Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 261

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The prognostic significance of K-ras, p53, and APC mutations in colorectal carcinoma

Open access
Conlin, A, Smith, G, Carey, F A, Wolf, C R, Steele, R J C·2005·Gut

Abstract

Background: Accumulation of molecular alterations, including mutations in Kirsten-ras (K-ras), p53, and adenomatous polyposis coli (APC), contribute to colorectal carcinogenesis. Our group has previously characterised a panel of sporadic colorectal adenocarcinomas for mutations in these three genes and has shown that p53 and K-ras mutations rarely occur in the same colorectal tumour. This suggests that mutations in these genes are on separate pathways to colorectal cancer development and may influence patient prognosis independently. Aims: To correlate the presence or absence of mutations in K-ras, p53, and APC with survival in a cohort of colorectal cancer patients. Patients: A series of 107 inpatients treated surgically for colorectal cancer in Tayside, Scotland between November 1997 and December 1999. Methods: Colorectal tumours were characterised for mutations in K-ras, p53, and APC. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed using overall survival and disease specific survival as the primary end points. Patient survival was analysed using the log rank test and Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Patients with K-ras mutations had significantly poorer overall survival than patients without K-ras mutations (p = 0.0098). Multivariate analysis correcting for Dukes’ stage, age, and sex confirmed this (hazard ratio 2.9 (95% confidence interval 1.4–6.2); p = 0.0040). K-ras mutations were also significantly associated with poorer disease specific survival. The presence of APC and p53 mutations did not affect survival in this cohort of patients (p = 0.9034 and p = 0.8290, respectively). Conclusions: Our data indicate that the presence of K-ras mutations predicts poor patient prognosis in colorectal cancer, independently of tumour stage.

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 · 10.1136/gut.2005.066514

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 261

Metadata

Authors
Conlin, A., Smith, G., Carey, F. A., Wolf, C. R., & Steele, R. J. C.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2005-04-20
Volume
54
Issue
9
Pages
1283-1286
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2106695011
Cited by
261
References
0
FWCI
7.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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 prognostic significance of K-ras, p53, and APC mutations in colorectal carcinoma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.2005.066514
The paper
Conlin, A., Smith, G., Carey, F. A., Wolf, C. R., & Steele, R. J. C. (2005). The prognostic significance of K-ras, p53, and APC mutations in colorectal carcinoma. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2005.066514

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.