Christopher E Jensen1, Jonathan Y Villanueva2, Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla3. 1. Department of Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Medical Oncology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior reports have demonstrated inferior outcomes for patients with right-sided colorectal cancer (CRC) compared to patients with left-sided disease, as well as differences in treatment response based on disease sidedness. Differences in prognosis remain even among patients with metastatic disease, indicating that anatomy or stage at diagnosis alone cannot explain all of these findings. While genetic differences between right- and left-sided CRC have long been described, the genetic and molecular drivers underlying differences in prognosis and treatment response remain incompletely understood. METHODS: We compared mutation prevalence between right- (cecum to splenic flexure) and left-sided (descending colon to rectum) CRC among 38 genes in a retrospective review of next-generation sequencing data of CRC samples obtained in routine clinical practice at a single academic medical center. RESULTS: Among 288 cases (167 left-sided, 103 right-sided, 18 synchronous or without clear primary), patients with left-sided primaries had a longer overall survival from pathologic diagnosis (median 1,823 days vs. 1,006 days for right-sided cases, P=0.004). Among the assessed genes, BRAF and CTNNB1 mutations were more prevalent in right-sided CRC. BRAF was mutated in 15.5% of right-sided CRC (95% CI: 8.5-22.5%) compared to 4.8% (95% CI: 1.6-8.0%) (P=0.003). CTNNB1 was mutated in 3.9% of right-sided CRC (95% CI: 0.2-7.6%) compared to no instances of CTNNB1 mutations in left-sided disease (P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This difference in mutation prevalence may implicate these genetic pathways in the mechanisms underlying the discrepant outcomes and treatment responses between right- and left-sided CRC described in this and prior studies.
BACKGROUND: Prior reports have demonstrated inferior outcomes for patients with right-sided colorectal cancer (CRC) compared to patients with left-sided disease, as well as differences in treatment response based on disease sidedness. Differences in prognosis remain even among patients with metastatic disease, indicating that anatomy or stage at diagnosis alone cannot explain all of these findings. While genetic differences between right- and left-sided CRC have long been described, the genetic and molecular drivers underlying differences in prognosis and treatment response remain incompletely understood. METHODS: We compared mutation prevalence between right- (cecum to splenic flexure) and left-sided (descending colon to rectum) CRC among 38 genes in a retrospective review of next-generation sequencing data of CRC samples obtained in routine clinical practice at a single academic medical center. RESULTS: Among 288 cases (167 left-sided, 103 right-sided, 18 synchronous or without clear primary), patients with left-sided primaries had a longer overall survival from pathologic diagnosis (median 1,823 days vs. 1,006 days for right-sided cases, P=0.004). Among the assessed genes, BRAF and CTNNB1 mutations were more prevalent in right-sided CRC. BRAF was mutated in 15.5% of right-sided CRC (95% CI: 8.5-22.5%) compared to 4.8% (95% CI: 1.6-8.0%) (P=0.003). CTNNB1 was mutated in 3.9% of right-sided CRC (95% CI: 0.2-7.6%) compared to no instances of CTNNB1 mutations in left-sided disease (P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This difference in mutation prevalence may implicate these genetic pathways in the mechanisms underlying the discrepant outcomes and treatment responses between right- and left-sided CRC described in this and prior studies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colorectal cancer (CRC); next-generation sequencing (NGS); precision oncology; sidedness
Authors: K Birkenkamp-Demtroder; S H Olesen; F B Sørensen; S Laurberg; P Laiho; L A Aaltonen; T F Orntoft Journal: Gut Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Eric Van Cutsem; Claus-Henning Köhne; István Láng; Gunnar Folprecht; Marek P Nowacki; Stefano Cascinu; Igor Shchepotin; Joan Maurel; David Cunningham; Sabine Tejpar; Michael Schlichting; Angela Zubel; Ilhan Celik; Philippe Rougier; Fortunato Ciardiello Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-04-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Fotios Loupakis; Dongyun Yang; Linda Yau; Shibao Feng; Chiara Cremolini; Wu Zhang; Martin K H Maus; Carlotta Antoniotti; Christiane Langer; Stefan J Scherer; Thomas Müller; Herbert I Hurwitz; Leonard Saltz; Alfredo Falcone; Heinz-Josef Lenz Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Teppei Morikawa; Aya Kuchiba; Mai Yamauchi; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Kaori Shima; Katsuhiko Nosho; Andrew T Chan; Edward Giovannucci; Charles S Fuchs; Shuji Ogino Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-04-27 Impact factor: 56.272
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: David R Braxton; Ray Zhang; Jennifer D Morrissette; Arturo Loaiza-Bonilla; Emma E Furth Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Susan D Richman; Matthew T Seymour; Philip Chambers; Faye Elliott; Catherine L Daly; Angela M Meade; Graham Taylor; Jennifer H Barrett; Philip Quirke Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rosa Schmuck; Michael Gerken; Eva-Maria Teegen; Isabell Krebs; Monika Klinkhammer-Schalke; Felix Aigner; Johann Pratschke; Beate Rau; Stefan Benz Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Derek W Ebner; Jason D Eckmann; Kelli N Burger; Douglas W Mahoney; Jamie Bering; Allon Kahn; Eduardo A Rodriguez; David O Prichard; Michael B Wallace; Sunanda V Kane; Lila J Finney Rutten; Suryakanth R Gurudu; John B Kisiel Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 4.488