Cited by 251Genetic factors in colorectal cancerColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments

Prognostic significance of defective mismatch repair and BRAF V600E in patients with colon cancer

Open access
French, Amy J., Sargent, Daniel J., Burgart, Lawrence J., Foster, Nathan R., Kabat, Brian F., Goldberg, Richard, Shepherd, Lois, Windschitl, Harold E. +1 more·2008·Clinical Cancer Research

Abstract

Purpose: Colon tumors with defective DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) have a well-characterized phenotype and accounts for ∼15% to 20% of sporadic colon cancer as well as those colon cancer patients with Lynch syndrome. Although the presence of dMMR seems to be a favorable prognostic marker, data suggest that these patients do not respond as well to adjuvant chemotherapy. Experimental Design: In this study, we examined the prognostic significance of tumor MMR deficiency and the presence of a specific mutation in BRAF (V600E) in a group of patients (n = 533) who participated in a randomized prospective clinical trial through the North Central Cancer Treatment Group. Results: Tumors with dMMR were found to be associated with higher tumor grade (P = 0.001), proximal location (P < 0.0001), and improved overall and disease-free survival (P = 0.05 and 0.04, respectively). Among all cases examined, evaluation of the BRAF V600E mutation status revealed no statistically significant differences in either disease-free or overall survival. Patients were then grouped into four categories for further analysis: dMMR/BRAF(−), dMMR/BRAF(+), pMMR/BRAF(−), and pMMR/BRAF(+). The dMMR/BRAF(−) group had a significantly improved overall survival (5-year overall survival of 100% versus 73%, P = 0.002) compared with all others. The remaining three groups had very similar survival outcomes. An additional cohort of tumors previously classified as having dMMR were also tested for the BRAF V600E alteration. Results remained significant (P = 0.006) when the two groups were combined for analysis. Conclusions: Overall, these data suggest that the underlying molecular etiology of those tumors having dMMR may influence the disease outcome in these patients.

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 · 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-07-1489

Cites

41 of 41 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Peltomaki P. Genetic basis of hereditary nonpo- lyposis colorectal carcinoma. Ann Med 1994;26: 215 ^9.
  2. WitzigT, Loprinzi C, Gonchoroff N, et al. DNA ploidy and cell kinetic measurements as predictors of recur- rence and survival in stages B2 and C colorectal ade- nocarcinoma. Cancer 1991;68:879 ^88.
  3. Lindor NM, Burgart LJ, Leontovich O, et al. Immu- nohistochemistry versus microsatellite instability test- ing in phenotyping colorectal tumors. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:1043 ^8.
  4. Kaplan E, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation for in- complete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958;53: 457 ^81.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
French, A. J., Sargent, D. J., Burgart, L. J., Foster, N. R., Kabat, B. F., Goldberg, R., Shepherd, L., Windschitl, H. E., & Thibodeau, S. N.
Affiliations
  • 1Laboratory Medicine and Pathology and
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Abbott Northwestern Hospital (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Queen's University (CA)
  • CentraCare Health System (US)
Venue
Clinical Cancer Research
Published
2008-06-01
Volume
14
Issue
11
Pages
3408-3415
ISSN
  • 1078-0432 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-3265
OpenAlex
W2140728431
Cited by
251
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 26
FWCI
9.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Cancer Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (CA-25224)
  • National Cancer Institute (CA 60117, (CA-25224, U10CA025224, R01CA060117)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Keywords
colon cancer, BRAF V600E mutation, prognostic factors, Lynch syndrome, overall survival, disease-free survival, tumor grade, proximal colon tumors, adjuvant chemotherapy response
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Colonic Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Immunohistochemistry, Male, Middle Aged, Mutation, Prognosis, Biomarkers, Tumor, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic, Drug Resistance, Neoplasm, Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, DNA Mismatch Repair

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