Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 310

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prognostic and predictive value of common mutations for treatment response and survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Open access
Souglakos, J, Philips, J, Wang, R, Marwah, S, Silver, M, Tzardi, M, Silver, J, Ogino, S, Hooshmand, S, Kwak, E, Freed, E, Meyerhardt, J A, Saridaki, Z, Georgoulias, V, Finkelstein, D, Fuchs, C S, Kulke, M H, Shivdasani, R A·2009·British Journal of Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We address the prognostic and predictive value of KRAS, PIK3CA and BRAF mutations for clinical outcomes in response to active agents in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: We determined KRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA mutations in tumours from 168 patients treated for mCRC at two institutions. All patients received 5-FU-based first-line chemotherapy and treatment outcome was analysed retrospectively. RESULTS: KRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA mutations were present in 62 (37%), 13 (8%) and 26 (15%) cases, respectively. Multivariate analysis uncovered BRAF mutation as an independent prognostic factor for decreased survival (hazard ratio (HR) 4.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1-7.6). In addition, patients with BRAF-mutant tumours had significantly lower progression-free survival (PFS: HR 4.0, 95% CI 2.2-7.4) than those whose tumors that carried wild-type BRAF. Among 92 patients treated using chemotherapy and cetuximab as salvage therapy, KRAS mutation was associated with lack of response (P=0.002) and shorter PFS (P=0.09). BRAF (P=0.0005) and PIK3CA (P=0.01) mutations also predicted reduced PFS in response to cetuximab salvage therapy. CONCLUSIONS: These results underscore the potential of mutational profiling to identify CRCs with different natural histories or treatment responses. The adverse significance of BRAF mutation should inform patient selection and stratification in clinical trials.

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.6605164

Cites

26 of 26 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 26 references

Cited by

See all 310

Metadata

Authors
Souglakos, J., Philips, J., Wang, R., Marwah, S., Silver, M., Tzardi, M., Silver, J., Ogino, S., Hooshmand, S., Kwak, E., Freed, E., Meyerhardt, J. A., Saridaki, Z., Georgoulias, V, Finkelstein, D., Fuchs, C. S., Kulke, M. H., & Shivdasani, R. A.
Venue
British Journal of Cancer
Published
2009-07-14
Volume
101
Issue
3
Pages
465-472
ISSN
  • 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-1827
OpenAlex
W1969730641
Cited by
310
References
26
FWCI
15.22
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: Prognostic and predictive value of common mutations for treatment response and survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605164
The paper
Souglakos, J., Philips, J., Wang, R., Marwah, S., Silver, M., Tzardi, M., Silver, J., Ogino, S., Hooshmand, S., Kwak, E., Freed, E., Meyerhardt, J. A., Saridaki, Z., Georgoulias, V, Finkelstein, D., Fuchs, C. S., Kulke, M. H., & Shivdasani, R. A. (2009). Prognostic and predictive value of common mutations for treatment response and survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605164

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.