4.4 Review

Reevaluating the prognostic role of BRAF mutation in colorectal cancer liver metastases

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 223, Issue 5, Pages 879-883

Publisher

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.09.006

Keywords

BRAF; Liver metastases; Hepatectomy; Meta-analysis; BRAF; Liver metastases; Hepatectomy; Meta-analysis

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the impact of mutated BRAF status on overall and disease-free survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. The results showed that patients with mutBRAF had significantly worse oncologic outcomes following surgery and a more aggressive disease phenotype overall.
Introduction: Mutations in the BRAF proto-oncogene have been shown to predict poor patient survival following curative-intent liver surgery for metastatic colorectal cancer. The aim of the present systematic review and meta -analysis is to evaluate the effect of mutated BRAF status (mutBRAF) on the overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in these patients.Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed for studies reporting outcomes of patients undergoing curative-intent surgery stratified by BRAF mutation status. Subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate whether inclusion of KRAS mutation status significantly influenced the results.Results: Six studies incorporating 1857 patients with known BRAF status were identified. Pooled results revealed significantly worse OS (Hazard Ratio 2.8, 95% C.I. 2.09 to 3.77) and DFS (Hazard Ratio 2.29, 95% C.I. 2.09 to 3.77) in mutBRAF patients. Subgroup analysis revealed no statistically significant impact of including KRAS status testing on the obtained results.Conclusions: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer carrying BRAF mutations have significantly worse oncologic outcomes following surgery and more aggressive disease phenotype overall.

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