Radiol Oncol 2020; 54(3): 272-277. doi: 10.2478/raon-2020-0031 272 review Consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) in metastatic colorectal cancer - personalized medicine decision Martina Rebersek1,2 1 Department of Medical Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia 2 Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia Radiol Oncol 2020; 54(3): 272-277. Received 13 March 2020 Accepted 29 April 2020 Correspondence to: Assist. Prof. Martina Reberšek, M.D., Ph.D., Department of Medical Oncology, Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Zaloška 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia. E-mail: mrebersek@onko-i.si Disclosure: No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed. Background. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common types of cancer in the world. Metastatic disease is still incurable in most of these patients, but the survival rate has improved by treatment with novel systemic chemo- therapy and targeted therapy in combination with surgery. New knowledge of its complex heterogeneity in terms of genetics, epigenetics, transcriptomics and microenvironment, including prognostic and clinical characteristics, led to its classification into various molecular subtypes of metastatic CRC, called consensus molecular subtypes (CMS). The CMS classification thus enables the medical oncologists to adjust the treatment from case to case. They can deter- mine which type of systemic chemotherapy or targeted therapy is best suited to a specific patient, what dosages are needed and in what order. Conclusions. CMS in metastatic CRC are the new tool to include the knowledge of molecular factors, tumour stroma and signalling pathways for personalized, patient-orientated systemic treatment in precision medicine. Key words: metastatic colorectal cancer; heterogeneity; biomarkers; consensus molecular subtypes; CMS1; CMS2; CMS3; CMS4 Introduction Colorectal cancer (CRC) is still one of the most common types of cancer and one of the lead caus- es of cancer- related deaths worldwide, as well as in Slovenia. According to the Cancer Registry of Slovenia, there were 1467 new cases of CRC in 2016, of which 871 men and 596 women.1 The prognosis of these patients has improved signifi- cantly over the last decade because of successful preventive screening programme, improved sur- gical techniques, radiation therapy and systemic treatment for both early and advanced stages. In Slovenia, the incidence of CRC has been declin- ing in the last few years, mainly due to increased awareness and preventive screening programme called SVIT, which has been implemented in Slovenia in 2009. According to the National Cancer Control Program Slovenia, the incidence of CRC has been declining annually. In the last official report from 2015, there were about 400 cases less from 2010 to 2015 (from 1729 cases in 2010 to 1357 cases in 2015).2 Metastatic CRC is still an incurable disease for most of the patients, with most commonly liver, lung or lymph nodes and peritoneal metastases. In the past, 15 years ago, median overall survival (mOS) was approximately 12 months and the 5-year survival rate was 13%. However, the sur- vival rate of these patients has increased, mainly due to the combined treatment of metastases with surgery and systemic therapy.3-5 Long-term sur- vival or even cure can be attained in 20%–50% of the patients who undergo complete R0 resection of liver or lung metastases, and around 70% 5-year survival of these patients can be achieved.3,4 Radiol Oncol 2020; 54(3): 272-277. Rebersek M / Consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) in metastatic colorectal cancer 273 However, in the field of systemic therapy there has been a significant progress with new drugs in the recent years. There are more options of initial systemic chemotherapy, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and fluoropyrimidines, in combination with tar- geted therapy with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies (cetuxi- mab, panitumumab) in case of KRAS wild type tumours or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors (monoclonal antibodies bevaci- zumab, aflibercept, ramucirumab, regorafenib as per oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor).3-5 The combi- nation of these novel chemotherapy and targeted therapy now extends the mOS up to 40 months.3-5 Additionally, testing for new biomarkers ena- bles the usage of new targeted treatment in met- astatic CRC patients, such as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2/new) amplifica- tions for double HER2 blockade, immunotherapy with anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibodies in high microsatellite insta- ble (MSI) tumours, and neurotrophic tyrosine ki- nase receptor (NTRK) inhibitors in case of NTRK gene fusions.3-5 BRAF V600E mutation is associated with poor prognosis under standard treatment of mOS less than 1 year and the responses to targeted therapy of combinations with anti- EGFR, BRAF and MEK inhibitors are promising with longer mOS.3-5 Pharmacogenomics’ biomarkers such as dihy- dropyrimidine dehydrogenase, uridine diphos- phate glucuronosyltransferase 1A1, excision re- pair cross complementing rodent repair deficiency complementation group 1, VEGF and thymidylate synthase are also important when planning the treatment and deciding on the type (to choose the alternative systemic therapy), appropriate combi- nation (less toxic) and dosages (to adjust the dose to lower the frequency and grade of the adverse ef- fects) of systemic therapy.6 New knowledge about the molecular heteroge- neity of CRC, the discovery of biomarkers as pre- dictive factors for disease prognosis and response to systemic treatment, and thus personalized medi- cine in this field, have also significantly contributed to the prolonged survival rates of patients. Besides gene mutations, tumour stroma and immunity also play a very important role in response to the sys- temic treatment and the prognosis of the disease. In 2015, Guinney et al. first published the clas- sification of consensus molecular subtypes (CMS), namely MSI immune CMS1, canonical CMS2, met- abolic CMS3 and mesenchymal CMS4.7 The CMS classification includes clinical factors, all patholog- ical and molecular features of the tumour, signal- ling pathways and immunity. However, it still cur- rently has not translated into regular clinical prac- tice, which could guide the clinicians in their more personalized treatment decisions. At present, the CMSs do not have an impact on clinical decisions, because we do not yet have approved algorithms available for everyday clinical practice The clinical implications of CMS Colorectal cancer is genetically and transcriptomi- cally heterogeneous disease. In adjuvant setting for early-stage CRC, there are several gene expression signatures such as ColoPrint, Oncotype DX and others, but they are still not recommended in eve- ryday clinical practice by international guidelines for CRC.2,3 In metastatic setting, MSI, RAS and BRAF mutational statuses are routinely tested for prognosis and predictions for systemic treatment. KRAS mutational status was the first biomarker in metastatic CRC to predict the response to anti-EG- FR inhibitors since 2008. Additionally, mutational status testing in RAS gene (KRAS and NRAS genes) is used in daily clinical practice since 2013. In the past, BRAF mutation was a negative prognostic biomarker for a shorter median OS of 12 months. This was also confirmed in our prospective clini- cal trial, conducted at the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana between 2010 and 2013, in which we ana- lysed the impact of the molecular biomarkers and histological parameters on survival and response to the first- line systemic therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer patients.8 Median OS of wild type wtBRAF patients was significantly longer than in mutated mtBRAF patients, with 59.2 and 27.6 months, respectively, p = 0.05. Today, targeted therapy combining BRAF in- hibitors and MEK inhibitors in combination with anti-EGFR inhibitors with mOS of 24 months is approved by FDA, but not by EMA in Europe for the BRAF mutated patients.2,9 However, metastatic CRC is not a simple disease but rather a hetero- geneous one, with different treatment responses and outcomes. Thus, these routinely identified biomarkers provide only some information about tumour biology. In 2015 Guinney et al. in the CRC Subtyping Consortium established four consensus molecu- lar subtypes 1 (CMS1), 2 (CMS2), 3 (CMS3) and 4 (CMS4), based on six independent CRC classifica- tion systems.7 They analysed tumour characteris- tics of more than 4000 patients, including not only Radiol Oncol 2020; 54(3): 272-277. Rebersek M / Consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) in metastatic colorectal cancer274 their genetic alterations, but also their immune system, cellular metabolism, epithelium, signal- ling activation, immune tumour infiltration, tu- mour microenvironment and angiogenesis. The CMS are characterized and named by their main distinguishing features. CMS1 is denoted as MSI immune, presented in 14% of the cases, hypermu- tated, microsatellite unstable and with strong im- mune cell infiltration and activation. CMS2 is ca- nonical, presented in 37% of the cases, with marked WNT and MYC signalling activation. CMS3 is called metabolic, presented in 13% of the cases, with epithelial and evident