KRAS and BRAF genotyping of synchronous colorectal carcinomas

Giannini,Riccardo; Lupi,Cristiana; Loupakis,Fotios; Servadio,Adele; Cremolini,Chiara; Sensi,Elisa; Chiarugi,Massimo; Antoniotti,Carlotta; Basolo,Fulvio; Falcone,Alfredo; Fontanini,Gabriella

doi:10.3892/ol.2014.1905

KRAS and BRAF genotyping of synchronous colorectal carcinomas

Authors:
- Riccardo Giannini
- Cristiana Lupi
- Fotios Loupakis
- Adele Servadio
- Chiara Cremolini
- Elisa Sensi
- Massimo Chiarugi
- Carlotta Antoniotti
- Fulvio Basolo
- Alfredo Falcone
- Gabriella Fontanini
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa I-56126, Italy, Unit of Surgical Pathology 3, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa I-56126, Italy, Unit of Medical Oncology, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa I-56126, Italy
Published online on: February 21, 2014 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2014.1905
Pages: 1532-1536

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

v‑Ki‑ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) genotyping is required prior to anti‑epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy administered in cases of metastatic colorectal carcinoma (CRC). Thus, KRAS mutation screening is required for patient management. The present study reported the experience of KRAS/v‑raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 (BRAF) mutational screening on synchronous CRC pairs from 26 patients, which were defined as index lesions (ILs) and concurrent lesions (CLs) on the basis of tumor grade and dimension and their respective lymph node and distant metastases. Overall, KRAS mutations were present in 38.4% of patients, whereas BRAF mutations were present at a frequency of 11.5%. The genotyping of paired synchronous carcinomas indicated that 11 patients (42.3%) exhibited discordant KRAS mutational statuses in terms of the presence of a mutation in only one lesion of the pair or of two different mutations harbored by each lesion. BRAF mutations were present in the synchronous tumors of two cases, whereas in two other cases, only the IL or CL harbored mutant BRAF. Overall, the mutational statuses of distant and lymph node metastases confirm the genetic heterogeneity of synchronous primary tumors. These results highlighted the fact that adequate sampling and comprehensive testing, when feasible, is likely to optimize the decision‑making process for treatment approaches, even in the relatively rare event of multiple synchronous lesions.

View Figures

View References

1	Cerea G, Ricotta R, Schiavetto I, et al: Cetuximab for treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol. 17(Suppl 7): vii66–vii67. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	De Roock W, Claes B, Bernasconi D, et al: Effects of KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations on the efficacy of cetuximab plus chemotherapy in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective consortium analysis. Lancet Oncol. 11:753–762. 2010.PubMed/NCBI
3	Sartore-Bianchi A, Bencardino K, Cassingena A, et al: Therapeutic implications of resistance to molecular therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 36(Suppl 3): S1–S5. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar
4	Sartore-Bianchi A, Bencardino K, Di Nicolantonio F, et al: Integrated molecular dissection of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EFGR) oncogenic pathway to predict response to EGFR-targeted monoclonal antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancer. Target Oncol. 5:19–28. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar
5	De Roock W, De Vriendt V, Normanno N, et al: KRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA, and PTEN mutations: implications for targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer. Lancet Oncol. 12:594–603. 2011.PubMed/NCBI
6	Benvenuti S, Sartore-Bianchi A, Di Nicolantonio F, et al: Oncogenic activation of the RAS/RAF signaling pathway impairs the response of metastatic colorectal cancers to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody therapies. Cancer Res. 67:2643–2648. 2007. View Article : Google Scholar
7	Loupakis F, Ruzzo A, Cremolini C, et al: KRAS codon 61, 146 and BRAF mutations predict resistance to cetuximab plus irinotecan in KRAS codon 12 and 13 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 101:715–721. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar
8	Di Nicolantonio F, Martini M, Molinari F, et al: Wild-type BRAF is required for response to panitumumab or cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 26:5705–5712. 2008.
9	Dufort S, Richard MJ and de Fraipont F: Pyrosequencing method to detect KRAS mutation in formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tumor tissues. Anal Biochem. 391:166–168. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Whitehall V, Tran K, Umapathy A, et al: A multicenter blinded study to evaluate KRAS mutation testing methodologies in the clinical setting. J Mol Diagn. 11:543–552. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar
11	Kobunai T, Watanabe T, Yamamoto Y and Eshima K: The frequency of KRAS mutation detection in human colon carcinoma is influenced by the sensitivity of assay methodology: a comparison between direct sequencing and real-time PCR. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 395:158–162. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar
12	Weichert W, Schewe C, Lehmann A, et al: KRAS genotyping of paraffin-embedded colorectal cancer tissue in routine diagnostics: comparison of methods and impact of histology. J Mol Diagn. 12:35–42. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar
13	Heideman DA, Lurkin I, Doeleman M, et al: KRAS and BRAF mutation analysis in routine molecular diagnostics: comparison of three testing methods on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor-derived DNA. J Mol Diagn. 14:247–255. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar
14	Lee S, Brophy VH, Cao J, et al: Analytical performance of a PCR assay for the detection of KRAS mutations (codons 12/13 and 61) in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples of colorectal carcinoma. Virchows Arch. 460:141–149. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar
15	Wang HZ, Huang XF, Wang Y, et al: Clinical features, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of multiple primary colorectal carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 10:2136–2139. 2004.PubMed/NCBI
16	Yoon JW, Lee SH, Ahn BK, et al: Clinical characteristics of multiple primary colorectal cancers. Cancer Res Treat. 40:71–74. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Mulder SA, Kranse R, Damhuis RA, et al: Prevalence and prognosis of synchronous colorectal cancer: a Dutch population-based study. Cancer Epidemiol. 35:442–447. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Nosho K, Kure S, Irahara N, et al: A prospective cohort study shows unique epigenetic, genetic, and prognostic features of synchronous colorectal cancers. Gastroenterology. 137:1609–1620. e1–e3. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar
19	Tsao JL, Tavaré S, Salovaara R, et al: Colorectal adenoma and cancer divergence. Evidence of multilineage progression. Am J Pathol. 154:1815–1824. 1999. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Balschun K, Haag J, Wenke AK, et al: KRAS, NRAS, PIK3CA exon 20, and BRAF genotypes in synchronous and metachronous primary colorectal cancers diagnostic and therapeutic implications. J Mol Diagn. 13:436–445. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar
21	Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK and Wittekind C: TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. 7th Edition. Wiley-Blackwell; Chichester: 2009
22	Tol J, Nagtegaal ID and Punt CJ: BRAF mutation in metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med. 361:98–99. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Baldus SE, Schaefer KL, Engers R, et al: Prevalence and heterogeneity of KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations in primary colorectal adenocarcinomas and their corresponding metastases. Clin Cancer Res. 16:790–799. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar
24	Voutsina A, Tzardi M, Kalikaki A, et al: Combined analysis of KRAS and PIK3CA mutations, MET and PTEN expression in primary tumors and corresponding metastases in colorectal cancer. Mod Pathol. 26:302–313. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI