4.7 Article

PIK3CA Mutations Predict Local Recurrences in Rectal Cancer Patients

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 15, 期 22, 页码 6956-6962

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1165

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Dutch Cancer Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Identifying rectal cancer patients at risk for local recurrence would allow for refinement in the selection of patients who would benefit from preoperative radiotherapy. PIK3CA, KRAS, and BRAF mutations are commonly found in colon cancers, but their prevalence has not been clearly assessed in rectal cancer. In this study, we aim to determine the mutation frequencies of PIK3CA, KRAS, and BRAF and to investigate whether a mutation may be used as a prognostic parameter in rectal cancer patients. Experimental Design: We evaluated DNA mutations in PIK3CA, KRAS, and BRAF in 240 stage I to III rectal tumors obtained from nonirradiated patients from the Dutch Total Mesorectal Excision trial. Results: PIK3CA, KRAS, and BRAF mutations were identified in 19 (7.9%), 81 (33.9%), and 5 (2.1%) rectal cancers. Patients with PIK3CA mutations developed more local recurrences (5-year risks, 27.8% versus 9.4%; P = 0.006) and tended to develop these recurrences more rapidly after surgery (median local recurrence-free interval since surgery: 7.9 versus 19.6 months; P = 0.07) than patients without PIK3CA mutations. In multivariate analysis, PIK3CA mutations remained as an independent predictor for the development of local recurrences (hazard ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-9.2; P=0.017), next to tumor-node-metastasis stage. Conclusion: PIK3CA mutations can be used as a biomarker in identifying rectal cancer patients with an increased risk for local recurrences. Currently, our findings suggest that prospective evaluation of PIK3CA mutation status could reduce overtreatment by preoperative radiotherapy for the low-risk patients who might otherwise only experience the side effects. (Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(22):6956-62)

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