Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies
Open Access

Prognostic Value of KRAS Exon-specific Mutations in Patients With Colorectal Cancer

KENTARO ASAKO, TAMURO HAYAMA, YOJIRO HASHIGUCHI, TOSHIYA MIYATA, YOSHIHISA FUKUSHIMA, RYU SHIMADA, KENSUKE KANEKO, KEIJIRO NOZAWA, KEIJI MATSUDA and TAKEO FUKAGAWA
Anticancer Research April 2023, 43 (4) 1563-1568; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.16306
KENTARO ASAKO
Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TAMURO HAYAMA
Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: tamuro{at}med.teikyo-u.ac.jp
YOJIRO HASHIGUCHI
Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TOSHIYA MIYATA
Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
YOSHIHISA FUKUSHIMA
Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
RYU SHIMADA
Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
KENSUKE KANEKO
Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
KEIJIRO NOZAWA
Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
KEIJI MATSUDA
Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TAKEO FUKAGAWA
Department of Surgery, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: The clinical significance of many RAS-family mutations in colorectal cancer (CRC) remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship of RAS mutations on an exon basis (i.e., mutations in KRAS exons 2, 3, and 4 and in NRAS) with clinicopathological features and prognosis in CRC. Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of the medical records and frozen tissue samples of 268 consecutive patients with stage I-III CRC who underwent curative resection at a single institution between 2014 and 2018. Results: The RAS mutation rate was significantly associated with age and histology. Patients with KRAS exon 2 mutations exhibited shorter recurrence-free survival compared to those with KRAS wild-type, KRAS exon 3 mutations, KRAS exon 4 mutations, and NRAS mutations (73.0% vs. 85.5%, 86.7%, 85.7%; p=0.031). Age and histology were independent risk factors for RAS mutations. RAS mutations were independent prognostic factors with respect to recurrence-free survival in patients with stage I-III CRC. Conclusion: In stage I-III CRC patients, KRAS exon 2 mutations had the worst prognosis, whereas KRAS wild type, exon 3 mutations, exon 4 mutations, and NRAS mutations had better prognoses.

Key Words:
  • Colorectal cancer
  • exon-specific mutations
  • KRAS
  • NRAS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most frequently diagnosed malignancies worldwide, and the second most common cause of cancer-associated deaths in Japan (1). Cancer treatments have made great progress in recent years. Comprehensive systemic treatment for unresectable advanced cancer is effective and important. Biomarkers that are highly predictive of the prognosis of cancer patients are in great demand (2, 3). Identifying predictors of recurrence can improve prognosis in CRC patients undergoing curative surgery.

In recent years, nutritional markers, inflammatory markers, and gene mutations have been attracting attention as factors for predicting prognosis (4-8). Detection of RAS mutations has emerged as an important assessment method for patients with CRC due to its clinical value in predicting prognosis (9). Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies play an important role in the therapy for CRC. Investigating biomarkers, is imperative for choosing the most appropriate drug for CRC treatment (10-12).

KRAS exons 2, 3, and 4 mutations or NRAS mutations are common in CRC (13). Mutations occur in about 20-25% of human cancers; in CRC, KRAS mutations are found in about 40% of cases and more frequently affect exon 2 (96%). NRAS mutations are found in about 3-5% of CRC, and are more frequently located in exon 3 (60%) (11).

KRAS mutations are routinely tested for metastatic CRC in clinical practice. Mutations in KRAS have been widely reported to be strongly associated with resistance to anti-EGFR therapy (14, 15). However, KRAS exon 3, KRAS exon 4, and NRAS mutations occur in 3-5% of CRC and have not been extensively studied due to their low mutation rates (16); thus, the prognostic value of these mutations remains unclear and no consensus has been reached on the clinicopathologic features and prognosis of patients with mutations according to exon (9). We previously reported the poor prognosis of KRAS G12V and G12C mutations (7). The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic value of RAS mutations by exon and the clinicopathologic features of the patients carrying these mutations.

