Cited by 17Lung Cancer Treatments and MutationsColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesCancer Genomics and Diagnostics

RAS and BRAF in the foreground for non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer: similarities and main differences for prognosis and therapies

Open access
Giopanou, Ioanna, Pintzas, Alexandros·2020·Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology

Abstract

Lung and colorectal cancer are included in the most tremendously threatening diseases in terms of incidence and death. Although they are located in completely different organs and differ in various characteristics they do share some common features, especially regarding their molecular mutational profile. Among several commonly mutated genes KRAS and BRAF are spotted to be highly associated with patient's poor disease outcome and resistance to targeted therapies mostly in liaison with other mutant activated genes. Many studies have shed light in these mechanisms for disease progression and numerous preclinical models, clinical trials and meta-analysis reports investigate the impact of specific treatments or combination of therapies. The present review is an effort to compare the mutational imprint of these genes between the two diseases and their impact in prognosis, current therapy, mechanisms of therapy resistance and future therapeutic plans and provide a spherical perspective regarding the systemic molecular profile of cancer.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2019.102859

Cites

115 of 115 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • KRAS mutation status has a negative prognostic impact in colorectal cancer and is associated with right-sided tumor location, besides its negative predictive role for anti-EGFR therapy.

    “Besides its negative predictive role for response to anti-EGFR therapy, KRAS mutation status also has a negative prognostic impact in CRC and is associated with right sidedness of tumor location (77).”

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 118 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Giopanou, I., & Pintzas, A.
Affiliations
National Hellenic Research Foundation (GR)
Corresponding author
  • Giopanou, Ioanna
  • Pintzas, Alexandros
Venue
Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-02
Volume
146
Pages
102859
ISSN
1040-8428 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2995117221
Cited by
17
References
118
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3
FWCI
0.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • National Hellenic Research Foundation Helios Repository (National Hellenic Research Foundation) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
General Secretariat of Research and Technology
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Keywords
KRAS, BRAF, non-small cell lung cancer, colorectal cancer, somatic mutations, prognosis, targeted therapy resistance, combination therapy
MeSH terms
Antineoplastic Agents, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Mutation, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Colorectal Neoplasms, Treatment Outcome, Disease Progression, ras Proteins, Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf

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