Cited by 77Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchPancreatitis Pathology and TreatmentColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies

KRAS mutation status is not predictive for objective response to anti-EGFR treatment with erlotinib in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

Boeck, Stefan, Jung, Andreas, Laubender, Rüdiger P., Neumann, Jens, Egg, Rosalind, Goritschan, Clara, Ormanns, Steffen, Haas, Michael +3 more·2013·Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract

Background It has not yet been defined if KRAS has a prognostic value or is a predictive biomarker for the efficacy of erlotinib in advanced pancreatic cancer (PC).Methods AIO-PK0104 was a phase III trial comparing gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by capecitabine with capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine in advanced PC. For this post hoc subgroup analysis, biomarker data on the KRAS exon 2 mutation status were correlated with objective response to 1st-line therapy and with overall survival after start of 2nd-line chemotherapy (OSc).Results KRAS codon 12 was mutated in 121 of 173 (70 %) patients. The KRAS status showed no association with objective response (p = 0.40), but KRAS wildtype patients had an improved OS (HR 1.68, p = 0.005). A trend for a survival benefit was also observed during (non-erlotinib containing) 2nd-line chemotherapy, with a HR of 1.47 (p = 0.10) for the OSc.Conclusion This post hoc analysis of AIO-PK0104 supports the assumption that KRAS is rather a prognostic than a predictive biomarker in PC.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00535-013-0767-4

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • There seems to be a consensus that KRAS mutation negatively influences response to EGFR-targeted therapy.

    “There seems to be a consensus that KRAS mutation negatively influences response to EGFR-targeted therapy (61, 63).”

    From KRAS mutation in pancreatic cancer (2021) · cites this paper as [63]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Boeck, S., Jung, A., Laubender, R. P., Neumann, J., Egg, R., Goritschan, C., Ormanns, S., Haas, M., Modest, D. P., Kirchner, T., & Heinemann, V.
Affiliations
  • LMU Klinikum (DE)
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
Corresponding author
Boeck, Stefan
Venue
Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2013-02-23
Volume
48
Issue
4
Pages
544-548
ISSN
  • 0944-1174 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-5922
OpenAlex
W2109506970
Cited by
77
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 2
FWCI
4.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Gastroenterology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Keywords
KRAS mutation, KRAS codon 12, erlotinib, anti-EGFR therapy, advanced pancreatic cancer, predictive biomarkers, prognostic factors, objective response, overall survival, second-line chemotherapy, gemcitabine, capecitabine
MeSH terms
Erlotinib Hydrochloride, Adult, Aged, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Mutation, Neoplasm Proteins, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Prognosis, Proto-Oncogene Proteins, Quinazolines, Biomarkers, Tumor, Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras), Treatment Outcome, Cross-Over Studies, ras Proteins, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, ErbB Receptors

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