Patients and Methods

Patient selection. We retrospectively analyzed 286 consecutive patients with CRC who underwent curative resection at Teikyo University Hospital, Japan, from 2015 through 2018. This study included patients identified as having pathological stages I-III CRC according to the 8th edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system (7).

The exclusion criteria were: 1) multiple primary malignancies, 2) history of familial adenomatous polyposis or Lynch syndrome, 3) previous chemoradiation for rectal cancer. Standard demographic and clinicopathologic data were collected for each patient, including information regarding tumor (T) node (N), and metastasis (M) stage. Tissue samples were surgically excised only after obtaining informed consent from each patient. The present study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Teikyo University (Registration Number: 19-153).

Follow-up. Curative surgical resection was defined as gross and histological complete tumor clearance with no evidence of distant metastasis. The patient was followed every 3 months for the first 3 years and every 6 months for the next 2 years. All follow-ups included physical examination and testing for the tumor markers serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9). Computer tomographic scans of the chest and abdomen were usually taken every 6 months. At 1 year postoperative follow-up, all patients underwent complete colonoscopy. After that, patients after rectal cancer surgery underwent colonoscopy once a year, and patients with colon cancer underwent colonoscopy once every two years. Cancer recurrence was defined as the appearance of clinical, radiological, and/or pathological diagnosis of tumor locally or distant from the original site (7).

RAS mutation analysis. Testing for RAS/BRAF mutations was performed at Hoken Kagaku Laboratories (Kanagawa, Japan) using samples collected from tumor tissues. The selected area of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples (FFPE) was deparaffined, followed by DNA isolation from the samples using a QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Manchester, UK) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. DNA quantification was performed on a NanoDrop 2000c (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). The obtained DNA was amplified by PCR-reverse sequence-specific oligonucleotide (PCR-rSSO) on an Applied Biosystems VeritiTM 200 Thermal Cycler (Thermo Fisher Scientific) using MEBGENTM RASKET-B kit (MBL, Tokyo, Japan). Cycling conditions were the following: 5 min at 40°C, 2 min at 95°C, followed by 10 cycles at 95°C for 20 s and 62°C for 30 s, and then 45 cycles at 90°C for 20 s, 60°C for 30 s and 72°C for 30 s. Finally, 1 min at 72°C, followed by 95°C before the product was cooled down at 4°C. The amplified PCR product was then hybridized with probes in Beads Mix in Hybridization Buffer provided with the MEBGENTM RASKET-B kit. The reaction was performed at 95°C for 2 min followed by 55°C for 20 min. The product was purified according to the manufacturer’s instructions and incubated with fluorescent Phycoerythrin-labelled streptavidin. Fluorescence was measured by flow cytometry on a Luminex 100/200 System (Luminex, Austin, TX, USA), and the data were analyzed with the associated UniMAG software (Luminex) (7).

Statistical analysis. Between-group comparisons were performed with the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test for proportions, and the Mann–Whitney U-test for continuous variables. The 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) was defined as the period between the date of surgery and the date of any tumor recurrence within 3 years after surgery. Survival was compared by determining the Kaplan–Meier curves, and the differences in survival were evaluated using the log-rank test. Cox regression analysis was used to identify factors significantly associated with RFS. Differences with a p-value of <0.05 were considered significant in all analyses. All statistical analyses were performed using JMP 15 software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and GraphPad Prism v5.0 (GraphPad Software Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA).

Results

Patient characteristics and frequency of RAS mutations. All 268 patients enrolled in the present study were diagnosed with either CRC stage I 30.6% (n=82), stage II 39.6% (n=106), or stage III 29.9% (n=80) (Table I). The rate of RAS mutations in stage I CRC was 28.1%, in stage II was 40.6%, and in stage III was 31.3% (Table I).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Mutation rate according to TNM stage.

