The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mutation Profiling in Cholangiocarcinoma: Prognostic and Therapeutic Implications
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is clinically heterogeneous; intra and extrahepatic CCA have diverse clinical presentations. Next generation sequencing (NGS) technology may identify the genetic differences between these entities and identify molecular subgroups for targeted therapeutics. METHODS: We describe successful NGS-based testing of 75 CCA patients along with the prognostic and therapeutic implications of findings. Mutation profiling was performed using either a) NGS panel of hotspot regions in 46 cancer-related genes using a 318-chip on Ion PGM Sequencer or b) Illumina HiSeq 2000 sequencing platform for 3,769 exons of 236 cancer-related genes plus 47 introns from 19 genes to an average depth of 1000X. Clinical data was abstracted and correlated with clinical outcome. Patients with targetable mutations were referred to appropriate clinical trials. RESULTS: There were significant differences between intrahepatic (n = 55) and extrahepatic CCA (n = 20) in regard to the nature and frequency of the genetic aberrations (GAs). IDH1 and DNA repair gene alterations occurred more frequently in intrahepatic CCA, while ERBB2 GAs occurred in the extrahepatic group. Commonly occurring GAs in intrahepatic CCA were TP53 (35%), KRAS (24%), ARID1A (20%), IDH1 (18%), MCL1 (16%) and PBRM1 (11%). Most frequent GAs in extrahepatic CCA (n = 20) were TP53 (45%), KRAS (40%), ERBB2 (25%), SMAD4 (25%), FBXW7 (15%) and CDKN2A (15%). In intrahepatic CCA, KRAS, TP53 or MAPK/mTOR GAs were significantly associated with a worse prognosis while FGFR GAs correlated with a relatively indolent disease course. IDH1 GAs did not have any prognostic significance. GAs in the chromatin modulating genes, BAP1 and PBRM1 were associated with bone metastases and worse survival in extrahepatic CCA. Radiologic responses and clinical benefit was noted with EGFR, FGFR, C-met, B-RAF and MEK inhibitors. CONCLUSION: There are significant genetic differences between intra and extrahepatic CCA. NGS can potentially identify disease subsets with distinct prognostic and therapeutic implications.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Cancer epigenetics: from mechanism to therapy
Dawson, M. A., & Kouzarides, T. (2012) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2012.06.013 · Cited by 3,203
Gnirke, A., Melnikov, A., Maguire, J., Rogov, P., LeProust, E. M., Brockman, W., Fennell, T., Giannoukos, G., Fisher, S., Russ, C., et al. (2009) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.1523 · Cited by 1,433 · cited 1×
“NGS performed by Foundation Medicine used the Illumina Hiseq 2000 Platform for 236 targetable GA’s and the methods for the same have been described previously [13, 14].”
MethodBorger, D. R., Tanabe, K. K., Fan, K. C., Lopez, H. U., Fantin, V. R., Straley, K. S., Schenkein, D. P., Hezel, A. F., Ancukiewicz, M., Liebman, H. M., et al. (2012) · The Oncologist · doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0386 · Cited by 728
Cited by
Cholangiocarcinoma — evolving concepts and therapeutic strategies
Ilyas, S. I., Khan, S. A., Hallemeier, C. L., Kelley, R. K., & Gores, G. J. (2018) · Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.157 · Cited by 1,626
Mazzaferro, V., El-Rayes, B. F., Droz dit Busset, M., Cotsoglou, C., Harris, W. P., Damjanov, N., Masi, G., Rimassa, L., Personeni, N., Braiteh, F., et al. (2019) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/s41416-018-0334-0 · Cited by 365
Self-citationBiological Mechanisms and Clinical Significance of BAP1 Mutations in Human Cancer
Carbone, M., Harbour, J. W., Brugarolas, J., Bononi, A., Pagano, I., Dey, A., Krausz, T., Pass, H. I., Yang, H., & Gaudino, G. (2020) · Cancer Discovery · doi:10.1158/2159-8290.cd-19-1220 · Cited by 287
Cell-free DNA next-generation sequencing in pancreatobiliary carcinomas
Zill, O. A., Greene, C., Sebisanovic, D., Siew, L. M., Leng, J., Vu, M., Hendifar, A. E., Wang, Z., Atreya, C. E., Kelley, R. K., et al. (2015) · Cancer Discovery · doi:10.1158/2159-8290.cd-15-0274 · Cited by 282
Rizzo, A., Ricci, A. D., & Brandi, G. (2021) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers13030558 · Cited by 259
Metadata
- Authors
- Churi, C. R., Shroff, R., Wang, Y., Rashid, A., Kang, H. C., Weatherly, J., Zuo, M., Zinner, R., Hong, D., Meric-Bernstam, F., Janku, F., Crane, C. H., Mishra, L., Vauthey, J.-N., Wolff, R. A., Mills, G., & Javle, M.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2014-12-23
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- e115383
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1974564771
- Cited by
- 450
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 26.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Mutation Profiling in Cholangiocarcinoma: Prognostic and Therapeutic Implications. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0115383
- The paper
- Churi, C. R., Shroff, R., Wang, Y., Rashid, A., Kang, H. C., Weatherly, J., Zuo, M., Zinner, R., Hong, D., Meric-Bernstam, F., Janku, F., Crane, C. H., Mishra, L., Vauthey, J.-N., Wolff, R. A., Mills, G., & Javle, M. (2014). Mutation Profiling in Cholangiocarcinoma: Prognostic and Therapeutic Implications. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115383
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.