BACKGROUND: In colorectal cancer, there are significant differences between synchronous and metachronous distant metastases. However in recent studies, synchronous and metachronous metastases were always lumped together, neglecting their clinical and molecular differences. The mechanism of the latency of metachronous metastases is still unclear. We conducted this study to reveal the relationship between EGFR pathways and metachronous metastases, and try to find efficient predictors. METHODS: PCRs and pyrosequencing were used to detect KRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA and PTEN mutations in primary tumor tissues in a total of 281 patients from 2002 to 2008. Patients were identified into three groups: no-metastases group, synchronous-metastases group and metachronous-metastases group. Clinical and survival data were collected from a prospective database. RESULTS: KRAS codon 13 mutation was an independent predictor only for metachronous distant metastases (OR = 11.857, P < 0.001), but not for synchronous metastases. Male gender (OR = 2.233, P = 0.024), primary tumor located at rectum (OR = 0.404, P = 0.041), and primary pN2 stage (OR = 3.361, P = 0.01) were also independent predictors for metachronous distant metastases. Different SNPs in KRAS worked significantly different in determining synchronous or metachronous metastases. BRAF mutation (Univariate, OR = 11.5, P = 0.039) and > 200 ng/ml preoperative CEA (Univariate, OR = 41, P = 0.011) potentially predicted metastases within 6 months after primary tumor resection. After metachronous metastases, radical resection (HR = 0.280, P = 0.002) was the most important protective factor for long-term survival. CONCLUSION: There were significant clinical and molecular differences between synchronous and metachronous metastases. As an independent predictor, KRAS codon 13 mutation might be the key to explain the mechanism of colorectal cancer metachronous distant metastases. Together with clinical characteristics, it could aid in the early detection of metachronous metastases.
BACKGROUND: In colorectal cancer, there are significant differences between synchronous and metachronous distant metastases. However in recent studies, synchronous and metachronous metastases were always lumped together, neglecting their clinical and molecular differences. The mechanism of the latency of metachronous metastases is still unclear. We conducted this study to reveal the relationship between EGFR pathways and metachronous metastases, and try to find efficient predictors. METHODS: PCRs and pyrosequencing were used to detect KRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA and PTEN mutations in primary tumor tissues in a total of 281 patients from 2002 to 2008. Patients were identified into three groups: no-metastases group, synchronous-metastases group and metachronous-metastases group. Clinical and survival data were collected from a prospective database. RESULTS:KRAS codon 13 mutation was an independent predictor only for metachronous distant metastases (OR = 11.857, P < 0.001), but not for synchronous metastases. Male gender (OR = 2.233, P = 0.024), primary tumor located at rectum (OR = 0.404, P = 0.041), and primary pN2 stage (OR = 3.361, P = 0.01) were also independent predictors for metachronous distant metastases. Different SNPs in KRAS worked significantly different in determining synchronous or metachronous metastases. BRAF mutation (Univariate, OR = 11.5, P = 0.039) and > 200 ng/ml preoperative CEA (Univariate, OR = 41, P = 0.011) potentially predicted metastases within 6 months after primary tumor resection. After metachronous metastases, radical resection (HR = 0.280, P = 0.002) was the most important protective factor for long-term survival. CONCLUSION: There were significant clinical and molecular differences between synchronous and metachronous metastases. As an independent predictor, KRAS codon 13 mutation might be the key to explain the mechanism of colorectal cancer metachronous distant metastases. Together with clinical characteristics, it could aid in the early detection of metachronous metastases.
Authors: W S Samowitz; K Curtin; D Schaffer; M Robertson; M Leppert; M L Slattery Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Wendy De Roock; Derek J Jonker; Federica Di Nicolantonio; Andrea Sartore-Bianchi; Dongsheng Tu; Salvatore Siena; Simona Lamba; Sabrina Arena; Milo Frattini; Hubert Piessevaux; Eric Van Cutsem; Chris J O'Callaghan; Shirin Khambata-Ford; John R Zalcberg; John Simes; Christos S Karapetis; Alberto Bardelli; Sabine Tejpar Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-10-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: C Bokemeyer; I Bondarenko; J T Hartmann; F de Braud; G Schuch; A Zubel; I Celik; M Schlichting; P Koralewski Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: J L Bos; D Toksoz; C J Marshall; M Verlaan-de Vries; G H Veeneman; A J van der Eb; J H van Boom; J W Janssen; A C Steenvoorden Journal: Nature Date: 1985 Jun 27-Jul 3 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Gesiena E van der Wal; Annette S H Gouw; Jan A A M Kamps; Henk E Moorlag; Marian L C Bulthuis; Grietje Molema; Koert P de Jong Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Eric Van Cutsem; Bernard Nordlinger; Rene Adam; Claus-Henning Köhne; Carmelo Pozzo; Graeme Poston; Marc Ychou; Philippe Rougier Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2006-08-10 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Shalini Sree Kumar; Timothy J Price; Omar Mohyieldin; Matthew Borg; Amanda Townsend; Jennifer E Hardingham Journal: Gastrointest Cancer Res Date: 2014-01
Authors: Arnaud D Roth; Sabine Tejpar; Mauro Delorenzi; Pu Yan; Roberto Fiocca; Dirk Klingbiel; Daniel Dietrich; Bart Biesmans; György Bodoky; Carlo Barone; Enrique Aranda; Bernard Nordlinger; Laura Cisar; Roberto Labianca; David Cunningham; Eric Van Cutsem; Fred Bosman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-12-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sara Mariani; Luca Bertero; Simona Osella-Abate; Cristiana Di Bello; Paola Francia di Celle; Vittoria Coppola; Anna Sapino; Paola Cassoni; Caterina Marchiò Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 7.640