Mutation characteristics of the RAS gene. As Table II shows, in the 268 tumor samples, a total of 128 RAS mutations (47%; 128/268) were detected. 93.7% (120/128) of the samples involved KRAS mutations and 6.3% (8/128) NRAS mutations. The KRAS exon 2 mutation was the most common mutation, seen in 82% (105/128) of cases (Figure 1).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Association of clinicopathological features with mutational status.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Frequencies of RAS mutation subtypes.

Clinicopathological characteristics of the RAS group. We investigated the relationship between RAS mutations and age, sex, the location of the primary tumor, histology, depth of tumor invasion, lymph node metastasis, lymph invasion, venous invasion, CEA level, and CA19-9 level (Table II). In the RAS mutant group, age at diagnosis was higher than that in the wild-type group (p=0.037). Regarding histology, compared to the RAS wild type group, the mutant group had primarily poorly differentiated CRC rather than well-differentiated or moderately differentiated tumors (p=0.023) (Table II).

Relapse-free survival of patients in relation to RAS status. Fifty-three patients (19.8%; 53/268) developed recurrence after a median of 1,315 days postoperatively. As Table III shows, univariate analysis identified histology, depth of tumor invasion, lymph node metastasis, lymph invasion, venous invasion, CEA level, CA19-9 level, and RAS mutation status as predictive of 3-year RFS. In multivariate analysis and while controlling for other factors, histology, depth of tumor invasion, lymph node metastasis, CEA level, and RAS mutation status remained statistically significant (p=0.010, 0.009, 0.001, 0.01, 0.006) (Table III).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Univariate and multivariate analysis of 3-year relapse-free survival stratified by clinicopathological features.

Three-year RFS rates of patients in the wild-type group and mutant group were 85.8% and 75.5%, respectively (p=0.018) (Figure 2). Wild-type CRC had a significantly better prognosis than mutant CRC.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Kaplan–Meier curve of 3-year relapse-free survival of patients with colorectal cancer stratified by RAS status (mutated or wild type).

Clinicopathological characteristics and survival according to the location of the RAS mutation. We divided the status into KRAS exon 2, KRAS exon 3 or exon 4 mutations, and NRAS mutations, and examined clinicopathological factors and prognosis. Regarding clinicopathological factors, depth of tumor invasion and venous invasion were significantly different (p=0.033, 0.043) (Table IV).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table IV.

Comparison between KRAS exon 2 mutations, KRAS exon 3 mutations or KRAS exon 4 mutations, and NRAS mutations.

We analyzed the 3-year RFS in each mutation group by exon. Three-year RFS rates in patients in the wild-type group, KRAS exon 2, and KRAS exon 3, exon 4 or NRAS mutation group were 85.5%, 73.0%, and 86.7% (p=0.016) (Figure 3). The KRAS exon 2 mutant group had the shortest 3-year RFS and the difference was significant.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Kaplan–Meier curve of 3-year relapse-free survival of patients with colorectal cancer stratified according to the specific RAS mutation (KRAS exon 2 mutation vs. KRAS exon 3 or exon 4 mutation or NRAS mutation vs. Wild, *KRAS exon 2 mutation vs. KRAS exon 3 or exon 4, **KRAS exon 2 mutation vs. Wild type).

Discussion

We investigated the clinicopathological factors and prognostic value of RAS mutations in primary tumors from 268 consecutive patients with stage I-III CRC. Our analyses showed a significant proportion of the patients (47.8%) had tumors bearing RAS mutations, and the majority (105/128) were in exon 2. Notably, RAS mutated CRC did not show significant differences in terms of clinical and pathological characteristics, except for a higher prevalence of mucinous histology and higher age. RAS mutations in exon 2 were associated with worse RFS whereas the KRAS exon 3 mutations, KRAS exon 4 mutations, and NRAS mutations were not significantly different from wild type, and thus considered low-risk.

