Cited by 43Colorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesProtein Kinase Regulation and GTPase SignalingGenetic factors in colorectal cancer

Clinical and Functional Characterization of Atypical KRAS / NRAS Mutations in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Open access
Loree, Jonathan M., Wang, Yucai, Syed, Muddassir A., Sorokin, Alexey V., Coker, Oluwadara, Xiu, Joanne, Weinberg, Benjamin A., Vanderwalde, Ari M. +14 more·2021·Clinical Cancer Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Purpose: Mutations in KRAS/NRAS (RAS) predict lack of anti-EGFR efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, it is unclear if all RAS mutations have similar impact, and atypical mutations beyond those in standard guidelines exist. Experimental Design: We reviewed 7 tissue and 1 cell-free DNA cohorts of 9,485 patients to characterize atypical RAS variants. Using an in vitro cell-based assay (functional annotation for cancer treatment), Ba/F3 transformation, and in vivo xenograft models of transduced isogenic clones, we assessed signaling changes across mutations. Results: KRAS exon 2, extended RAS, and atypical RAS mutations were noted in 37.8%, 9.5%, and 1.2% of patients, respectively. Among atypical variants, KRAS L19F, Q22K, and D33E occurred at prevalence ≥0.1%, whereas no NRAS codon 117/146 and only one NRAS codon 59 mutation was noted. Atypical RAS mutations had worse overall survival than RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC (HR, 2.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.24–6.80; P = 0.014). We functionally characterized 114 variants with the FACT assay. All KRAS exon 2 and extended RAS mutations appeared activating. Of 57 atypical RAS variants characterized, 18 (31.6%) had signaling below wild-type, 23 (40.4%) had signaling between wild-type and activating control, and 16 (28.1%) were hyperactive beyond the activating control. Ba/F3 transformation (17/18 variants) and xenograft model (7/8 variants) validation was highly concordant with FACT results, and activating atypical variants were those that occurred at highest prevalence in clinical cohorts. Conclusions: We provide best available evidence to guide treatment when atypical RAS variants are identified. KRAS L19F, Q22K, D33E, and T50I are more prevalent than many guideline-included RAS variants and functionally relevant.

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-21-0180

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • Mutations at KRAS codons 12, 13, 59, 61, 117, and 146, plus atypical variants, enhance oncogenic potential.

    “mutations at other sites in KRAS, including codons 12, 13, 59, 61, 117, and 146 mutations, plus some atypical variants not currently included in standard guidelines in KRAS testing, also enhance its oncogenic potential (17).”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Loree, J. M., Wang, Y., Syed, M. A., Sorokin, A. V., Coker, O., Xiu, J., Weinberg, B. A., Vanderwalde, A. M., Tesfaye, A., Raymond, V. M., Miron, B., Tarcic, G., Zelichov, O., Broaddus, R. R., Ng, P. K. S., Jeong, K. J., Tsang, Y. H., Mills, G. B., Overman, M. J., Grothey, A., Marshall, J. L., & Kopetz, S.
Affiliations
  • 1BC Cancer, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • Caris Life Sciences (United States) (US)
  • Georgetown University Medical Center (US)
  • 6West Cancer Center, Memphis, Tennessee.
  • The Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute (US)
  • Guardant (United States) (US)
  • 9Novellus, Jerusalem, Israel.
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Corresponding author
Kopetz, Scott
Venue
Clinical Cancer Research
Published
2021-06-11
Volume
27
Issue
16
Pages
4587-4598
ISSN
  • 1078-0432 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-3265
OpenAlex
W3167814974
Cited by
43
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2
FWCI
2.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Cancer Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • CCSG (CA016672)
  • NIH (R01 CA187238, R01 CA184843)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Kinase Regulation and GTPase Signaling
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
Keywords
KRAS, NRAS, metastatic colorectal cancer, anti-EGFR therapy, xenograft models, overall survival
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Membrane Proteins, Middle Aged, Mutation, Neoplasm Metastasis, Colorectal Neoplasms, Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras), GTP Phosphohydrolases

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