BACKGROUND: Right-sided and left-sided colorectal cancer (CRC) is known to differ in their molecular carcinogenic pathways. We sought to investigate the variable prognostic implication of KRAS mutation after hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) according to the site of primary CRC. METHODS: A total of 426 patients who underwent a curative-intent hepatic resection and whose KRAS status was available were identified. Clinicopathologic characteristics and long-term outcomes were stratified by KRAS status (wild type vs. mutant type) and primary tumor location (right-sided vs. left-sided). Cecum, right and transverse colon were defined as right-sided, whereas left colon and rectum were defined as left-sided. RESULTS: Among patients with a right-sided CRC, 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were not correlated with KRAS status (wild type: 30.8 and 47.2 % vs. mutant type: 38.5 and 49.1 %, respectively) (both P > 0.05). Specifically, mutant-type KRAS was not associated with either RFS or OS on multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 1.51, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.73-3.14, P = 0.23 and HR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.51-2.08, P = 0.95, respectively). In contrast, among patients who underwent resection of CRLM from a left-sided primary CRC, 5-year RFS and OS were worse among patients with mutant-type KRAS (wild type: 23.7 and 57.2 % vs. mutant type: 19.6 and 38.2 %, respectively) (both P < 0.05). On multivariable analysis, mutant-type KRAS remained independently associated with worse RFS and OS among patients with a left-sided primary CRC (HR 1.57, 95 % CI 1.01-2.44, P = 0.04 and HR 1.81, 95 % CI 1.11-2.96, P = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: KRAS status has a variable prognostic impact after hepatic resection for CRLM depending on the site of the primary CRC. Future studies examining the impact of KRAS status on prognosis after hepatectomy should take into account the primary CRC tumor site.
BACKGROUND: Right-sided and left-sided colorectal cancer (CRC) is known to differ in their molecular carcinogenic pathways. We sought to investigate the variable prognostic implication of KRAS mutation after hepatectomy for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) according to the site of primary CRC. METHODS: A total of 426 patients who underwent a curative-intent hepatic resection and whose KRAS status was available were identified. Clinicopathologic characteristics and long-term outcomes were stratified by KRAS status (wild type vs. mutant type) and primary tumor location (right-sided vs. left-sided). Cecum, right and transverse colon were defined as right-sided, whereas left colon and rectum were defined as left-sided. RESULTS: Among patients with a right-sided CRC, 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were not correlated with KRAS status (wild type: 30.8 and 47.2 % vs. mutant type: 38.5 and 49.1 %, respectively) (both P > 0.05). Specifically, mutant-type KRAS was not associated with either RFS or OS on multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR] 1.51, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.73-3.14, P = 0.23 and HR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.51-2.08, P = 0.95, respectively). In contrast, among patients who underwent resection of CRLM from a left-sided primary CRC, 5-year RFS and OS were worse among patients with mutant-type KRAS (wild type: 23.7 and 57.2 % vs. mutant type: 19.6 and 38.2 %, respectively) (both P < 0.05). On multivariable analysis, mutant-type KRAS remained independently associated with worse RFS and OS among patients with a left-sided primary CRC (HR 1.57, 95 % CI 1.01-2.44, P = 0.04 and HR 1.81, 95 % CI 1.11-2.96, P = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:KRAS status has a variable prognostic impact after hepatic resection for CRLM depending on the site of the primary CRC. Future studies examining the impact of KRAS status on prognosis after hepatectomy should take into account the primary CRC tumor site.
Authors: Georgios Antonios Margonis; Stefan Buettner; Nikolaos Andreatos; Yuhree Kim; Doris Wagner; Kazunari Sasaki; Andrea Beer; Christoph Schwarz; Inger Marie Løes; Maria Smolle; Carsten Kamphues; Jin He; Timothy M Pawlik; Klaus Kaczirek; George Poultsides; Per Eystein Lønning; John L Cameron; Richard A Burkhart; Armin Gerger; Federico N Aucejo; Martin E Kreis; Christopher L Wolfgang; Matthew J Weiss Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Emily K Elizabeth McCracken; Gregory P Samsa; Deborah A Fisher; Norma E Farrow; Karenia Landa; Kevin N Shah; Dan G Blazer; Sabino Zani Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Pim B Olthof; Stefan Buettner; Nikolaos Andreatos; Jane Wang; Inger Marie Løes; Doris Wagner; Kazunari Sasaki; Andrea Macher-Beer; Carsten Kamphues; Ioannis Pozios; Hendrik Seeliger; Daisuke Morioka; Katsunori Imai; Klaus Kaczirek; Timothy M Pawlik; George Poultsides; Richard Burkhart; Itaru Endo; Hideo Baba; Peter Kornprat; Federico N Aucejo; Per Eystein Lønning; Katharina Beyer; Matthew J Weiss; Christopher L Wolfgang; Martin E Kreis; Georgios A Margonis Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2022-08-16 Impact factor: 11.122
Authors: Cristian D Valenzuela; Omeed Moaven; Rohin Gawdi; John A Stauffer; Nico R Del Piccolo; Tan To Cheung; Carlos U Corvera; Andrew D Wisneski; Charles Cha; Christopher W Mangieri; Nima P Zarandi; Justin Dourado; Kathleen C Perry; Gregory Russell; Perry Shen Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 3.842
Authors: Mizelle D'Silva; Jai Young Cho; Ho-Seong Han; Taupyk Yerlan; Yoo-Seok Yoon; Hae Won Lee; Jun Suh Lee; Boram Lee; Moonhwan Kim Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 4.379