4.6 Article

KRAS p.G13D mutations are associated with sensitivity to anti-EGFR antibody treatment in colorectal cancer cell lines

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-012-1319-7

关键词

KRAS; BRAF; PIK3CA; EGFR; Panitumumab; Cetuximab; Colorectal adenocarcinoma

类别

资金

  1. Forschung-skommission of the Medical Faculty of the University of Duesseldorf [9772442]
  2. Arthritis Research UK [MP/19200]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Targeted therapies using the anti-EGFR antibodies panitumumab (Pmab) or cetuximab (Cmab) are currently restricted to patients with metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma whose tumours do not show a mutation in KRAS. However, recent retrospective studies indicated that patients with tumours mutated in codon 13 of KRAS may benefit from treatment with Cmab in contrast to patients with tumours mutated in KRAS codon 12. To study the functional impact of the subtype of KRAS mutations on the efficiency of EGFR-targeted therapies, we correlated the KRAS mutation status of 15 colorectal carcinoma cell lines with the in vitro sensitivity of these cells to Cmab/Pmab. Mutations in the potential predictive biomarkers BRAF and PIK3CA as well as protein expression of EGFR and PTEN were also determined. Four out of seven KRAS-mutated cell lines were characterised by the p.G13D mutation. Treatment of these cells using Cmab/Pmab induced a significant growth inhibition in contrast to cell lines showing a KRAS mutation at codon 12 or 61. Out of the eight KRAS wild-type cell lines, five were insensitive to Cmab/Pmab. These cell lines were characterised either by BRAF mutation or by absence of EGFR or PTEN protein expression. Since KRAS p.G13D-mutated tumour cells may respond to EGFR-targeted therapy, we suggest including subtype analysis of KRAS mutations in prospective clinical trials. In KRAS wild-type tumour cells, BRAF mutations and loss of EGFR or PTEN expression may lead to resistance to EGFR-targeted therapy and should be considered as additional negative predictive biomarkers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据