Cited by 3,622Colorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations

K-ras Mutations and Benefit from Cetuximab in Advanced Colorectal Cancer

Karapetis, Christos S., Khambata-Ford, Shirin, Jonker, Derek J., O'Callaghan, Chris J., Tu, Dongsheng, Tebbutt, Niall C., Simes, R. John, Chalchal, Haji +8 more·2008·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Treatment with cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody directed against the epidermal growth factor receptor, improves overall and progression-free survival and preserves the quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer that has not responded to chemotherapy. The mutation status of the K-ras gene in the tumor may affect the response to cetuximab and have treatment-independent prognostic value. METHODS: We analyzed tumor samples, obtained from 394 of 572 patients (68.9%) with colorectal cancer who were randomly assigned to receive cetuximab plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone, to look for activating mutations in exon 2 of the K-ras gene. We assessed whether the mutation status of the K-ras gene was associated with survival in the cetuximab and supportive-care groups. RESULTS: Of the tumors evaluated for K-ras mutations, 42.3% had at least one mutation in exon 2 of the gene. The effectiveness of cetuximab was significantly associated with K-ras mutation status (P=0.01 and P<0.001 for the interaction of K-ras mutation status with overall survival and progression-free survival, respectively). In patients with wild-type K-ras tumors, treatment with cetuximab as compared with supportive care alone significantly improved overall survival (median, 9.5 vs. 4.8 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.74; P<0.001) and progression-free survival (median, 3.7 months vs. 1.9 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.54; P<0.001). Among patients with mutated K-ras tumors, there was no significant difference between those who were treated with cetuximab and those who received supportive care alone with respect to overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.98; P=0.89) or progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.99; P=0.96). In the group of patients receiving best supportive care alone, the mutation status of the K-ras gene was not significantly associated with overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 1.01; P=0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a colorectal tumor bearing mutated K-ras did not benefit from cetuximab, whereas patients with a tumor bearing wild-type K-ras did benefit from cetuximab. The mutation status of the K-ras gene had no influence on survival among patients treated with best supportive care alone. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00079066.)

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa0804385

Cites

33 of 33 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Karapetis, C. S., Khambata-Ford, S., Jonker, D. J., O'Callaghan, C. J., Tu, D., Tebbutt, N. C., Simes, R. J., Chalchal, H., Shapiro, J. D., Robitaille, S., Price, T. J., Shepherd, L., Au, H.-J., Langer, C., Moore, M. J., & Zalcberg, J. R.
Affiliations
  • Flinders University (AU)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CA)
  • Austin Health (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • The Alfred Hospital (AU)
  • Queen Elizabeth Hospital (AU)
  • Cross Cancer Institute (CA)
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb (United States) (US)
  • Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (CA)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2008-10-23
Volume
359
Issue
17
Pages
1757-1765
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2155311724
Cited by
3,622
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 69 · 2025: 69 · 2024: 90 · 2023: 92 · 2022: 112 · 2021: 159 · 2020: 168 · 2019: 171 · 2018: 166 · 2017: 208 · 2016: 223 · 2015: 256 · 2014: 321 · 2013: 312 · 2012: 324
FWCI
154.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Keywords
cetuximab, advanced colorectal cancer, epidermal growth factor receptor, predictive biomarkers, best supportive care, overall survival, progression-free survival, treatment response
MeSH terms
Cetuximab, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Antineoplastic Agents, DNA Mutational Analysis, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Mutation, Palliative Care, Quality of Life, Genes, ras, Colorectal Neoplasms, Disease Progression, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized, 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