4.0 Review

The Role of K-Ras and P53 in Biliary Tract Carcinoma

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE PAKISTAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
Volume 71, Issue 10, Pages 2378-2384

Publisher

PAKISTAN MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.47391/JPMA.11-1322

Keywords

K-Ras; Mutation; Biliary tract carcinoma; Cholangiocarcinoma; Murine models

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that mutations in both K-Ras and p53 genes are associated with biliary tract carcinoma, with K-Ras mutation having a higher frequency compared to p53 inactivation in such cancers.
Objective: To focus mainly on the role of proto-oncogene Ki-ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (K-Ras) and tumour-suppressor gene p53 which are among the most commonly mutated genes in biliary tract carcinomas. Methods: The systematic review comprised research articles published between 2002 and 2019 on PubMed and Google Scholar databases which were searched using the terms 'TP53', 'K-Ras', 'mutation', 'biliary tract carcinoma', 'cholangiocarcinoma', and 'murine model'. Repetitions, duplicates and irrelevant articles were excluded. No data was retrieved from posters, presentations and symposiums, and experiments involving bile aspirations were also excluded. Results: Of the 72 articles reviewed, 11(15.3%) were included. Of them, 3(27.3%) studies, conducted in China, Japan and Taiwan, reported a positive correlation between K-Ras mutation and biliary tract carcinoma. Only 1(9%) study, conducted in China, showed the sole correlation between p53 inactivation and biliary tract carcinoma. Also, 4(36.4%) studies, conducted in China, Japan and Europe, showed a positive association of both K-Ras mutation and p53 inactivation with biliary tract carcinoma. Conclusion: K-Ras and p53 mutation both contribute to biliary tract carcinoma. K-Ras mutation, however, has a much higher frequency compared to p53 inactivation in such cancers.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available