4.7 Article

Analysis of PTEN, BRAF, and EGFR Status in Determining Benefit From Cetuximab Therapy in Wild-Type KRAS Metastatic Colon Cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 27, 期 35, 页码 5924-5930

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6796

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose The occurrence of KRAS mutation is predictive of nonresponse and shorter survival in patients treated by anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (anti-EGFR) antibody for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), leading the European Medicine Agency to limit its use to patients with wild-type KRAS tumors. However, only half of these patients will benefit from treatment, suggesting the need to identify additional biomarkers for cetuximab-based treatment efficacy. Patients and Methods We retrospectively collected tumors from 173 patients with mCRC. All but one patient received a cetuximab-based regimen as second-line or greater therapy. KRAS and BRAF status were assessed by allelic discrimination. EGFR amplification was assessed by chromogenic in situ hybridization and fluorescent in situ hybridization, and the expression of PTEN was assessed by immunochemistry. Results In patients with KRAS wild-type tumors (n = 116), BRAF mutations (n = 5) were weakly associated with lack of response (P = .063) but were strongly associated with shorter progression-free survival (P < .001) and shorter overall survival (OS; P < .001). A high EGFR polysomy or an EGFR amplification was found in 17.7% of the patients and was associated with response (P = .015). PTEN null expression was found in 19.9% of the patients and was associated with shorter OS (P = .013). In multivariate analysis, BRAF mutation and PTEN expression status were associated with OS. Conclusion BRAF status, EGFR amplification, and cytoplasmic expression of PTEN were associated with outcome measures in KRAS wild-type patients treated with a cetuximab-based regimen. Subsequent studies in clinical trial cohorts will be required to confirm the clinical utility of these markers.

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

4.7
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