The most common oncogenic mutations in CRC are KRAS point mutations at positions 12, 13, and 61, approximately 90% of which are in exon 2 (17). These mutations reduce GTPase hydrolase activity and preserve protein activity. Within our population, KRAS exon 2 mutations were independently associated with worse 3-year RFS compared to wild-type. In contrast, exon 3, exon 4, and NRAS mutations had 3-year RFS similar to that of wild type. Mutations in exon 2 were found to increase the risk of recurrence two-fold over the wild-type, and these findings are consistent with those of other reports (9, 18, 19).

A study analyzing the behavior of KRAS exon 2 mutants found that the G12V variant had reduced GTPase activity, 25% of that of the G12D mutant and 10% of that of wild type (7, 20, 21). The exon 2 mutations also had reduced affinity for binding GTPase-activating proteins, further reducing GTPase function (21). This phenomenon alters the threshold at which cancer apoptosis is induced, potentially enhancing the transforming capacity of cells and avoiding apoptosis (22).

This study has three limitations. First, it had a retrospective design and consisted of patients from a single institution. Second, the sample size was relatively small (n=268). Third, patients underwent various invasive surgical procedures for CRC. Mortality and morbidity due to surgical techniques were not considered. Our findings warrant further review and validation in CRC patients from many centers and countries.

This retrospective study demonstrated that patients with stage I-III CRC with KRAS exon 2 mutations had the worst prognosis, whereas KRAS exon 3, exon 4, and NRAS mutations predicted a better prognosis. Thus, further studies on treatment efficacy should evaluate patients with KRAS exon 2 mutations separately from those with other RAS mutations and the specific mutation should be considered when predicting the clinical outcome of patients and individualizing therapies. The results of this study may constitute an additional prognostic factor in CRC and should be further explored in future studies.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP 22K08784 and ACRO Research Grants of Teikyo University. The Authors are grateful to Prof. Kazuaki Yokoyama and Dr. Kotaro Hama for their assistance in this study.

Footnotes

  • Authors’ Contributions

    Study design: KA, TH, YH, KN and KM. Data collection, and analysis: TH, TM, KA, RS, YF, KM and TF.

    Drafting of manuscript: TH, YH.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors have no conflicts of interest to declare in relation to this study.

  • Received January 30, 2023.
  • Revision received February 13, 2023.
  • Accepted February 15, 2023.
  • Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by the International Institute of Anticancer Research.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 international license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0).

