Cited by 247Colorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesColorectal Cancer Surgical TreatmentsGenetic factors in colorectal cancer

Impact of Consensus Molecular Subtype on Survival in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Results From CALGB/SWOG 80405 (Alliance)

Open access
Lenz, Heinz-Josef, Ou, Fang-Shu, Venook, Alan P., Hochster, Howard S., Niedzwiecki, Donna, Goldberg, Richard M., Mayer, Robert J., Bertagnolli, Monica M. +7 more·2019·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the predictive and prognostic value of the consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) that represent a merging of gene expression–based features largely in primary tumors from six independent classification systems and provide a framework for capturing the intrinsic heterogeneity of CRC in patients enrolled in CALGB/SWOG 80405. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CALGB/SWOG 80405 is a phase III trial that compared the addition of bevacizumab or cetuximab to infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan as first-line treatment of advanced CRC. We characterized the CMS classification using a novel NanoString gene expression panel on primary CRCs from 581 patients enrolled in this study to assess the prognostic and predictive value of CMSs in these patients. RESULTS: The CMSs are highly prognostic for overall survival (OS; P < .001) and progression-free survival (PFS; P < .001). Furthermore, CMSs were predictive for both OS ( P for interaction < .001) and PFS ( P for interaction = .0032). In the CMS1 cohort, patients treated with bevacizumab had a significantly longer OS than those treated with cetuximab ( P < .001). In the CMS2 cohort, patients treated with cetuximab had a significantly longer OS than patients treated with bevacizumab ( P = .0046). CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the possible clinical utility of CMSs and suggests that refinement of the CMS classification may provide a path toward identifying patients with metastatic CRC who are most likely to benefit from specific targeted therapy as part of the initial treatment.

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 · 10.1200/jco.18.02258

Cites

35 of 35 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lenz, H.-J., Ou, F.-S., Venook, A. P., Hochster, H. S., Niedzwiecki, D., Goldberg, R. M., Mayer, R. J., Bertagnolli, M. M., Blanke, C. D., Zemla, T., Qu, X., Wirapati, P., Tejpar, S., Innocenti, F., & Kabbarah, O.
Affiliations
  • USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT
  • Duke Medical Center (US)
  • West Virginia University (US)
  • Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Genentech (US)
  • SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (CH)
  • Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (BE)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2019-08-01
Volume
37
Issue
22
Pages
1876-1885
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2943196840
Cited by
246
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 61 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4
FWCI
15.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Eli Lilly and Company
  • Pfizer
  • Bayer
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Sanofi
  • Gilead Sciences
  • Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
  • Baxalta
  • Taiho Pharmaceutical
  • Exelixis
  • Jazz Pharmaceuticals
  • Leidos
  • BeiGene
  • Incyte
  • Eisai
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001863)
  • Genentech
  • Takeda Oncology
  • Pharmacyclics
  • National Cancer Institute (U10CA180882, U10CA180820, U10CA180791, UG1CA233290, U10CA180888, U10CA180836, U10CA180790, UG1CA233331, UG1CA233180, U10CA180830, U10CA180795, U10CA180850, U10CA180838, U10CA180867, U10CA180821, UG1CA180830, U10CA180799)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (U54GM104942)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
  • Janssen Pharmaceuticals
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
Keywords
consensus molecular subtypes, metastatic colorectal cancer, prognostic factors, predictive biomarkers, bevacizumab, cetuximab, first-line chemotherapy, overall survival, progression-free survival, targeted therapy selection
MeSH terms
Bevacizumab, Cetuximab, Irinotecan, Oxaliplatin, Aged, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Leucovorin, Female, Fluorouracil, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Metastasis, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Colorectal Neoplasms, Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic, Treatment Outcome, Disease-Free Survival, Gene Expression Profiling, Kaplan-Meier Estimate

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