach
J. P. M. Burbach
SKS. A. Kurk
S. A. Kurk
RBR. R. J. Coebergh van Den Braak
R. R. J. Coebergh van Den Braak
VDV. K. Dik
V. K. Dik
AMA. M. May
A. M. May
MKMiriam Koopman
Miriam Koopman
Background: Systematic evaluation and validation of new prognostic and predictive markers, technologies and interventions for colorectal cancer (CRC) is crucial for optimizing patients’ outcomes. With only 5–15% of patients participating in clinical trials, generalizability of results is poor. Moreover, current trials often lack the capacity for post-hoc subgroup analyses. For this purpose, a large observational cohort study, serving as a multiple trial and biobanking facility, was set up by the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG). Methods/design: The Prospective Dutch ColoRectal Cancer cohort is a prospective multidisciplinary nationwide observational cohort study in the Netherlands (yearly CRC incidence of 15 500). All CRC patients (stage I–IV) are eligible for inclusion, and longitudinal clinical data are registered. Patients give separate consent for the collection of blood and tumor tissue, filling out questionnaires, and broad randomization for studies according to the innovative cohort multiple randomized controlled trial design (cmRCT), serving as an alternative study design for the classic RCT. Objectives of the study include: 1) systematically collected long-term clinical data, patient-reported outcomes and biomaterials from daily CRC practice; and 2) to facilitate future basic, translational and clinical research including interventional and cost-effectiveness studies for both national and international research groups with short inclusion periods, even for studies with stringent inclusion criteria. Results: Seven months after initiation 650 patients have been enrolled, eight centers participate, 15 centers await IRB approval and nine embedded cohort- or cmRCT-designed studies are currently recruiting patients. Conclusion: This cohort provides a unique multidisciplinary data, biobank, and patient-reported outcomes collection initiative, serving as an infrastructure for various kinds of research aiming to improve treatment outcomes in CRC patients. This comprehensive design may serve as an example for other tumor types.

23 June 2017 in Annals of Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
KGK. K. H. Goey
K. K. H. Goey
SES. G. Elias
S. G. Elias
HTH. van Tinteren
H. van Tinteren
MLM. M. Laclé
M. M. Laclé
SWS. M. Willems
S. M. Willems
MKMiriam Koopman
Miriam Koopman
The phase 3 CAIRO3 study showed that capecitabine plus bevacizumab (CAP-B) maintenance treatment after six cycles capecitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab (CAPOX-B) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients is effective, without compromising quality of life. In this post hoc analysis with updated follow-up and data regarding sidedness, we defined subgroups according to RAS/BRAF mutation status and mismatch repair (MMR) status, and investigated their influence on treatment efficacy. A total of 558 patients with previously untreated mCRC and stable disease or better after six cycles CAPOX-B induction treatment were randomised to either CAP-B maintenance treatment (n = 279) or observation (n = 279). Upon first progression, patients were to receive CAPOX-B reintroduction until second progression (PFS2, primary end point). We centrally assessed RAS/BRAF mutation status and MMR status, or used local results if central assessment was not possible. Intention-to-treat stratified Cox models adjusted for baseline covariables were used to examine whether treatment efficacy was modified by RAS/BRAF mutation status. RAS, BRAF mutations, and MMR deficiency were detected in 240/420 (58%), 36/381 (9%), and 4/279 (1%) patients, respectively. At a median follow-up of 87 months (IQR 69–97), all mutational subgroups showed significant improvement from maintenance treatment for the primary end point PFS2 [RAS/BRAF wild-type: hazard ratio (HR) 0.57 (95% CI 0.39–0.84); RAS-mutant: HR 0.74 (0.55–0.98); V600EBRAF-mutant: HR 0.28 (0.12–0.64)] and secondary end points, except for the RAS-mutant subgroup regarding overall survival. Adjustment for sidedness instead of primary tumour location yielded comparable results. Although right-sided tumours were associated with inferior prognosis, both patients with right- and left-sided tumours showed significant benefit from maintenance treatment. CAP-B maintenance treatment after six cycles CAPOX-B is effective in first-line treatment of mCRC across all mutational subgroups. The benefit of maintenance treatment was most pronounced in patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type and V600EBRAF-mutant tumours. NCT00442637.