metabolic dysregula- tion, with KRAS mutations and mixed MSI status, low somatic copy number alterations (SCNA) and CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP). CMS4 is called mesenchymal, presented in 23% of the cases, with prominent transforming growth factor β activation, stromal infiltration and angiogenesis. The main features of CMS subtypes are presented in Table 1. The CMS subtypes are not classified only by molecular features, but also by clinical features, with prognosis included in its classification.10-13 Sidedness of the primary tumour is also included. Right-sided tumours, including cecum, ascend- ing colon or transverse colon are characterized by mucinous, signet ring histology, microsatellite instability, hypermethylation, poor differentia- tion, higher mutation rates of PI3KCA, KRAS and BRAF. They are more frequent in older patients and female patients. Left-sided tumours, includ- ing descending colon, sigmoid colon and rectum are characterized by chromosomal aberrations, 18q loss and 20q gain, aneuploidy, p53 mutation, EGFR and HER2 gain, high VEGF-1 mRNA, cyclooxyge- nase 2 (COX2), high EGFR ligand epiregulin and amphiregulin expression.10-13 However, tumour location inside the intestine is even more important than sidedness.12,14 Namely, CMS1 is more often present in the proximal colon (the cecum, the ascending colon, the transverse colon), CMS2 in the distal colon (the descending colon, the sigmoid colon) and the rectum, CMS3 in the sigmoid colon and the rectum and CMS4 in the distal colon (the descending colon, the sigmoid colon) and the rectum. Tumours of distal colon and rectum appear unique and tumours of the trans- verse colon appears distinct from other tumours of the right colon.14 Because of this tumour heteroge- neity of different parts of colon and the differences between tumours of colon and rectum, and also in- tra- tumour heterogeneity of the primary tumour, Fontana et al. highlighted the importance of the careful sampling from biopsies or resected primary tumour for each patient to get the right informa- tion about his biomarkers.12 Since secondary acquired resistance can develop during specific systemic therapy with anti EGFR inhibitors, because of tumour heterogeneity and clonal selection process, it is important to include circulating tumour DNA analyses in evaluation of effectiveness of systemic therapy. This technique can detect genomic alterations in RAS and other genes to help adjust systemic therapy before clini- cal and radiological progression.11,15-17 Two recently published papers explain the impact of CMS subtypes on the survival of meta- static CRC patients and the differences to the re- sponse to systemic treatment according to CMS subtypes.18,19 Patients from two phase III clinical trials, the CALBG/SWOG 80405 and the FIRE-3, were included in this analysis. Both clinical trials assessed the combination of anti-VEGFR inhibitor bevacizumab or anti- EGFR inhibitor cetuksimab with different types of chemotherapy - oxalipl- TABLE 1. Classification of consensus molecular subtypes (CMS). Adopted by Guiney et al.7 CMS subtype CMS1 - MSI immune CMS2 - Canonical CMS3 – Metabolic CMS4 - Mesenchymal Frequency 14% 37% 13% 23% Characteristics MSI, CIMP high, hypermutation SCNA high Mixed MSI status, SCNA low, CIMP low SCNA high BRAF mutation KRAS mutation Immune infiltration and activation WNT and MYC activation Metabolic deregulation Stromal infiltration, TGF-β activation, angiogenesis Worse survival after relapse Worse relapse-free and overall survival CIMP = CpG island methylator phenotype; MSI = microsatellite instable; SCNA = somatic copy number alterations; TGF-β = transforming growth factor beta Radiol Oncol 2020; 54(3): 272-277. Rebersek M / Consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) in metastatic colorectal cancer 275 atin with 5-FU (FOLFOX) in 75% of the patients in CALGB/SWOG 80405 and irinotecan with 5-FU (FOLFIRI) in all patients in the FIRE- 3.18-20 Both studies showed that left-sided colorectal cancer re- sponded better to cetuximab-based in combination with irinotecan therapy in case of CMS2 and CMS4 compared to bevacizumab-based therapy, whereas for right-sided tumours this possibility has to be further explored. Lenz et al. have retrospectively analysed the im- pact of the CMSs on survival of KRAS wild type metastatic CRC patients from CALGB/SWOG 80405 clinical study.18 For the CMS classification, the NanoString panel for the CALBG/SWOG 80405 cohort and the official CMS classifier software were used. Based on the CALGB study results, CMSs are predictive biomarkers for bevacizumab and cetuxi- mab in terms of OS and progression-free survival (PFS). In the CMS2 cohort, patients who received cetuximab