References

  1. ↵
    1. Sung H,
    2. Ferlay J,
    3. Siegel RL,
    4. Laversanne M,
    5. Soerjomataram I,
    6. Jemal A and
    7. Bray F
    : Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 71(3): 209-249, 2021. PMID: 33538338. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Zugazagoitia J,
    2. Guedes C,
    3. Ponce S,
    4. Ferrer I,
    5. Molina-Pinelo S and
    6. Paz-Ares L
    : Current challenges in cancer treatment. Clin Ther 38(7): 1551-1566, 2016. PMID: 27158009. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2016.03.026
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Funamizu N,
    2. Sakamoto A,
    3. Utsunomiya T,
    4. Uraoka M,
    5. Nagaoka T,
    6. Iwata M,
    7. Ito C,
    8. Tamura K,
    9. Sakamoto K,
    10. Ogawa K and
    11. Takada Y
    : Geriatric nutritional risk index as a potential prognostic marker for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer: a single-center, retrospective cohort study. Sci Rep 12(1): 13644, 2022. PMID: 35953639. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-18077-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Hayama T,
    2. Ozawa T,
    3. Okada Y,
    4. Tsukamoto M,
    5. Fukushima Y,
    6. Shimada R,
    7. Nozawa K,
    8. Matsuda K,
    9. Fujii S and
    10. Hashiguchi Y
    : The pretreatment Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score is an independent prognostic factor in patients undergoing resection for colorectal cancer. Sci Rep 10(1): 13239, 2020. PMID: 32764671. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-70252-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hayama T,
    2. Hashiguchi Y,
    3. Ozawa T,
    4. Watanabe M,
    5. Fukushima Y,
    6. Shimada R,
    7. Nozawa K,
    8. Matsuda K,
    9. Fujii S and
    10. Fukagawa T
    : The preoperative geriatric nutritional risk index (GNRI) is an independent prognostic factor in elderly patients underwent curative resection for colorectal cancer. Sci Rep 12(1): 3682, 2022. PMID: 35256659. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-07540-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hayama T,
    2. Hashiguchi Y,
    3. Okada Y,
    4. Ono K,
    5. Nemoto K,
    6. Shimada R,
    7. Ozawa T,
    8. Toyoda T,
    9. Tsuchiya T,
    10. Iinuma H,
    11. Nozawa K and
    12. Matsuda K
    : Significance of the 7th postoperative day neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 35(1): 119-124, 2020. PMID: 31797097. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-019-03463-3
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Hayama T,
    2. Hashiguchi Y,
    3. Okamoto K,
    4. Okada Y,
    5. Ono K,
    6. Shimada R,
    7. Ozawa T,
    8. Toyoda T,
    9. Tsuchiya T,
    10. Iinuma H,
    11. Nozawa K and
    12. Matsuda K
    : G12V and G12C mutations in the gene KRAS are associated with a poorer prognosis in primary colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 34(8): 1491-1496, 2019. PMID: 31309326. DOI: 10.1007/s00384-019-03344-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Hachiya H,
    2. Ishizuka M,
    3. Takagi K,
    4. Iwasaki Y,
    5. Shibuya N,
    6. Nishi Y,
    7. Aoki T and
    8. Kubota K
    : Clinical significance of the globulin-to-albumin ratio for prediction of postoperative survival in patients with colorectal cancer. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 2(6): 434-441, 2018. PMID: 30460347. DOI: 10.1002/ags3.12201
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Guo T,
    2. Wu Y,
    3. Huang D,
    4. Jin Y,
    5. Sheng W,
    6. Cai S,
    7. Zhou X,
    8. Zhu X,
    9. Liu F and
    10. Xu Y
    : Prognostic value of KRAS exon 3 and exon 4 mutations in colorectal cancer patients. J Cancer 12(17): 5331-5337, 2021. PMID: 34335949. DOI: 10.7150/jca.59193
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Cunningham D,
    2. Humblet Y,
    3. Siena S,
    4. Khayat D,
    5. Bleiberg H,
    6. Santoro A,
    7. Bets D,
    8. Mueser M,
    9. Harstrick A,
    10. Verslype C,
    11. Chau I and
    12. Van Cutsem E
    : Cetuximab monotherapy and cetuximab plus irinotecan in irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 351(4): 337-345, 2004. PMID: 15269313. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa033025
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. De Roock W,
    2. De Vriendt V,
    3. Normanno N,
    4. Ciardiello F and
    5. Tejpar S
    : KRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA, and PTEN mutations: implications for targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer. Lancet Oncol 12(6): 594-603, 2011. PMID: 21163703. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70209-6
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Oki E,
    2. Ando K,
    3. Taniguchi H,
    4. Yoshino T and
    5. Mori M
    : Sustainable clinical development of adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 6(1): 37-45, 2021. PMID: 35106413. DOI: 10.1002/ags3.12503
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Yoshino T,
    2. Muro K,
    3. Yamaguchi K,
    4. Nishina T,
    5. Denda T,
    6. Kudo T,
    7. Okamoto W,
    8. Taniguchi H,
    9. Akagi K,
    10. Kajiwara T,
    11. Hironaka S and
    12. Satoh T
    : Clinical validation of a multiplex kit for RAS mutations in colorectal cancer: Results of the RASKET (RAS KEy testing) prospective, multicenter study. EBioMedicine 2(4): 317-323, 2015. PMID: 26137573. DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2015.02.007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Jonker DJ,
    2. O’Callaghan CJ,
    3. Karapetis CS,
    4. Zalcberg JR,
    5. Tu D,
    6. Au HJ,
    7. Berry SR,
    8. Krahn M,
    9. Price T,
    10. Simes RJ,
    11. Tebbutt NC,
    12. van Hazel G,
    13. Wierzbicki R,
    14. Langer C and
    15. Moore MJ
    : Cetuximab for the treatment of colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 357(20): 2040-2048, 2007. PMID: 18003960. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa071834
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Van Cutsem E,
    2. Köhne CH,
    3. Hitre E,
    4. Zaluski J,
    5. Chang Chien CR,
    6. Makhson A,
    7. D’Haens G,
    8. Pintér T,
    9. Lim R,
    10. Bodoky G,
    11. Roh JK,
    12. Folprecht G,
    13. Ruff P,
    14. Stroh C,
    15. Tejpar S,
    16. Schlichting M,
    17. Nippgen J and
    18. Rougier P
    : Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 360(14): 1408-1417, 2009. PMID: 19339720. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0805019
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Schirripa M,
    2. Cremolini C,
    3. Loupakis F,
    4. Morvillo M,
    5. Bergamo F,
    6. Zoratto F,
    7. Salvatore L,
    8. Antoniotti C,
    9. Marmorino F,
    10. Sensi E,
    11. Lupi C,
    12. Fontanini G,
    13. De Gregorio V,
    14. Giannini R,
    15. Basolo F,
    16. Masi G and
    17. Falcone A
    : Role of NRAS mutations as prognostic and predictive markers in metastatic colorectal cancer. Int J Cancer 136(1): 83-90, 2015. PMID: 24806288. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.28955
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Karapetis CS,
    2. Khambata-Ford S,
    3. Jonker DJ,
    4. O’Callaghan CJ,
    5. Tu D,
    6. Tebbutt NC,
    7. Simes RJ,
    8. Chalchal H,
    9. Shapiro JD,
    10. Robitaille S,
    11. Price TJ,
    12. Shepherd L,
    13. Au HJ,
    14. Langer C,
    15. Moore MJ and
    16. Zalcberg JR
    : K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med 359(17): 1757-1765, 2008. PMID: 18946061. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0804385
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Andreyev HJ,
    2. Norman AR,
    3. Cunningham D,
    4. Oates J,
    5. Dix BR,
    6. Iacopetta BJ,
    7. Young J,
    8. Walsh T,
    9. Ward R,
    10. Hawkins N,
    11. Beranek M,
    12. Jandik P,
    13. Benamouzig R,
    14. Jullian E,
    15. Laurent-Puig P,
    16. Olschwang S,
    17. Muller O,
    18. Hoffmann I,
    19. Rabes HM,
    20. Zietz C,
    21. Troungos C,
    22. Valavanis C,
    23. Yuen ST,
    24. Ho JW,
    25. Croke CT,
    26. O’Donoghue DP,
    27. Giaretti W,
    28. Rapallo A,
    29. Russo A,
    30. Bazan V,
    31. Tanaka M,
    32. Omura K,
    33. Azuma T,
    34. Ohkusa T,
    35. Fujimori T,
    36. Ono Y,
    37. Pauly M,
    38. Faber C,
    39. Glaesener R,
    40. de Goeij AF,
    41. Arends JW,
    42. Andersen SN,
    43. Lövig T,
    44. Breivik J,
    45. Gaudernack G,
    46. Clausen OP,
    47. De Angelis PD,
    48. Meling GI,
    49. Rognum TO,
    50. Smith R,
    51. Goh HS,
    52. Font A,
    53. Rosell R,
    54. Sun XF,
    55. Zhang H,
    56. Benhattar J,
    57. Losi L,
    58. Lee JQ,
    59. Wang ST,
    60. Clarke PA,
    61. Bell S,
    62. Quirke P,
    63. Bubb VJ,
    64. Piris J,
    65. Cruickshank NR,
    66. Morton D,
    67. Fox JC,
    68. Al-Mulla F,
    69. Lees N,
    70. Hall CN,
    71. Snary D,
    72. Wilkinson K,
    73. Dillon D,
    74. Costa J,
    75. Pricolo VE,
    76. Finkelstein SD,
    77. Thebo JS,
    78. Senagore AJ,
    79. Halter SA,
    80. Wadler S,
    81. Malik S,
    82. Krtolica K and
    83. Urosevic N
    : Kirsten ras mutations in patients with colorectal cancer: the ‘RASCAL II’ study. Br J Cancer 85(5): 692-696, 2001. PMID: 11531254. DOI: 10.1054/bjoc.2001.1964
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Diener MK and
    2. Fichtner-Feigl S
    : Biomarkers in colorectal liver metastases: Rising complexity and unknown clinical significance? Ann Gastroenterol Surg 5(4): 477-483, 2021. PMID: 34337296. DOI: 10.1002/ags3.12454
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Bollag G and
    2. McCormick F
    : Intrinsic and GTPase-activating protein-stimulated Ras GTPase assays. Methods Enzymol 255: 161-170, 1995. PMID: 8524100. DOI: 10.1016/s0076-6879(95)55020-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. John J,
    2. Frech M and
    3. Wittinghofer A
    : Biochemical properties of Ha-ras encoded p21 mutants and mechanism of the autophosphorylation reaction. J Biol Chem 263(24): 11792-11799, 1988. PMID: 3042780.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Seeburg PH,
    2. Colby WW,
    3. Capon DJ,
    4. Goeddel DV and
    5. Levinson AD
    : Biological properties of human c-Ha-ras1 genes mutated at codon 12. Nature 312(5989): 71-75, 1984. PMID: 6092966. DOI: 10.1038/312071a0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 43 (4)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 43, Issue 4
April 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Prognostic Value of KRAS Exon-specific Mutations in Patients With Colorectal Cancer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
6 + 12 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Prognostic Value of KRAS Exon-specific Mutations in Patients With Colorectal Cancer
KENTARO ASAKO, TAMURO HAYAMA, YOJIRO HASHIGUCHI, TOSHIYA MIYATA, YOSHIHISA FUKUSHIMA, RYU SHIMADA, KENSUKE KANEKO, KEIJIRO NOZAWA, KEIJI MATSUDA, TAKEO FUKAGAWA
Anticancer Research Apr 2023, 43 (4) 1563-1568; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.16306

