4.7 Article

Influence of Molecular Status on Recurrence Site in Patients Treated for a Stage III Colon Cancer: a Post Hoc Analysis of the PETACC-8 Trial

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 26, Issue 11, Pages 3561-3567

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-019-07513-6

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Recurrence patterns in stage III colon cancer (CC) patients according to molecular markers remain unclear. The objective of the study was to assess recurrence patterns according to microsatellite instability (MSI), RAS and BRAF(V600E) status in stage III CC patients. Methods All stage III CC patients from the PETACC-8 randomized trial tested for MSI, RAS and BRAF(V600E) status were included. The site and characteristics of recurrence were analyzed according to molecular status. Survival after recurrence (SAR) was analyzed. Results A total of 1650 patients were included. Recurrence occurred in 434 patients (26.3%). Microsatellite stable (MSS) patients had a significantly higher recurrence rate (27.2% vs. 18.7%, P = 0.02) with a trend to more pulmonary recurrence (28.8% vs. 12.9%, P = 0.06) when compared to MSI patients. MSI patients experienced more regional lymph nodes compared to MSS (12.9% vs. 4%, P = 0.046). In the MSS population, the recurrence rate was significantly higher in RAS (32.2%) or BRAF (32.3%) patients when compared to double wild-type patients (19.9%) (p < 0.001); no preferential site of recurrence was observed according to RAS and BRAF(V600E) mutations. Finally, decreased SAR was observed in the case of peritoneal recurrence or more than two recurrence sites. Conclusions Microsatellite, RAS and BRAF(V600E) status influences recurrence rates in stage III CC patients. However, only microsatellite status seems to be associated with specific recurrence patterns. More than two recurrence sites and recurrence in the peritoneum were associated with poorer SAR.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available