had significantly longer OS and slightly improved PFS compared to those who received bevacizumab, although this was not statistically significant. In the CMS1 cohort, patients who re- ceived bevacizumab had significantly longer OS and longer PFS compared to the patients who re- ceived cetuximab. They concluded that CMS clas- sification is an independent prognostic marker for metastatic CRC patients in the first-line systemic therapy with a combination of chemotherapy with bevacizumab or cetuximab. Patients with CMS1 had the shortest OS and PFS, whereas patients with CMS2 had the longest OS with the lowest risk of death and PFS. They also emphasized the limita- tions of their analysis to the KRAS wild-type meta- static patients and stated that it was not possible to do a more detailed exploration of the interactions between a specific chemotherapy and targeted therapy. However, in 2019, Aderka et al. published a research, studying this topic.19 The responses of the patients with different CMS subtypes to sys- temic chemotherapy with oxaliplatin or irinotecan in combination with different targeted therapy, anti- VEGFR inhibitor bevacizumab or anti- EGFR inhibitor cetuximab were analysed. They found that both cytostatics have synergistic effect in com- bination with cetuximab. Irinotecan upregulates EGFR and promotes the binding of cetuximab and so promotes its antibody-dependent cell-mediat- ed cytotoxicity (ADCC), stimulates the release of IFN-γ and activates dendritic cells, macrophages, T cells and encourages the apoptosis of cancer cells. Furthermore, cetuximab inhibits the tumour’s mul- tidrug resistance mechanism for the active metabo- lite of irinotecan - SN-38 - which accumulates in the cells and thus improves its antitumour effect. The oxaliplatin acts in two ways, as oxaliplatin – DNA adducts and causes DNA oxidative damage. EGRF activation upregulates nucleotide excision repair proteins and base excision repair proteins (ERCC1) and in this way neutralises effects of oxaliplatin. The combination of oxaliplatin and anti- EGFR in- hibitor cetuximab has a synergistic effect in terms of cetuximab downregulation of ERCC1 and, which could further improve oxaliplatin activity.19 The tumour microenvironment is also an impor- tant factor in resistance of CRCs to specific com- bination of chemotherapy and targeted therapy. The CMS1 and CMS4 tumours have a fibroblast- rich microenvironment.19 In that case of CMS1 and CMS4 oxaliplatin has an antagonistic action to anti- EGFR inhibitors cetuximab and panitumumab, in- ducing the release of interleukin 17A from fibro- blasts promoting proliferation of cancer stem cells and antagonising the growth suppression and ap- optosis of cancer stem cells induced by cetuximab. Activated cancer-associated fibroblasts also secrete transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β) and me- diate tumour resistance to anti-EGFR inhibitors by providing an intrinsic EGFR-independent survival pathway to cancer cells. TGF-β also prolongs inhib- itory effect on the cetuximab-mediated antibody- dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC), inhibits activation of immune cells, natural killer cells, den- dritic cells and macrophages.19 In both articles, of Aderka and Lenz, the authors also explained why such differences occur.18,19 The first significant factor is the previously described synergistic or antagonistic action of the combina- tion of chemotherapy and the biological drug. The second important factor is the sequence of biologi- cals, bevacizumab and cetuximab, in terms of CMS, which is supported by both studies. If anti VEGFR inhibitor bevacizumab is administrated in first-line systemic treatment, before cetuximab, it reduces the permeability of blood vessels and consequently diffusion and tumour cell binding of cetuximab. The third factor is the half-life of bevacizumab compared to cetuximab, which is also important concerning the sequence of. With a half-life of 21 days, bevacizumab is still active for a period when initiating a second line of cetuximab treatment, re- ducing the permeability to tumour stroma and the anti-EGFR effect after the first line of bevacizumab. Lastly, in the FIRE-3 study, chemotherapy with on- ly irinotecan hydrochloride (CPT 11) with 5-fluoro- uracil (5-FU) was used in combination with beva- cizumab or cetuksimab; and oxaliplatin with 5-FU was used in 75% in combination with bevacizumab Radiol Oncol 2020; 54(3): 272-277. Rebersek M / Consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) in metastatic colorectal cancer276 or cetuximab in CALGB study. Thus, researchers concluded that both studies are complementary and not opposing in terms to relevant conclusions from retrospective analyses.19 