Giuseppe Zimmitti1, Junichi Shindoh1, Yoshihiro Mise1, Scott Kopetz2, Evelyne M Loyer3, Andreas Andreou1, Amanda B Cooper1, Harmeet Kaur3, Thomas A Aloia1, Dipen M Maru4, Jean-Nicolas Vauthey1. 1. Department of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77030. 2. Department of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77030. 3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77030. 4. Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77030.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: RAS mutations have been reported to be a potential prognostic factor in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM). However, the impact of RAS mutations on response to chemotherapy remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate the correlation between RAS mutations and response to preoperative chemotherapy and their impact on survival in patients undergoing curative resection of CLM. METHODS: RAS mutational status was assessed and its relation to morphologic response and pathologic response was investigated in 184 patients meeting inclusion criteria. Predictors of survival were assessed. The prognostic impact of RAS mutational status was then analyzed using two different multivariate models, including either radiologic morphologic response (model 1) or pathologic response (model 2). RESULTS: Optimal morphologic response and major pathologic response were more common in patients with wild-type RAS (32.9 and 58.9%, respectively) than in patients with RAS mutations (10.5 and 36.8%; P = 0.006 and 0.015, respectively). Multivariate analysis confirmed that wild-type RAS was a strong predictor of optimal morphologic response [odds ratio (OR), 4.38; 95% CI 1.45-13.15] and major pathologic response (OR, 2.61; 95% CI 1.17-5.80). RAS mutations were independently correlated with both overall survival and recurrence free-survival (hazard ratios, 3.57 and 2.30, respectively, in model 1, and 3.19 and 2.09, respectively, in model 2). Subanalysis revealed that RAS mutational status clearly stratified survival in patients with inadequate response to preoperative chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: RAS mutational status can be used to complement the current prognostic indicators for patients undergoing curative resection of CLM after preoperative modern chemotherapy.
BACKGROUND: RAS mutations have been reported to be a potential prognostic factor in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM). However, the impact of RAS mutations on response to chemotherapy remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate the correlation between RAS mutations and response to preoperative chemotherapy and their impact on survival in patients undergoing curative resection of CLM. METHODS: RAS mutational status was assessed and its relation to morphologic response and pathologic response was investigated in 184 patients meeting inclusion criteria. Predictors of survival were assessed. The prognostic impact of RAS mutational status was then analyzed using two different multivariate models, including either radiologic morphologic response (model 1) or pathologic response (model 2). RESULTS: Optimal morphologic response and major pathologic response were more common in patients with wild-type RAS (32.9 and 58.9%, respectively) than in patients with RAS mutations (10.5 and 36.8%; P = 0.006 and 0.015, respectively). Multivariate analysis confirmed that wild-type RAS was a strong predictor of optimal morphologic response [odds ratio (OR), 4.38; 95% CI 1.45-13.15] and major pathologic response (OR, 2.61; 95% CI 1.17-5.80). RAS mutations were independently correlated with both overall survival and recurrence free-survival (hazard ratios, 3.57 and 2.30, respectively, in model 1, and 3.19 and 2.09, respectively, in model 2). Subanalysis revealed that RAS mutational status clearly stratified survival in patients with inadequate response to preoperative chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: RAS mutational status can be used to complement the current prognostic indicators for patients undergoing curative resection of CLM after preoperative modern chemotherapy.
Authors: Scott Kopetz; George J Chang; Michael J Overman; Cathy Eng; Daniel J Sargent; David W Larson; Axel Grothey; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; David M Nagorney; Robert R McWilliams Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-05-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S Stremitzer; J Stift; B Gruenberger; D Tamandl; T Aschacher; B Wolf; F Wrba; T Gruenberger Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: T Watanabe; T T Wu; P J Catalano; T Ueki; R Satriano; D G Haller; A B Benson; S R Hamilton Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-04-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J L Bos; E R Fearon; S R Hamilton; M Verlaan-de Vries; J H van Boom; A J van der Eb; B Vogelstein Journal: Nature Date: 1987 May 28-Jun 3 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: B Vogelstein; E R Fearon; S R Hamilton; S E Kern; A C Preisinger; M Leppert; Y Nakamura; R White; A M Smits; J L Bos Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1988-09-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: S Iwatsuki; I Dvorchik; J R Madariaga; J W Marsh; F Dodson; A C Bonham; D A Geller; T J Gayowski; J J Fung; T E Starzl Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Andreas Andreou; Thomas A Aloia; Antoine Brouquet; Paxton V Dickson; Giuseppe Zimmitti; Dipen M Maru; Scott Kopetz; Evelyne M Loyer; Steven A Curley; Eddie K Abdalla; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Suguru Yamashita; Kristoffer Watten Brudvik; Scott E Kopetz; Dipen Maru; Callisia N Clarke; Guillaume Passot; Claudius Conrad; Yun Shin Chun; Thomas A Aloia; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Kristoffer Watten Brudvik; Yoshihiro Mise; Michael Hsiang Chung; Yun Shin Chun; Scott E Kopetz; Guillaume Passot; Claudius Conrad; Dipen M Maru; Thomas A Aloia; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-03-25 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: John M Creasy; Abhishek Midya; Jayasree Chakraborty; Lauryn B Adams; Camilla Gomes; Mithat Gonen; Kenneth P Seastedt; Elizabeth J Sutton; Andrea Cercek; Nancy E Kemeny; Jinru Shia; Vinod P Balachandran; T Peter Kingham; Peter J Allen; Ronald P DeMatteo; William R Jarnagin; Michael I D'Angelica; Richard K G Do; Amber L Simpson Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: B C Odisio; S Yamashita; S Y Huang; S Harmoush; S E Kopetz; K Ahrar; Y Shin Chun; C Conrad; T A Aloia; S Gupta; M E Hicks; J-N Vauthey Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: David G Menter; Jennifer S Davis; Bradley M Broom; Michael J Overman; Jeffrey Morris; Scott Kopetz Journal: Curr Gastroenterol Rep Date: 2019-01-30
Authors: Sung Hwan Lee; Sung Hyun Kim; Jin Hong Lim; Sung Hoon Kim; Jin Gu Lee; Dae Joon Kim; Gi Hong Choi; Jin Sub Choi; Kyung Sik Kim Journal: Korean J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg Date: 2016-08-29