Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) prolong survival in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene (KRAS) exon 2 wild-type tumors. Recent evidence has suggested that other RAS mutations (in exons 3 and 4 of KRAS and exons 2, 3 and 4 of a related gene, NRAS) may also be predictive of resistance. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating anti-EGFR mAbs that have assessed tumors for new RAS mutations. Tumors with the new RAS mutations were compared with both tumors without any RAS mutations and tumors with KRAS exon 2 mutations with respect to anti-EGFR treatment progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefit. Nine RCTs comprising a total of 5948 participants evaluated for both KRAS exon 2 and new RAS mutations met the inclusion criteria. Approximately 20% of KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumors harbored one of the new RAS mutations. Tumors without any RAS mutations (either KRAS exon 2 or new RAS mutations) were found to have significantly superior anti-EGFR mAb PFS (P < 0.001) and OS (P = 0.008) treatment effect compared with tumors with any of the new RAS mutations. No difference in PFS or OS benefit was evident between tumors with KRAS exon 2 mutations and tumors with the new RAS mutations. Results were consistent between different anti-EGFR agents, lines of therapy and chemotherapy partners. Anti-EGFR mAb therapy significantly improved both PFS {hazard ratio 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50–0.76]} and OS [hazard ratio 0.87 (95% CI 0.77–0.99)] for tumors without any RAS mutations. No PFS or OS benefit was evident with use of anti-EGFR mAbs for tumors harboring any RAS mutation (P > 0.05). Tumors harboring one of the new RAS mutations are unlikely to significantly benefit from anti-EGFR mAb therapy in mCRC.

The treatment options for non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have rapidly evolved over the past 2 decades with the availability of chemotherapy, molecularly targeted drugs, and immune checkpoint inhibitors. Immune checkpoint inhibitors that target programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) or its ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibodies, such as atezolizumab, durvalumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab, are increasingly used for the treatment of both early and advanced NSCLC.¹ Although durable responses were noted in advanced cancers, only a limited proportion of patients benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors. Moreover, attempts to increase response using combination strategies incorporating multiple immune checkpoint inhibitors have a high incidence of immune-mediated adverse events (irAEs) resulting in early discontinuation. Predictive biomarkers for immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy response are required to identify patients who benefit from or have adverse events associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

On November 30, 2022, OpenAI enabled public access to ChatGPT, a next-generation artificial intelligence with a highly sophisticated ability to write, solve coding issues, and answer questions. This communication draws attention to the prospect that ChatGPT and its successors will become important virtual assistants to patients and health-care providers. In our assessments, ranging from answering basic fact-based questions to responding to complex clinical questions, ChatGPT demonstrated a remarkable ability to formulate interpretable responses, which appeared to minimize the likelihood of alarm compared with Google’s feature snippet. Arguably, the ChatGPT use case presents an urgent need for regulators and health-care professionals to be involved in developing standards for minimum quality and to raise patient awareness of current limitations of emerging artificial intelligence assistants. This commentary aims to raise awareness at the tipping point of a paradigm shift.

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that harbours a BRAF V600E mutation (BRAF MT) is associated with poorer outcomes. However, whether this mutation is predictive of treatment benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) is uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published up to July 2014 that evaluated the effect of BRAF MT on the treatment benefit from anti-EGFR mAbs for mCRC. Seven RCTs met the inclusion criteria for assessment of overall survival (OS), whereas eight RCTs met the inclusion criteria for assessment of progression-free survival (PFS). For RAS WT/BRAF MT tumours, the hazard ratio for OS benefit with anti-EGFR mAbs was 0.97 (95% CI; 0.67-1.41), whereas the hazard ratio was 0.81 (95% CI; 0.70-0.95) for RAS WT/BRAF WT tumours. However, the test of interaction (P=0.43) was not statistically significant, highlighting that the observed differences in the effect of anti-EGFR mAbs on OS according to the BRAF mutation status may be due to chance alone. Regarding PFS benefit with anti-EGFR mAbs, the hazard ratio was 0.86 (95% CI; 0.61-1.21) for RAS WT/BRAF MT tumours as compared with 0.62 (95% CI; 0.50-0.77) for RAS WT/BRAF WT tumours (test of interaction, P=0.07). This meta-analysis demonstrates that there is insufficient evidence to definitively state that RAS WT/BRAF MT individuals attain a different treatment benefit from anti-EGFR mAbs for mCRC compared with RAS WT/BRAF WT individuals. As such, there are insufficient data to justify the exclusion of anti-EGFR mAb therapy for patients with RAS WT/BRAF MT mCRC.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are an important development in the treatment of advanced cancer. A substantial proportion of patients treated with ICI do not respond, and additionally patients discontinue treatment due to adverse effects. While many novel biological markers related to the specific mechanisms of ICI actions have been investigated, there has also been considerable research to identify routinely available blood and clinical markers that may predict response to ICI therapy. If validated, these markers have the advantage of being easily integrated into clinical use for nominal expense. Several markers have shown promise, including baseline and post-treatment changes in leucocyte counts, lactate dehydrogenase and C-reactive protein. While promising, the results between studies have been inconsistent due to small sample sizes, follow-up time and variability in the assessed markers. To date, research on routinely available blood and clinical markers has focussed primarily on ICI use in melanoma, the use of ipilimumab and on univariate associations, but preliminary evidence is emerging for other cancer types, other ICIs and for combining markers in multivariable clinical prediction models.