4.4 Article

Molecular spectrum of KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA gene mutation: determination of frequency, distribution pattern in Indian colorectal carcinoma

期刊

MEDICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 31, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12032-014-0124-3

关键词

KRAS; BRAF; PIK3CA; Colorectal carcinoma; India

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Molecular evaluation of KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutation has become an important part in colorectal carcinoma evaluation, and their alterations may determine the therapeutic response to anti-EGFR therapy. The current study demonstrates the evaluation of KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutation using direct sequencing in 204 samples. The frequency of KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations was 23.5, 9.8, and 5.9 %, respectively. Five different substitution mutations atKRAScodon 12 (G12S, G12D, G12A, G12V, and G12C) and one substitution type at codon 13 (G13D) were observed. KRAS mutations were significantly higher in patients who were >50 years, and were associated with moderate/poorly differentiated tumors and adenocarcinomas. All mutations in BRAF gene were of V600E type, which were frequent in patients who were <= 50 years. Unlike KRAS mutations, BRAF mutations were more frequent in well-differentiated tumors and right-sided tumors. PIK3CA-E545K was the most recurrent mutation while other mutations detected were T544I, Q546R, H1047R, G1049S, and D1056N. No significant association of PIK3CA mutation with age, tumor differentiation, location, and other parameters was noted. No concomitant mutation of KRAS and BRAF mutations was observed, while, interestingly, five cases showed concurrent mutation of KRAS and PIK3CA mutations. In conclusion, to our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the PIK3CA mutation in Indian CRC patients. The frequency of KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA was similar to worldwide reports. Furthermore, identification of molecular markers has unique strengths, and can provide insights into the pathogenic process and help optimize personalized prevention and therapy.

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

4.4
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