Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 605

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The role of RAS oncogene in survival of patients with lung cancer: a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis

Open access
Mascaux, C, Iannino, N, Martin, B, Paesmans, M, Berghmans, T, Dusart, M, Haller, A, Lothaire, P, Meert, A-P, Noel, S, Lafitte, J-J, Sculier, J-P·2005·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

The proto-oncogene RAS, coding for a 21 kDa protein (p21), is mutated in 20% of lung cancer. However, the literature remains controversial on its prognostic significance for survival in lung cancer. We performed a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis to assess its possible prognostic value on survival. Published studies on lung cancer assessing prognostic value of RAS mutation or p21 overexpression on survival were identified by an electronic search. After a methodological assessment, we estimated individual hazard ratios (HR) estimating RAS protein alteration or RAS mutation effect on survival and combined them using meta-analytic methods. In total, 53 studies were found eligible, with 10 concerning the same cohorts of patients. Among the 43 remaining studies, the revelation method was immunohistochemistry (IHC) in nine and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in 34. Results in terms of survival were significantly pejorative, significantly favourable, not significant and not conclusive in 9, 1, 31, 2, respectively. In total, 29 studies were evaluable for meta-analysis but we aggregated only the 28 dealing with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and not the only one dealing with small-cell-lung cancer (SCLC). The quality scores were not statistically significantly different between studies with or without significant results in terms of survival, allowing us to perform a quantitative aggregation. The combined HR was 1.35 (95% CI: 1.16-1.56), showing a worse survival for NSCLC with KRAS2 mutations or p21 overexpression and, particularly, in adenocarcinomas (ADC) (HR 1.59; 95% CI 1.26-2.02) and in studies using PCR (HR 1.40; 95% CI 1.18-1.65) but not in studies using IHC (HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.86-1.34). RAS appears to be a pejorative prognostic factor in terms of survival in NSCLC globally, in ADC and when it is studied by PCR.

Overview

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/sj.bjc.6602258

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 605

Metadata

Authors
Mascaux, C., Iannino, N., Martin, B., Paesmans, M., Berghmans, T., Dusart, M., Haller, A., Lothaire, P., Meert, A.-P., Noel, S., Lafitte, J.-J., & Sculier, J.-P.
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2004-12-14
Volume
92
Issue
1
Pages
131-139
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W1991874467
Cited by
605
References
2
FWCI
2.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The role of RAS oncogene in survival of patients with lung cancer: a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602258
The paper
Mascaux, C., Iannino, N., Martin, B., Paesmans, M., Berghmans, T., Dusart, M., Haller, A., Lothaire, P., Meert, A.-P., Noel, S., Lafitte, J.-J., & Sculier, J.-P. (2005). The role of RAS oncogene in survival of patients with lung cancer: a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602258

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.