4.6 Review

Meta-analysis of KRAS mutations and survival after resection of colorectal liver metastases

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 102, 期 10, 页码 1175-1183

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9870

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [Ca016672]
  2. Oslo University Hospital, Norway
  3. Unger-Vetlesen Medical Fund

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundIn patients with advanced colorectal cancer, KRAS mutation status predicts response to treatment with monoclonal antibody targeting the epithelial growth factor receptor (EGFR). Recent reports have provided evidence that KRAS mutation status has prognostic value in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastases (CLM) irrespective of treatment with chemotherapy or anti-EGFR therapy. A meta-analysis was undertaken to clarify the impact of KRAS mutation on outcomes in patients with resectable CLM. MethodsPubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were searched systematically to identify full-text articles reporting KRAS-stratified overall (OS) or recurrence-free (RFS) survival after resection of CLM. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 per cent c.i. from multivariable analyses were pooled in meta-analyses, and a random-effects model was used to calculate weight and overall results. ResultsThe search returned 355 articles, of which 14, including 1809 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Eight studies reported OS after resection of CLM in 1181 patients. The mutation rate was 276 per cent, and KRAS mutation was negatively associated with OS (HR 224, 95 per cent c.i. 176 to 285). Seven studies reported RFS after resection of CLM in 906 patients. The mutation rate was 280 per cent, and KRAS mutation was negatively associated with RFS (HR 189, 154 to 232). ConclusionKRAS mutation status is a prognostic factor in patients undergoing resection of colorectal liver metastases and should be considered in the evaluation of patients having liver resection. Mutations related to negative prognosis

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