Cited by 21Colorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations

Current treatment options in RAS mutant metastatic colorectal cancer patients: A meta-analysis of 14 randomized phase III trials

Open access
Stahler, Arndt, Heinemann, Volker, Ricard, Ingrid, von Einem, Jobst C., Giessen-Jung, Clemens, Westphalen, Christoph Benedikt, Michl, Marlies, Heinrich, Kathrin +4 more·2020·Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Although biomarkers for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer exist, the benefit patients with RAS mutated tumors derive from established regimens is unclear. Methods: Efficacy of therapeutic strategies available for RAS mutated patients (addition of chemotherapeutic agents and/or anti angiogenic agents) were investigated in fourteen randomized controlled phase III trials at trial level by meta-analysing individual study hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Results: 6810 of 10,748 patients (63.3%) were available (48.5% RAS wildtype, 51.5% RAS mutated). Across all treatment lines, additional treatment efficacy (chemotherapy and/or anti angiogenic agents) was significantly smaller in RAS mutated compared to wildtype tumors for OS and PFS. In detail, patients with RAS mutated metastatic colorectal cancer derived significant benefit in PFS but not in OS by the addition of either chemotherapy or anti angiogenic agents to the respective comparator. In patients with RAS wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer, PFS and OS were improved by the addition of chemotherapy or anti angiogenic agent. Conclusion: The therapeutic benefit of additional substances is less distinct in patients with RAS mutated as compared to RAS wildtype metastatic colorectal cancer, especially with regard to OS.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00432-020-03290-y

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In a meta-analysis of 14 phase III trials, improvement in OS was significantly more pronounced in RAS WT tumors than RAS mutant tumors across all included studies (p for interaction = 0.003).

    “In a meta-analysis consisting of 14 phase III trials, the efficacy analysis aimed to compare outcomes between patients with wild and mutant tumors. The study demonstrated that the improvement in OS was significantly more pronounced in patients with RAS WT tumors than those with RAS mutant tumors across all included studies (p for interaction = 0.003) [41].”
  • Addition of anti-angiogenic treatment was significantly less effective in RAS mutant tumors compared to wild-type tumors, with interaction effect (wt HR=0.78 vs mut HR=0.91).

    “Furthermore, the addition of anti-angiogenic treatment was significantly less effective in RAS mutant tumors compared to wild-type tumors, with a notable interaction effect (wt: HR = 0.78 vs. mut: HR = 0.91) (Table 2).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stahler, A., Heinemann, V., Ricard, I., von Einem, J. C., Giessen-Jung, C., Westphalen, C. B., Michl, M., Heinrich, K., Miller-Phillips, L., Jelas, I., Stintzing, S., & Modest, D. P.
Affiliations
  • LMU Klinikum (DE)
  • German Cancer Research Center (DE)
  • Stiftung Charité (DE)
  • Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (DE)
Corresponding author
Stahler, Arndt
Venue
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology
Published
2020-06-19
Volume
146
Issue
8
Pages
2077-2087
ISSN
  • 0084-5353 (ISSN-L)
  • 0171-5216
  • 1432-1335
OpenAlex
W3036422969
Cited by
21
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4
FWCI
0.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Open access LMU (Ludwid Maxmilian's Universitat Munchen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Keywords
RAS mutations, metastatic colorectal cancer, chemotherapy, angiogenesis inhibitors, overall survival, progression-free survival, treatment efficacy, biomarkers
MeSH terms
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Humans, Mutation, Genes, ras, Colorectal Neoplasms, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic, ras Proteins, Angiogenesis Inhibitors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review