4.4 Article

Analysis of KRAS Mutations in Cases of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer at a Single Institution On Tochigi, Japan

Journal

PATHOBIOLOGY
Volume 81, Issue 3, Pages 133-137

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000357812

Keywords

Metastatic colorectal cancer; KRAS; Carcinogen; Mutational analysis

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEST) of Japan [23590410]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23590410] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Colorectal cancer patients bearing wild-type KRAS benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody treatment. Since clinical studies showed the efficacy of anti-EGFR antibody treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), we analyzed KRAS mutations in mCRC to gain insight into the association between these mutations and clinicopathological characteristics. Methods: KRAS mutations were analyzed in 109 tissue samples of mCRC using amplification refractory mutation system-Scorpion (ARMS/S) assay (68 samples) and direct sequencing (41 samples). Results: In the ARMS/S assay, 36.5 and 7.4% of mCRCs harbored mutations at codons 12 and 13, respectively. In direct sequencing, corresponding values were 24.4 and 19.5%. Overall, 37.6% (codon 12/13, 25.7/11.9%) of mCRCs harbored KRAS mutations. No significant differences were found between KRAS mutations and clinicopathological variables. Among mCRC patients <65 years of age, the incidence of KRAS mutations at codon 13 was significantly higher in female than male patients (p = 0.035). Conclusion: The incidence of KRAS mutations in mCRC was similar to that of non-mCRC as previously reported. KRAS codon 13 mutations might be associated with younger female patients with mCRC, but further investigation is necessary to clarify the association between this type of mutation and metastatic potential in female CRC patients. (c) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available