Literature DB >> 21340604

Analysis of KRAS, BRAF, PTEN, IGF1R, EGFR intron 1 CA status in both primary tumors and paired metastases in determining benefit from cetuximab therapy in colon cancer.

Jin Hyun Park1, Sae-Won Han, Do-Youn Oh, Seock-Ah Im, Seung-Yong Jeong, Kyu Joo Park, Tae-You Kim, Yung-Jue Bang, Jae-Gahb Park.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the expression of molecular markers in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and the concordance between primary tumor and metastasis. We also aimed to determine the relationship between molecular markers and clinical outcomes of cetuximab-containing chemotherapy.
METHODS: Seventy-five mCRC patients who received cetuximab-containing chemotherapy between 2000 and 2008 were consecutively enrolled. EGFR, p-EGFR, PTEN, and IGF-1R expression by immunohistochemistry, DNA sequencing for EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and PI3 KCA, and EGFR amplification by FISH were done.
RESULTS: The positive expression of EGFR, p-EGFR, PTEN, and IGF-1R was determined in 45 (64.3%), 9 (14.8%), 35 (50.7%), and 10 patients (16.1%), respectively. EGFR gene amplification or high polysomy was detected in 10 patients (17.6%). KRAS mutation and BRAF mutation were detected in 19 patients (27.5%) and five patients (7.0%), respectively. Among tested biomarkers, only the EGFR intron 1 CA repeat polymorphism and BRAF mutation showed concordance (kappa = 0.600, P = 0.003; and kappa = 0.692, P = 0.001, respectively) between primary tumor and paired metastasis. Skin rash was a strong predictive marker for response rate, PFS, and OS. In KRAS mutant tumors, PTEN expression was associated with a longer PFS. BRAF mutation was related to poor outcome in KRAS wild-type tumors.
CONCLUSIONS: BRAF mutations and EGFR intron 1 CA repeat polymorphisms were concordant between primary tumors and paired metastases. In KRAS mutant tumors, PTEN expression was a predictive marker for favorable outcomes. In KRAS wild type, BRAF mutation was strong predictive markers for poor outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21340604     DOI: 10.1007/s00280-011-1586-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Chemother Pharmacol        ISSN: 0344-5704            Impact factor:   3.333


  28 in total

1.  Translating cancer 'omics' to improved outcomes.

Authors:  Emily A Vucic; Kelsie L Thu; Keith Robison; Leszek A Rybaczyk; Raj Chari; Carlos E Alvarez; Wan L Lam
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 9.043

2.  Molecular morphometric analysis shows relative intra-tumoural homogeneity for KRAS mutations in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Liora Farber; Edna Efrati; Hela Elkin; Yehudit Peerless; Edmond Sabo; Ofer Ben-Izhak; Dov Hershkovitz
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2011-10-21       Impact factor: 4.064

3.  Comparison of KRAS mutation status between primary tumor and metastasis in Chinese colorectal cancer patients.

Authors:  Zhe-Zhen Li; Long Bai; Feng Wang; Zi-Chen Zhang; Fang Wang; Zhao-Lei Zeng; Jun-Bo Zeng; Dong-Sheng Zhang; Feng-Hua Wang; Zhi-Qiang Wang; Yu-Hong Li; Jian-Yong Shao; Rui-Hua Xu
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2016-06-06       Impact factor: 3.064

4.  Combined assessment of EGFR-related molecules to predict outcome of 1st-line cetuximab-containing chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Yu Sunakawa; Dongyun Yang; Miriana Moran; Stephanie H Astrow; Akihito Tsuji; Craig Stephens; Wu Zhang; Shu Cao; Takehiro Takahashi; Tadamichi Denda; Ken Shimada; Mitsugu Kochi; Masato Nakamura; Masahito Kotaka; Yoshihiko Segawa; Toshiki Masuishi; Masahiro Takeuchi; Masashi Fujii; Toshifusa Nakajima; Wataru Ichikawa; Heinz-Josef Lenz
Journal:  Cancer Biol Ther       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 4.742

Review 5.  Pragmatic issues in biomarker evaluation for targeted therapies in cancer.

Authors:  Armand de Gramont; Sarah Watson; Lee M Ellis; Jordi Rodón; Josep Tabernero; Aimery de Gramont; Stanley R Hamilton
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-11-25       Impact factor: 66.675

6.  The colorectal tumor microenvironment: the next decade.

Authors:  Nicole Beauchemin
Journal:  Cancer Microenviron       Date:  2011-07-07

7.  Colorectal liver metastases are more often super wild type. Toward treatment based on metastatic site genotyping?

Authors:  M A Allard; R Saffroy; P Bouvet de la Maisonneuve; L Ricca; N Bosselut; J Hamelin; E Lecorche; M A Bejarano; P Innominato; M Sebagh; R Adam; J F Morère; A Lemoine
Journal:  Target Oncol       Date:  2014-11-26       Impact factor: 4.493

Review 8.  The predictive role of skin rash with cetuximab and panitumumab in colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published trials.

Authors:  F Petrelli; K Borgonovo; S Barni
Journal:  Target Oncol       Date:  2013-01-16       Impact factor: 4.493

9.  Different metastatic pattern according to the KRAS mutational status and site-specific discordance of KRAS status in patients with colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Mi-Jung Kim; Hye Seung Lee; Jee Hyun Kim; Yu Jung Kim; Ji Hyun Kwon; Jeong-Ok Lee; Soo-Mee Bang; Kyoung Un Park; Duck-Woo Kim; Sung-Bum Kang; Jae-Sung Kim; Jong Seok Lee; Keun-Wook Lee
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2012-08-09       Impact factor: 4.430

Review 10.  The prognostic value of BRAF mutation in colorectal cancer and melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Gholamreza Safaee Ardekani; Seyed Mehdi Jafarnejad; Larry Tan; Ardavan Saeedi; Gang Li
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.