4.5 Article

Smoking, Gender, and Ethnicity Predict Somatic BRAF Mutations in Colorectal Cancer

Journal

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
Volume 19, Issue 3, Pages 838-843

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-1112

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Kirschstein National Research Service Award [CA110622]
  2. [RO1 CA81488]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Approximately 5% to 15% of all colorectal cancers (CRC) have an activating BRAF somatic mutation, which may be associated with a distinct risk profile compared with tumors without BRAF mutations. Here, we measured the prevalence and epidemiologic correlates of the BRAF V600E somatic mutation in cases collected as a part of a population-based case-control study of CRC in northern Israel. The prevalence of BRAF V600E was 5.0% in this population, and the mutation was more likely to be found in tumors from cases who were of Ashkenazi Jewish descent [odds ratio (OR), 1.87; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.01-3.47], female (OR, 1.97; P = 1.17-3.31), and older (73.8 years versus 70.3 years; P < 0.001). These results were similar when restricting to only tumors with microsatellite instability. Whether smoking was associated with a BRAF somatic mutation depended on gender. Although men were less likely to have a tumor with a BRAF somatic mutation, men who smoked were much more likely to have a tumor with a somatic BRAF mutation (ORinteraction, 4.95; 95% CI, 1.18-20.83) than women who never smoked. We note the strong heterogeneity in the reported prevalence of the BRAF V600E mutation in studies of different ethnicities, with a lower prevalence in Israel than other Western populations but a higher prevalence among Jewish than non-Jewish Israeli cases. Epidemiologic studies of CRC should incorporate somatic characteristics to fully appreciate risk factors for this disease. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 19(3); 838-43. (C) 2010 AACR.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available