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Prognostic Value of KRAS Exon-specific Mutations in Patients With Colorectal Cancer
KENTARO ASAKO, TAMURO HAYAMA, YOJIRO HASHIGUCHI, TOSHIYA MIYATA, YOSHIHISA FUKUSHIMA, RYU SHIMADA, KENSUKE KANEKO, KEIJIRO NOZAWA, KEIJI MATSUDA, TAKEO FUKAGAWA
Anticancer Research Apr 2023, 43 (4) 1563-1568; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.16306
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

  • Chemotherapy Efficacy in Patients With Colorectal Cancer Experiencing Early Recurrence During or After Adjuvant Chemotherapy
  • PIK3CA Mutated Colorectal Cancers Without KRAS, NRAS and BRAF Mutations Possess Common and Potentially Targetable Mutations in Epigenetic Modifiers and DNA Damage Response Genes
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Risk of Non-colorectal Malignancies in Sporadic Versus Lynch Syndrome–associated dMMR Colorectal Cancer
  • Evaluation of Radiotherapy Dose in Secondary Breast Angiosarcoma: Implications for Pathogenesis
  • Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Outcomes for Colorectal and Mesothelioma Peritoneal Metastases: A 12-year Study
Show more Clinical Studies

Keywords

  • Colorectal cancer
  • exon-specific mutations
  • KRAS
  • NRAS
Anticancer Research

© 2026 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire