Histology and its prognostic effect on KRAS‑mutated colorectal carcinomas in Korea
- Authors:
- Published online on: May 13, 2020 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2020.11606
- Pages: 655-666
-
Copyright: © Lee et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.
Abstract
Introduction
Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is the third most common cancer type worldwide, and its prevalence is rapidly increasing in the Republic of Korea with an annual increment of ~6.5% in males and females (1). Despite the decrease in the associated mortality rate and moderate advances in treatment, CRC remains the third highest cause of cancer-associated mortality in South Korea, with a 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of 59% (2,3).
To date, molecular genetic studies have identified several dominant somatic or germline genetic alterations associated with an underlying predisposition to CRCs. There are three common pathways responsible for sporadic CRCs: Chromosomal instability, microsatellite instability and CpG island methylator phenotype pathways (4). Most cases of CRCs result from the chromosomal instability pathway, which is characterized by the traditional adenoma-carcinoma sequence, including early loss of the adenomatous polyposis coli gene, KRAS point mutation, 18q loss of heterozygosity and late tumor protein (TP)53 inactivation. KRAS mutation has a role in the chromosomal instability pathway, mainly in the progression from early to late advanced adenoma in ~30% of adenomas and 30-50% of CRCs (5,6).
Ras family proteins are the prototypes of the small guanosine triphosphatases (GTPases) and regulate multiple intracellular processes, including growth, differentiation, immunity and survival. The KRAS oncogene belongs to the Ras family, which also includes HRAS and NRAS. KRAS encodes a 21-kDa GTPase protein called K-Ras, which is, under normal circumstances, temporarily activated as a response to certain signals, including cytokines, hormones, growth factors and external stimuli (7). However, KRAS mutation leads to continuous activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and PI3K/AKT signaling pathways by the K-Ras protein, which may potentially stimulate tumorigenesis or tumor progression. KRAS point mutation frequently occurs at exon 2, particularly in codons 12 and 13. Clinically, KRAS is a well-established biomarker of resistance to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody treatment in advanced CRCs (7). However, the prognostic significance of KRAS mutation remains controversial (8,9).
A number of studies have demonstrated an association between certain molecular subtypes and histology of CRCs; for instance, a previous study revealed that the majority of sessile serrated adenomas harbor a B-Raf proto-oncogene serine/threonine kinase (BRAF) mutation or a CpG island hypermethylation (9). Microsatellite instability-high CRCs frequently exhibit poorly differentiated and mucinous features (10). Regarding KRAS mutation, an association with well-to moderately differentiated conventional adenocarcinoma histology has been suggested, but as yet there is no consensus on this (8,11). Thus, the present study investigated the prognostic value of KRAS-mutation in CRCs and its association with histologic features.
Materials and methods
Patient cohort
Using Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine-Clinical Terms (SNOMED-CT) (12), 310 patients who had been diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum at various stages were selected, and KRAS mutation testing was performed between January 2011 and December 2014 at the Konkuk University Medical Center (KUMC; Seoul, Republic of Korea). Clinicopathological data including age, sex, patient history and reports of imaging, surgery and pathology, were obtained from the electronic medical records. Based on the patients' age, they were divided into 2 groups according to a study by Yang et al (13): Those under 60 years and those ≥60 years. Based on the tumor location, the patients were stratified into the following subgroups: ‘Right-sided’ (from the cecum to the transverse colon) and ‘left-sided’ (from the descending colon to the rectum). According to tumor size, the patients were also divided into 2 groups, <5 cm and ≥5 cm, based on previous studies (14–16).
Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained slides were reviewed for 267/310 patients who underwent surgical resection for CRC. For survival analyses, 22/267 patients were excluded due to inter-hospital transfer during the follow-up period. The median follow-up period of the 245 patients was 37.4 months (range, 1.0–60.0 months).
KRAS mutation analysis
All DNA extraction and pyrosequencing were performed according to methods routinely used at KUMC (17). In all cases, tumor-rich areas detected on microscopic examination were marked on the formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue slides by a pathologist (HSL). After removing the cover glass, tumor cells were scraped using a 26-gauge needle and 50–100 µl of DNA extraction buffer solution [including 50 mM Tris buffer, pH 8.3; 1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0; 5% Tween-20 (Sigma-Aldrich; Merck KGaA, Germany), 200 µg/ml proteinase K; and 10% resin] was added to the scraped cells. After incubation for at least 1 h at 56°C, each tube was heated for 20 min at 100°C, followed by centrifugation at 4°C for 10 min at 13,000 × g to pellet the debris. The recovered supernatant was used for PCR. The amount of genomic DNA was spectrophotometrically determined using a Qubit assay kit 3.0 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.).
PCR primer sequences used for the amplification of KRAS gene were as follows: Codons 12 and 13, 5′-CTGGTGGAGTATTTGATAGTGTA-3′ (forward) and 5′-biotin-TGGTCCTGCACCAGTAATAT-3′ (reverse); and codon 61, 5′-biotin-TCCAGACTGTGTTTCTCCCTTC-3′ (forward) and 5′-TACTGGTCCCTCATTGCACTGT-3′ (reverse). A total of 10–20 ng/µl of DNA were added to each 50 µl of PCR solution mixture [0.2 mmol each of deoxynucleoside triphosphate, 1.5 mmol/l MgCl2, 1X PCR buffer, 1.5 U of Immolase™ DNA polymerase (Bioline) and 20 pmol of each primer]. PCR was performed with an initial denaturation for 5 min at 95°C followed by 40 cycles of 30 sec at 95°C, annealing of the primers for codons 12, 13 and 61 for 30 sec at 55°C, primer extension for 30 sec at 72°C, and a final incubation for 10 min at 72°C. Electrophoresis of the PCR products was performed in an agarose gel to confirm amplification. Immobilization of biotinylated PCR products onto streptavidin-coated beads (GE Healthcare) using the solution from the PSQ™ 96 sample Preparation kit (Qiagen) was performed, according to the manufacturer's instructions. Following 20-fold dilution of 3 µl beads in binding buffer (37 µl) and distilled water (20 µl) with 10 µl biotinylated PCR products, incubation for 10 min at room temperature was performed. The beads were then transferred to a filter probe and the liquid was removed by vacuum filtration. The DNAs were separated in PyroMark denaturation solution (Qiagen GmbH) for 2 min at room temperature. The templates were washed in PyroMark wash buffer (Qiagen GmbH), transferred to a PSQ 96 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) plate and then annealed with sequencing primers 5′-ATAAACTTGTGGTAGTTGG-3′ (codons 12 and 13) and 5′-CCTCATTGCACTGTAC-3′ (codon 61), in PyroMark annealing buffer (Qiagen GmbH) at room temperature. Finally, pyrosequencing was performed using the PyroMark Q96 ID system (Qiagen), with PyroMark Gold Q96 Reagents (Qiagen GmbH), according to the manufacturer's instructions.
Histological evaluation
One pathologist (HSL) reviewed all H&E and immunohistochemistry slides according to the 2010 World Health Organization (WHO) classification and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging manual, 8th edition TNM staging (18,19). Histological features were comprehensively evaluated for tumor border, differentiation, degree of patterns (cribriform, serrated, mucinous, signet ring cell, solid, papillary and micropapillary), degree of inflammatory reactions associated with CRCs [Crohn's-like lymphoid reaction, neutrophilic infiltration and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs)], dirty necrosis, tumor budding counts, lymphatic invasion, vascular invasion and perineural invasion.
Specifically, the microscopic tumor border was divided into two groups according to the fraction of the infiltrative border area: <50 and ≥50%. Tumor differentiation was graded into three groups according to the 2010 WHO classification: Well, moderately and poorly differentiated. Each histological feature was divided into two or three categories, depending on the degree of each pattern: Cribriform (absent, mild or moderate), serrated (absent, mild or moderate), signet ring cell (absent or present), solid (absent or present), papillary (absent or present) and micropapillary (absent or present).
Mucinous components were divided into two groups by the quality of mucin (low or high grade) (20). The Q score for mucinous components was calculated by multiplying the quality of mucin by the proportion of the area. Crohn's-like lymphoid reaction was defined as the degree of peritumoral lymphoid aggregate ≥1 mm (absent to mild or moderate) (21). Intraluminal necrotic debris (dirty necrosis) was graded into five degrees: Absent, low, moderate, high or confluent. Neutrophil infiltration was graded into four degrees: Absent, small numbers and scattered in the stroma, focal abscesses within tumor glands or numerous abscesses disrupting tumor glands (22). The density of TILs at the hot spot area of the tumor border was evaluated at a magnification of ×20 and subdivided into two groups: <50 and ≥50% (23). The tumor budding count was determined, and cases were subdivided into low, intermediate and high groups, according to the recommendations of the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference in 2016 (24). The presence of lymphatic, vascular and perineural invasion was also re-evaluated. For TP53, expression in at least 50% of the tumor nuclei was regarded as positive, according to previous studies (25,26).
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 19 (IBM, Corp.). Comparison of clinicopathological factors between patients with KRAS mutation and wild type KRAS was performed using Pearson's χ2 test (n=310). Histological findings between patients with KRAS mutation and wild type KRAS were also compared using Pearson's χ2 test (n=267). In survival analyses (n=245), the OS rate was calculated as the rate of survivors from the onset of typical CRC symptoms, including bowel habit changes, bloody stool, continuously localized abdominal pain or anemia until the date of the last clinical follow-up. The DFS rate was calculated based on the date of symptom onset until the date of the detection of local recurrence or metastasis by imaging observation. The Cox proportional hazards model was used for univariate and multivariate survival analyses to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) for patients. The results are presented as estimated HRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and Wald test P-values. The parameters used in the multivariate analysis of 245 patients are as follows: KRAS mutation, age, sex, grade of regression after neoadjuvant therapy, tumor location, tumor size, T stage, N stage, M stage, total TNM stage, TP53 expression, tumor border and differentiation, and comprehensive histological features including lymphatic, vascular, and perineural invasions. The parameters used in the separate multivariate analysis in each ‘KRAS-mutated’ (n=91) and ‘wild type’ (n=154) subgroup are as follows: Age, sex, tumor location, tumor size, M stage, tumor border, tumor differentiation, and comprehensive histological features except lymphovascular and perineural invasions. The proportional hazards assumption was assessed using graphical methods and tests based on Schoenfeld residuals. The Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test was used to estimate the OS curves. A two-tailed P-value was used for all analyses, with P<0.05 considered to indicate statistical significance.
Results
Patient characteristics and KRAS mutation subtypes
The clinicopathological characteristics stratified by KRAS mutation status are presented in Table I. Of all patients, 195 (62.9%) had wild type KRAS and 115 (37.1%) had mutations of KRAS. There were 176 males and 134 females, with a median age of 62 years (age range, 27–88 years). The samples were predominantly acquired from the primary tumor sites (n=298, 96.1%). A total of 28 patients (9.0%) received neoadjuvant therapy and exhibited minimal to near complete regression. A total of 34 patients (11.0%) received adjuvant anti-EGFR therapy (cetuximab) in combination with irinotecan (n=14, 41.2%), folinic acid + fluorouracil + irinotecan (FOLFIRI; n=19, 55.9%) or folinic acid + fluorouracil + oxaliplatin (FOLFOX; n=1, 2.9%). The mean tumor size was 4.83 cm (range, 1–13 cm) and the number of samples with ≥5 cm was 140 (45.3%). The initial distribution of TNM stages in the cohort was as follows: 0 (1.6%), I (9.4%), II (14.2%), III (28.1%) and IV (46.8%). There were no significant differences in age, sex, acquisition site, grade of regression after neoadjuvant therapy, tumor size, T stage, N stage, M stage, and total TNM stage between the groups with different KRAS mutation status. Generally, the tumors were in the left colon in both KRAS-mutated and wild type groups. However, KRAS-mutated CRCs were more likely to be in the right colon than wild type (P=0.014). In addition, absence of TP53 expression was apparent in only wild type CRCs (P=0.038).
 | Table I.Clinicopathological features of 310 patients with primary colorectal cancer stratified by KRAS mutation. |
The distribution of KRAS mutational changes is presented in Table II. Most of the mutations occurred in exon 2 (114/115, 99.1%), and among these, mutations in codon 12 were more common compared with those in codon 13 (76.3% vs. 23.7%, respectively). The three most common amino acid changes were G12D (n=44, 38.3%), G12V (n=26, 22.6%) and G13D (n=24, 20.9%).
Association of KRAS mutation with survival
The results of univariate and multivariate survival analyses in 245 patients are presented in Table SI (OS) and Table SII (DFS), respectively. The factors for the multivariate analysis included KRAS mutation, age, sex, tumor location, tumor size, TNM stage and comprehensive histological features. Overall, KRAS mutation was an unfavorable prognostic factor in terms of OS, according to the univariate (P=0.023; HR, 1.593; 95% CI, 1.065–2.382) and multivariate analyses (P=0.001; HR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.427–4.343) (Table SI). The cumulative OS rate of patients with KRAS mutation using log-rank test was lower compared with that of patients with wild type KRAS (P=0.021, 40.9 vs. 53.8%) (Fig. 1A). However, the KRAS mutation status was not associated with DFS in univariate (P=0.611; HR, 1.097; 95% CI, 0.769–1.564) and multivariate (P=0.365; HR, 1.221; 95% CI, 0.793–1.878) analyses (Table SII). Of the common mutation types, patients with G12D and G13D mutations had significantly lower OS rates compared with those with wild type KRAS (P=0.003; Fig. 1B). However, there was no significant difference between the OS curves for G12V and wild type KRAS (P=0.999; Fig. 1C).
Histological features according to KRAS mutation status
The cross-tabulation analysis results of the comprehensive histological examination are summarized in Table III. For accurate morphological analysis, only surgically resected specimens (n=267) were included. In general, similar histological findings were revealed in patients with mutations and those with wild type KRAS; however, samples from those with mutations exhibited more prominent serrated (Fig. 2A) and/or papillary (Fig. 2B) patterns (P=0.009 and P=0.014, respectively).
Influence of clinicopathological features on OS according to KRAS mutation status
Further univariate and multivariate survival analyses for OS were performed on the ‘KRAS-mutated’ and ‘wild type’ CRC subgroups.
On the basis of the univariate analysis of ‘KRAS-mutated’ subgroup (Table SIII), tumor size ≥5 cm (P=0.030), high initial TNM stage (P<0.001), presence of signet ring cells (P=0.021), absent to mild Crohn's-like lymphoid reaction (P=0.020), absence of dirty necrosis (P=0.021) and paucity of neutrophilic infiltration (P=0.002) were associated with lower OS rate. However, in multivariate analysis (Table IV), those who were aged ≥60 years (P=0.023; HR, 3.058; 95% CI, 1.169–7.995), male (P=0.034; HR, 2.747; 95% CI, 1.079–6.995), M1 stage at diagnosis (P=0.029; HR, 5.608; 95% CI, 1.197–26.279) and particularly the presence of solid component (representative histology image, see Fig. 2C) were associated with a lower OS rate (P=0.032; HR, 4.040; 95% CI, 1.127–14.488).
| Table IV.Results of the multivariate analysis of the influence of various factors on overall survival according to KRAS mutation status. |
By contrast, in the ‘wild type’ subgroup, right-sided tumor location (P=0.021), high initial TNM stage (P<0.001), infiltrative tumor border ≥50% (P=0.046), poorly-differentiated tumor (P=0.006), moderate cribriform pattern (P=0.006), presence of signet ring cells (P=0.002), absence of dirty necrosis (P=0.002), absence of neutrophilic infiltration (P=0.041) and high tumor budding grade (P=0.005) were the independent prognostic factors for worse OS rate in univariate analysis (Table SIII). However, in the multivariate analysis (Table IV), initial M1 stage (P<0.001) and the presence of a micropapillary component (representative histology image, see Fig. 2D) were associated with a lower OS rate (P=0.018; HR, 2.908; 95% CI, 1.205–7.017).
Influence of clinicopathological features on DFS according to KRAS mutation status
Further univariate and multivariate survival analyses for DFS were performed on the ‘KRAS-mutated’ and ‘wild type’ CRC subgroups.
On the basis of the univariate analysis in the ‘KRAS-mutated’ subgroup (Table SIV), high initial TNM stage (P<0.001), mild or absence of Crohn's-like lymphoid reaction (P=0.033) and paucity of neutrophilic infiltration (P=0.004) were associated with lower DFS rate. However, only initial M1 stage (P<0.001) exhibited statistical significance following multivariate analysis (Table SV).
On the basis of univariate analysis in the ‘wild type’ subgroup (Table SIV), high initial TNM stage (P<0.001), presence of signet ring cells (P=0.020), paucity of neutrophilic infiltration (P=0.027) and TIL<50% (P=0.018) were independent prognostic factors for DFS. However, only initial M1 stage (P<0.001) was associated with lower DFS in multivariate analysis (Table SV).
Influence of clinicopathological factors on OS
The results of univariate and multivariate analyses of OS are presented in Table SI. Right-sided tumor location (P=0.016), tumor size ≥5 cm (P=0.025), high initial TNM stage (P<0.001), TP53 positivity (P=0.005), high-grade tumor differentiation (P=0.006), a moderate cribriform pattern (P=0.047), a signet ring cell pattern (P<0.001), absence of Crohn's-like lymphoid reaction (P=0.009), absence of dirty necrosis (P<0.001), paucity of neutrophilic infiltration (P=0.003), a high tumor budding grade (P=0.050) and presence of lymphatic or vascular or perineural invasion (P=0.001, P<0.001, and P<0.001, respectively) were unfavorable prognostic factors regarding OS, according to univariate analysis. However, according to the multivariate analysis, age ≥60 (P=0.001), right-sided tumor location (P=0.036), tumor size ≥5 cm, a high initial TNM stage (P=0.001), a high tumor budding grade (P=0.021) and vascular invasion (P=0.049) were associated with poor OS.
Influence of clinicopathological factors on DFS
Local recurrence or distant metastasis occurred in 128 (47.8%) patients during the follow-up period, but there was no statistical significance (30.692 vs. 35.013 months, respectively). The cumulative DFS was 44.9% for the KRAS-mutated group and 49.1% for the wild type group (P=0.518). The results of univariate and multivariate analyses between clinicopathological factors and DFS are summarized in Table SII. Tumor size ≥5 cm (P=0.025) and high initial TNM stage (P<0.001), a signet ring cell pattern (P=0.006), absence of Crohn's-like lymphoid reaction (P=0.038), less neutrophilic infiltration (P=0.001), TIL <50% (P=0.013) and presence of lymphatic or vascular or perineural invasions (P<0.001, P=0.001 and P=0.009, respectively) were associated with a lower DFS rate based on univariate analysis. However, only initial M1 stage (P<0.001) reached significance in the multivariate analysis.
Discussion
In the present study, the prevalence of KRAS mutation and common amino acid changes determined were consistent with the results of previous studies (27,28). The results of the present study support those of previous studies, with a more frequent right-sided tumor location in patients with mutations and rare simultaneous TP53 and KRAS mutation (29,30). Of note, KRAS mutation was a significant prognostic marker of OS with a 2.5-fold increased HR. There has been controversy over the prognostic value of KRAS mutation, but a recent review strengthens the evidence of a negative clinical effect of the mutation in metastatic CRC (P<0.001; HR, 1.674; 95% CI, 1.341–2.089) (8,31). In addition, the cumulative OS rate of patients with KRAS mutations was lower compared with that reported previously and this difference may be due to low patient numbers or shorter observational periods compared with those in the present study (32–34).
Furthermore, G12D and G13D mutations resulted in a worse OS rate compared with wild type KRAS (P=0.035). While mutations of codons 12 or 13 have been widely studied in CRCs, their impact on clinical action has been debated (35). Thus far, the prevailing view is that codon 12 mutation results in poor clinical outcome, contrary to the case with codon 13 (36,37). There is more evidence of decreased sensitivity or reduced survival in patients with G12D and G13D mutations (38,39). Different results were reported for G12V, which has been indicated to result in lower DFS and OS rates (32,37). However, further verification is required, since, unlike the present study, most studies involved only metastatic CRCs.
The prognostic role of KRAS mutation in DFS has been debated. In particular, most studies, including those on non-metastatic CRCs, concluded that KRAS mutations are associated with poor DFS (40–43). However, studies including metastatic CRCs indicated no association between KRAS mutations and DFS (44–46). Inoue et al (47) also revealed that the KRAS genotype had no effect on DFS of patients at stage IV, but G13D was a poor prognostic factor for DFS of patients at stage I–III. Similarly, the present study revealed no significant prognostic value of KRAS mutation for DFS, including metastatic CRCs (stage 0-IV). However, stage 0-III CRCs exhibited a trend of association between the KRAS-mutated genotype and lower DFS (P=0.059), in accordance with the results of previous studies (40–43).
The present study was performed on a specific ethnic group as the cohort. Most of the studies from South Korea have indicated that KRAS is not associated with either OS or DFS (48,49) except for that by Lee et al (42), according to which DFS was shorter in stage II and III patients treated with FOLFOX. However, the present results are in accordance with those obtained by certain other studies in East Asian countries, which indicated an association between KRAS mutation and a lower OS rate (32,47). By contrast, KRAS was not associated with prognosis in most studies from in Southwest Asia and South America (34,50–52). However, in Caucasians, the results were controversial. Studies performed in Italy and Spain suggested shorter OS and DFS of patients with KRAS mutation (53,54). However, studies performed in Sweden and Australia indicated no association between KRAS mutation and OS (8,55). Furthermore, a study from Austria reported that KRAS-mutated patients had better OS, except for those with G12V mutation (56).
Of note, patients with KRAS mutation presented with more serrated and/or papillary features compared with those with wild type KRAS. A previous study also demonstrated that KRAS is involved in the traditional serrated pathway, in addition to the conventional pathway of the pathogenesis of CRCs (57). However, in the mutation group, the serrated feature itself was not associated with prognosis (P=0.242) and this result was similar to that in the whole population (P=0.329). The biological behavior of CRCs with marked serrated features has been debated; however, their prognostic impact appears to be defined by molecular traits rather than by morphology (58,59). Taken together, KRAS mutation may be involved in the morphogenesis of serration, but the prognostic value of the serrated pattern in patients with mutations remains uncertain.
Similarly, certain studies reported on CRCs with papillary or villous features and designated them as papillary, adenoma-like or villous adenocarcinoma (60–62). These tumors were less likely to be associated with lymph node metastasis, absence of aberrant p53 expression and frequent KRAS mutation (62,63). However, the papillary architecture was not associated with survival in patients with mutations and the whole population (P=0.852 and P=0.135, respectively). Overall, KRAS mutation has a moderate association with papillary architecture but the prognostic effect of the predominant papillary architecture in CRC requires further verification.
The present study also demonstrated the association of solid architecture with a lower OS rate in the group with KRAS mutation, whereas micropapillary features were associated with a lower OS rate in the wild type group. A possible explanation is that the solid pattern, by definition, includes poorly differentiated tumors, resulting in a more accurate estimate of high-grade differentiated tumors than the original diagnoses, which are directed toward moderately differentiated tumors. For the micropapillary feature, this has been associated with frequent lymph node metastasis in numerous solid organ tumors, including CRCs (64,65). However, the results of the present study support the fact that KRAS mutation has a more significant impact on prognosis compared with micropapillary histology.
Most of the results of the survival analysis for clinicopathological factors of the present study are in accordance with those of previous studies (19,66,67). In addition, in previous studies, a better OS has been indicated in stage IV/KRAS wild type and anti-EGFR-treated subgroups (68,69). A higher 3-year OS rate suggests that anti-EGFR treatment may have a positive effect on short-term survival.
However, there are certain differences between the present results and those of previous studies. First, an association of dirty necrosis or tumor necrosis with better OS is not reported in the literature. While there have only been a few studies that have directly investigated the role of dirty necrosis on survival in CRC (70,71), a previous study by Pollheimer et al (70) reasoned that tumor necrosis reflects a hypoxic environment due to rapid proliferation of the tumor and is therefore associated with a poor prognosis. Väyrynen et al (71) also reported that tumor necrosis was associated with high T stage, vascular invasion and short DFS time in CRC, but the degree of necrosis was not proportional to the Ki-67 proliferation index. Overall, dirty necrosis is not merely an indicator of the tumor growth rate but may also reflect intraluminal growth rather than invasiveness. The second point is regarding neutrophilic infiltration. In the present study, the paucity of neutrophilic infiltration was associated with poor OS. Certain studies have reported neutrophil infiltration as a favorable prognostic factor, whilst other studies have proposed that the induction of immune escape by intratumoral neutrophils results in stimulation of tumor growth (72,73). The results of the present study support an activated anti-tumor immune response induced by intratumoral neutrophils rather than immune evasion.
There are certain limitations to this type of retrospective study using previously processed material for diagnostic purposes. First, only a small number of patients (2.6%, 8/310) were able to undergo BRAF testing, as the procedure was not covered by their health insurance. BRAF, like KRAS, is also known to cause constitutive activation of the MAPK pathway and BRAF mutations have been associated with adverse clinical outcomes in advanced CRC (74–76). Won et al (44) even concluded that BRAF mutations, rather than KRAS mutations, were significant prognostic factors in Korean patients with CRC. Accordingly, simultaneous testing for KRAS and BRAF is required in future studies in CRC. In addition, the detection kit used in the present study only included common codon changes. Therefore, further studies on the histological results and their prognostic value of rare KRAS codon variants are necessary.
In summary, the present study demonstrated a moderate association between KRAS-mutated CRCs and specific histology, and, to a certain degree, an association between histology and prognosis, according to KRAS mutation status. Due to the different prognostic value of KRAS mutations in patients with different ethnicities, the present study holds scientific value as the patient cohort consists of a specific ethnic group. Given that the results of the present study vary from previous findings performed in South Korea, based on the prognostic value of KRAS mutation, which have indicated that KRAS is not associated with either OS or DFS (48,49), this should be further clarified by meta-analysis.
Supplementary Material
Supporting Data
Acknowledgements
The authors greatly appreciate the valuable work carried out by Ms Seo Young Oh at the Department of Pathology, KUMC (Seoul, Korea) for performing the KRAS mutation test, and her interpretation of the KRAS test results.
Funding
No funding was received.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the present study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Authors' contributions
HSH designed and supervised the study. DYH contributed to data collection and data analysis. HSL contributed to data collection, histological and statistical analyses, constructed the figures and tables and drafted the initial manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This retrospective study was reviewed and a waiver of informed consent was provided by the Institutional Review Board of KUMC (Seoul, Korea; ethics approval no. KUH1210056).