Based on all clinical and molecular knowledge, the mOS for 16 different combinations of oxalipl- atin, irinotecan and targeted therapy in first-line treatment was calculated for each CMS subtype. The most effective first- line combination is oxali- platin with bevacizumab, irinotecan or oxaliplatin with cetuximab, oxaliplatin with cetuximab and irinotecan with cetuximab, in CMS1, CMS2, CMS3 and CMS4 respectively.19 Additionally, Stintzing et al. conducted an anal- ysis according to CMS classification in terms of objective responses (OR) and PFS from the FIRE-3 clinical trial, in which the first-line therapy was FOLFIRI (irinotecan plus 5-FU) with bevacizumab or cetuximab in KRAS wild-type metastatic CRC patients.20 The retrospective analysis was carried out for RAS wild-type metastatic CRC patients. They confirmed the prognostic role of CMS classi- fication in CMS3 and CMS4 subtypes and the pre- dictive role for a better outcome in CMS4 subtype in RAS wild-type patients, treated with FOLFIRI and cetuximab. Significantly higher overall re- sponse rate (ORR) were seen in CMS2 subtype in the same regimen. OS of patients with CRC sub- type CMS4 was significantly longer in treatment with FOLFIRI cetuximab compared to that with FOLFIRI bevacizumab. In patients with CMS3, OS was in favour of FOLFIRI and cetuximab, OS in CMS1 and CMS2 were comparable and independ- ent of targeted therapy. Lastly, gut microbiome is probably another im- portant biomarker to consider in future studies in treating metastatic CRC patients.10,21 Gut mi- crobiomes are associated with CMS1 and CMS2 subtypes. It is known that gut microbiome has an important role in carcinogenesis of CRC, show- ing initial inflammation and modulation of dif- ferent signalling pathways. Each part of the colon and rectum is characterized by different strains of bacteria. The most important and studied strains were Fusobcterium nucleatum, Escherichia coli and Bacteroides fragilis. Gut microbiome also varies geo- graphically, seven strains are the most important for carcinogenesis, B. fragilis, four oral as F. nu- cleatum, Parvimonas micra, Porphyromonas asaccha- rolytica and Prevotella intermedia, Alistipes finegoldii and Thermanaerovibrio acidaminovorans.21 Bacterial biomarkers have potential to detect CRC, predict clinical outcome and have a prognostic value.21 Gut microbiome also mediates the response to chemotherapy, especially of irinotecan, oxalipl- atin and 5-flurouracil, prescribed in treatment of metastatic CRC. There are several ways like immu- nomodulation, metabolism regulation, resistance to chemotherapy, microbial translocation, reduced ecological diversity and others. It also plays an important role in effectiveness of immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors in terms of to enhance the action of it. It can be also associated with the adverse effects of immunotherapy, especially with immune-related colitis, depending of the present- ed strains of bacteria in the gut.21 Therefore; the knowledge about gut microbiome will have clini- cal implications for CRC prevention, improvement of treatment responses and reduction of the ad- verse effects. Conclusions and future directions Predictive and prognostic biomarkers are impor- tant for personalized medicine and treatment of patients with metastatic CRC and therefore en- able better optimization and tailoring of treatment. Pharmacogenomics biomarkers will allow us to adjust and determine the optimum effective dose of the drug for each patient. Gut microbiome is an- other important biomarker predicting the progno- sis of disease and the response to the specific sys- temic therapy. CMS subtypes, including molecular heterogene- ity at different levels of genetics, epigenetics, tran- scriptomic, clinical features and more important tumour microenvironment will enable us to esti- mate the prognosis and make precision medicine individualized for each patient. In the future, it is important to develop algo- rithms for everyday clinical practice to determine the CMS subtype for each patient individually, based on patient and tumour characteristics. This will result in the most optimal, patient-tailored treatment to maximize the response, prolong sur- vival, minimize the treatment cost and avoid po- tential unwanted adverse effects of ineffective therapy. Acknowledgement The research was financially supported by The Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS), grant number P3-0321. Radiol Oncol 2020; 54(3): 272-277. Rebersek M / Consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) in metastatic colorectal cancer 277 References 1. Cancer in Slovenia 2016. Ljubljana: Institute of Oncology Ljubljana, Epidemiology and Cancer Registry, Cancer Registry of Republic of Slovenia; 2019. 