4.6 Article

BRAFV600E immunohistochemistry in conjunction with mismatch repair status predicts survival in patients with colorectal cancer

期刊

MODERN PATHOLOGY
卷 27, 期 5, 页码 644-650

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2013.200

关键词

BRAFV600E; colorectal carcinoma; microsatellite instability; mismatch repair deficiency

资金

  1. Northern Sydney Local Health District (NSLHD) Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) [1201-035M]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Immunohistochemistry has recently been validated for the detection of the BRAFV600E mutation across a range of tumor types. In colorectal carcinoma, the presence of the BRAFV600E mutation can be used to virtually exclude Lynch syndrome in mismatch repair-deficient tumors. In mismatch repair-proficient tumors, BRAFV600E mutation assessed by molecular methods has been proposed as a poor prognostic factor. We investigated whether combined BRAFV600E and mismatch repair status assessment by immunohistochemistry alone can be used as a prognostic marker in the routine clinical setting. We performed immunohistochemistry for BRAFV600E, MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, and MSH6 on 1426 consecutive unselected colorectal carcinomas. Ninetyone (6.4%) carcinomas were mismatch repair-proficient and BRAFV600E mutant, and these tumors demonstrated a significantly worse 5-year survival of 49.7% compared with mismatch repair-proficient BRAF wild type (74.1% of tumors, 65.4% survival), mismatch repair-deficient BRAFV600E mutant (12.9% of tumors, 70.1% survival), and mismatch repair-deficient BRAF wild type (6.6% of tumors, 73.6% survival). The poor survival was confirmed by univariate analysis (P < 0.01) but fell away in multivariate analysis (P=0.68) because of the strong effect of tumor stage and age on overall survival. We conclude that in addition to its utility in screening for Lynch syndrome, reflex BRAFV600E and mismatch repair assessment by immunohistochemistry can be used as a powerful predictor of all-cause survival.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据