Cited by 238Colorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesGenetic factors in colorectal cancerColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments

KRAS-mutation status in relation to colorectal cancer survival: The joint impact of correlated tumour markers

Open access
Phipps, A I, Buchanan, D D, Makar, K W, Win, A K, Baron, J A, Lindor, N M, Potter, J D, Newcomb, P A·2013·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mutations in the Kirsten Ras (KRAS) oncogene are common in colorectal cancer (CRC). The role of KRAS-mutation status as a prognostic factor, however, is unclear. We evaluated the relationship between KRAS-mutation status and CRC survival, considering heterogeneity in this association by tumour and patient characteristics. METHODS: The population-based study included individuals diagnosed with CRC between 1998-2007 in Western Washington State. Tumour specimens were tested for KRAS exon 2 mutations, the BRAF p.V600E mutation, and microsatellite instability (MSI). We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between KRAS-mutation status and disease-specific and overall survival. Stratified analyses were conducted by age, sex, tumour site, stage, and MSI. We conducted additional analyses combining KRAS-mutation, BRAF-mutation, and MSI status. RESULTS: Among 1989 cases, 31% had KRAS-mutated CRC. Kirsten Ras (KRAS)-mutated CRC was associated with poorer disease-specific survival (HR=1.37, 95% CI: 1.13-1.66). This association was not evident in cases who presented with distant-stage CRC. Cases with KRAS-wild-type/BRAF-wild-type/MSI-high CRC had the most favourable prognosis; those with CRC exhibiting a KRAS- or BRAF-mutation and no MSI had the poorest prognosis. Patterns were similar for overall survival. CONCLUSION: Kirsten Ras (KRAS)-mutated CRC was associated with statistically significantly poorer survival after diagnosis than KRAS-wild-type CRC.

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 · 10.1038/bjc.2013.118

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • The median overall survival for each mutation type in this cohort was consistent with previously reported values, indicating that the cohort is representative of the metastatic colorectal cancer population and that the results reflect clinical practice.

    “Median OS for each type of mutation (i.e., KRAS exon 2 wild-type, KRAS exon 2 mutant, and BRAF V600E mutant) was consistent with that reported previously [14,15], indicating that our cohort was representative of the mCRC population and that the results presented here reflect prognosis in clinical practice.”

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
Phipps, A. I., Buchanan, D. D., Makar, K. W., Win, A. K., Baron, J. A., Lindor, N. M., Potter, J. D., & Newcomb, P. A.
Affiliations
  • Fred Hutch Cancer Center (US)
  • QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Phipps, A I
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2013-03-19
Volume
108
Issue
8
Pages
1757-1764
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W1983040612
Cited by
238
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 5
FWCI
12.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • authors@Fred Hutch (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center) (acceptedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (-95-011)
  • National Cancer Institute (K05CA152715, U01CA074794, U24CA074794, R01CA076366, K07CA172298, CA074794, # CA-95-011, R25CA094880)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Keywords
KRAS mutation, colorectal cancer, prognosis, survival, BRAF V600E mutation, microsatellite instability, disease-specific survival, overall survival, tumor markers, tumor stage
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Mutation, Genes, ras, Washington, Colorectal Neoplasms, Survival Rate, SEER Program, Young Adult

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