2. Zakotnik B, Zadnik Z, Žagar T, Primic Žakelj M, Ivanuš U, Jerman T, et al. Reaching sustainable oncology care via the National Cancer Control Program (NCCP). Ann Oncol 2019; 30(Suppl 5): v671-82. doi: 10.1093/an- nonc/mdz263 3. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines): colon cancer. Version 1.2020. [cited 2020 Feb 28]. Available at: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/ colon_cancer.pdf 4. Van Cutsem E, Cervantes A, Adam R, Sobrero A, Van Krieken JH, Aderka D, et al. ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2016; 27: 1386-422. doi: 10.1093/ annonc/mdw235 5. Modest DP, Pant S, Sartore-Bianchi A. Treatment sequencing in meta- static colorectal cancer. Eur J Cancer 2019; 109: 70-83. doi: 10.1016/j. ejca.2018.12.019 6. Patel JN, Fon MK, Jagosky M. Colorectal cancer biomarkers in the era of personalized medicine. J Pers Med 2019; 9(1). doi: 10.3390/jpm9010003 7. 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. doi: 10.1038/nm.3967 8. Rebersek M, Mesti T, Boc M, Ocvirk J. Molecular biomarkers and histological parameters impact on survival and response to first- line systemic therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Radiol Oncol 2019; 53: 85-95. doi: 10.2478/raon-2019-0013 9. Afrasanie VA, Marinca MV, Alexa-Stratulat T, Păduraru M I, Adavidoaiei AM, Miron L, et al. KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, HER2 and microsatellite instability in metastatic colorectal cancer – practical implications for the clinician. Radiol Oncol 2019; 53: 265-74. doi: 10.2478/raon-2019-0033 10. Inamura K. Colorectal cancers: an update on their molecular pathology. Cancers 2018; 10: pii: E26. doi: 10.3390/cancers10010026 11. Dienstmann R, Vermeulen L, Guinney J, Kopetz S, Tejpar S, Tabernero J. Consensus molecular subtypes and the evolution of precision medicine in colorectal cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2017; 17: 79-92. doi: 10.1038/ nrc.2016.126 12. Fontana E, Eason K, Cervantes A, Salazar, R, Sadanandam A. Context mat- ters - consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer as biomarkers for clinical trials. Ann Oncol 2019; 30: 520-7. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdz052 13. Thanki K, Nicholls ME, GajjarA, Senagore AJ, Qiu S, Szabo C, et al. Consensus molecular subtypes of colorectal cancer and their clinical implications. Int Biol Biomed J 2017; 3: 105-11. PMID: 28825047 14. Loree JM, Pereira AAL, Lam M, Willauer AN, Raghav K, Dasari A, et al. Classifying colorectal cancer by tumor location rather than sidedness high- lights a continuum in mutation profiles and consensus molecular subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 2018; 24: 1062-72. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-2484 15. Dienstmann R, Salazar R, Tabernero J. Molecular subtypes and the evolution on of treatment decisions in metastatic colorectal cancer. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018; 38: 231-8. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_200929 16. Kato S, Schwaederle MC, Fanta PT, Okamura R, Leichman L, Lippman SC, et al. Genomic assessment of blood- derived circulating tumor DNA in patients with colorectal cancers: Correlation with tissue sequencing, thera- peutic response, and survival. JCO Precis Oncol 2019; 3: 1-25. doi: 10.1200/ PO.18.00158 17. Siena S, Sartore-Bianchi A, Garcia-Carbonero R, Karthaus M, Smith D, Tabernero J, et al. Dynamic molecular analysis and clinical correlates of tumor evolution within a phase II trial of panitumumab-based therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 2018; 29: 119-26. doi: 10.1093/ annonc/mdx504 18. Lenz, HJ, Ou FS, Venook, AP, Hochster HS, Niedzwiecki D, Richard M, et al. Impact of consensus molecular subtype on survival in patients with meta- static colorectal cancer: Results from CALGB/SWOG 80405 (Alliance). J Clin Oncol 2019; 37: 1876-85. doi: 10.1200/JCO.18. 02258 19. Aderka D, Stintzing S, Heinemann V. Explaining the unexplainable: discrep- ancies in results from the CALGB/SWOG 80405 and FIRE-3 studies. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20: e274-83. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30172-X 20. Stintzing S, Wirapati P, Lenz HJ, Neureiter D, Fischer von Weikersthal L, Decker T, et al. Consensus molecular subgroups (CMS) of colorectal cancer (CRC) and 1st-line efficacy of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab in the FIRE3 (AIO KRK-0306) trial. Ann Oncol 2019; 30: 1796-803. doi: 10.1093/ annonc/mdz387 21. Wong SH, Yu J. Gut microbiota in colorectal cancer: mechanisms of action and clinical applications. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 16: 690-704. doi: 10.1038/s41575-019-0209-8