Patient consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Glossary
Abbreviations
Abbreviations:
|
CRC |
colorectal carcinoma |
|
KUMC |
Konkuk University Medical Center |
|
TIL |
tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes |
|
OS |
overall survival |
|
DFS |
disease-free survival |
|
HR |
hazard ratio |
References
|
Shin A, Kim KZ, Jung KW, Park S, Won YJ, Kim J, Kim DY and Oh JH: Increasing trend of colorectal cancer incidence in Korea, 1999–2009. Cancer Res Treat. 44:219–226. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Jung KW, Won YJ, Kong HJ and Lee ES: Prediction of cancer incidence and mortality in Korea, 2018. Cancer Res Treat. 50:317–323. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
De Angelis R, Sant M, Coleman MP, Francisci S, Baili P, Pierannunzio D, Trama A, Visser O, Brenner H, Ardanaz E, et al: Cancer survival in Europe 1999–2007 by country and age: Results of EUROCARE-5-a population-based study. Lancet Oncol. 15:23–34. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Mundade R, Imperiale TF, Prabhu L, Loehrer PJ and Lu T: Genetic pathways, prevention, and treatment of sporadic colorectal cancer. Oncoscience. 1:400–406. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Castagnola P and Giaretti W: Mutant KRAS, chromosomal instability and prognosis in colorectal cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1756:115–125. 2005.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Suehiro Y, Wong CW, Chirieac LR, Kondo Y, Shen L, Webb CR, Chan YW, Chan AS, Chan TL, Wu TT, et al: Epigenetic-genetic interactions in the APC/WNT, RAS/RAF, and P53 pathways in colorectal carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 14:2560–2569. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Malumbres M and Barbacid M: RAS oncogenes: The first 30 years. Nat Rev Cancer. 3:459–465. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Rosty C, Young JP, Walsh MD, Clendenning M, Walters RJ, Pearson S, Pavluk E, Nagler B, Pakenas D, Jass JR, et al: Colorectal carcinomas with KRAS mutation are associated with distinctive morphological and molecular features. Mod Pathol. 26:825–834. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Tanaka M, Omura K, Watanabe Y, Oda Y and Nakanishi I: Prognostic factors of colorectal cancer: K-ras mutation, overexpression of the p53 protein, and cell proliferative activity. J Surg Oncol. 57:57–64. 1994. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Kakar S, Aksoy S, Burgart LJ and Smyrk TC: Mucinous carcinoma of the colon: Correlation of loss of mismatch repair enzymes with clinicopathologic features and survival. Mod Pathol. 17:696–700. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Rimbert J, Tachon G, Junca A, Villalva C, Karayan-Tapon L and Tougeron D: Association between clinicopathological characteristics and RAS mutation in colorectal cancer. Mod Pathol. 31:517–526. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Millar J: The Need for a Global Language-SNOMED CT introduction. Stud Health Technol Inform. 225:683–685. 2016.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Yang D, Lai X, Xu F, Li Y, Jiang W and Ma D: Prognosis and clinical characteristics of colorectal cancer patients with KRAS gene mutation: A 5-year follow-up study. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 12:409–418. 2019.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Lim DR, Kuk JK, Kim T and Shin EJ: Comparison of oncological outcomes of right-sided colon cancer versus left-sided colon cancer after curative resection: Which side is better outcome? Medicine (Baltimore). 96:e82412017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Chen CH, Hsieh MC, Hsiao PK, Lin EK, Lu YJ and Wu SY: A critical reappraisal for the value of tumor size as a prognostic variable in rectal adenocarcinoma. J Cancer. 8:1927–1934. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Zhai ZW and Gu J: Influence of tumor size on the prognosis in patients with colon cancer. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 15:495–498. 2012.(In Chinese). PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Oh SY, Han JY, Lee SR and Lee HT: Improved DNA extraction method for molecular diagnosis from smaller numbers of cells. Korean J Clin Lab Sci. 46:99–105. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH and Theise ND: WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Fourth Edition. IARC. 2010. | |
|
Weiser MR: AJCC 8th edition: Colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 25:1454–1455. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Onodera M, Nishigami T, Torii I, Sato A, Tao LH, Kataoka TR, Yoshikawa R and Tsujimura T: Comparison between colorectal low- and high-grade mucinous adenocarcinoma with MUC1 and MUC5AC. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 1:69–73. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Ueno H, Hashiguchi Y, Shimazaki H, Shinto E, Kajiwara Y, Nakanishi K, Kato K, Maekawa K, Miyai K, Nakamura T, et al: Objective criteria for crohn-like lymphoid reaction in colorectal cancer. Am J Clin Pathol. 139:434–441. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Shia J, Schultz N, Kuk D, Vakiani E, Middha S, Segal NH, Hechtman JF, Berger MF, Stadler ZK, Weiser MR, et al: Morphological characterization of colorectal cancers in The Cancer Genome Atlas reveals distinct morphology-molecular associations: Clinical and biological implications. Mod Pathol. 30:599–609. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Iseki Y, Shibutani M, Maeda K, Nagahara H, Fukuoka T, Matsutani S, Kashiwagi S, Tanaka H, Hirakawa K and Ohira M: A new method for evaluating tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in colorectal cancer using hematoxylin and eosin (H-E)-stained tumor sections. PLoS One. 13:e01927442018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Lugli A, Kirsch R, Ajioka Y, Bosman F, Cathomas G, Dawson H, El Zimaity H, Flèjou JF, Hansen TP, Hartmann A, et al: Recommendations for reporting tumor budding in colorectal cancer based on the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) 2016. Mod Pathol. 30:1299–1311. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Kruschewski M, Mueller K, Lipka S, Budczies J, Noske A, Buhr HJ and Elezkurtaj S: The prognostic impact of p53 expression on sporadic colorectal cancer is dependent on p21 status. Cancers (Basel). 3:1274–1284. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Ogino S, Kawasaki T, Kirkner GJ, Ogawa A, Dorfman I, Loda M and Fuchs CS: Down-regulation of p21 (CDKN1A/CIP1) is inversely associated with microsatellite instability and CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) in colorectal cancer. J Pathol. 210:147–154. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Guo F, Gong H, Zhao H, Chen J, Zhang Y, Zhang L, Shi X, Zhang A, Jin H, Zhang J and He Y: Mutation status and prognostic values of KRAS, NRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA in 353 Chinese colorectal cancer patients. Sci Rep. 8:60762018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Lee WS, Lee JN, Baek JH and Park YH: RAS status in Korean patients with stage III and IV colorectal cancer. Clin Transl Oncol. 17:751–756. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Byun JH, Ahn JB, Kim SY, Kang JH, Zang DY, Kang SY, Kang MJ, Shim BY, Baek SK, Kim BS, et al: The impact of primary tumor location in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: A Korean Cancer Study Group CO12-04 study. Korean J Intern Med. 34:165–177. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Calistri D, Rengucci C, Seymour I, Leonardi E, Truini M, Malacarne D, Castagnola P and Giaretti W: KRAS, p53 and BRAF gene mutations and aneuploidy in sporadic colorectal cancer progression. Cell Oncol. 28:161–166. 2006.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Tosi F, Magni E, Amatu A, Mauri G, Bencardino K, Truini M, Veronese S, De Carlis L, Ferrari G, Nichelatti M, et al: Effect of KRAS and BRAF mutations on survival of metastatic colorectal cancer after liver resection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 16:e153–e163. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Bai B, Shan L, Xie B, Huang X, Mao W, Wang X, Wang D and Zhu H: Mutations in KRAS codon 12 predict poor survival in Chinese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncol Lett. 15:3161–3166. 2018.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Lee JH, Ahn J, Park WS, Choe EK, Kim E, Shin R, Heo SC, Jung S, Kim K, Chai YJ and Chae H: Colorectal cancer prognosis is not associated with BRAF and KRAS Mutations-A STROBE compliant study. J Clin Med. 8(pii): E1112019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Payandeh M, Shazad B, Sadeghi M and Shahbazi M: Correlation between RAS test results and prognosis of metastatic colorectal cancer patients: A report from Western Iran. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 17:1729–1732. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Modest DP, Brodowicz T, Stintzing S, Jung A, Neumann J, Laubender RP, Ocvirk J, Kurteva G, Papai Z, Knittelfelder R, et al: Impact of the specific mutation in KRAS codon 12 mutated tumors on treatment efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving cetuximab-based first-line therapy: A pooled analysis of three trials. Oncology. 83:241–247. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Renaud S, Guerrera F, Seitlinger J, Costardi L, Schaeffer M, Romain B, Mossetti C, Claire-Voegeli A, Filosso PL, Legrain M, et al: KRAS exon 2 codon 13 mutation is associated with a better prognosis than codon 12 mutation following lung metastasectomy in colorectal cancer. Oncotarget. 8:2514–2524. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Jones RP, Sutton PA, Evans JP, Clifford R, McAvoy A, Lewis J, Rousseau A, Mountford R, McWhirter D and Malik HZ: Specific mutations in KRAS codon 12 are associated with worse overall survival in patients with advanced and recurrent colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 116:923–929. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Kaczirek K, Ciuleanu TE, Vrbanec D, Marton E, Messinger D, Liegl-Atzwanger B, Wrba F, Knittelfelder R, Lindner E, Zielinski CC, et al: FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab for patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer according to tumor RAS and BRAF mutation status: Updated analysis of the CECOG/CORE 1.2.002 study. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 14:91–98. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Yoon HH, Tougeron D, Shi Q, Alberts SR, Mahoney MR, Nelson GD, Nair SG, Thibodeau SN, Goldberg RM, Sargent DJ, et al: KRAS codon 12 and 13 mutations in relation to disease-free survival in BRAF-wild-type stage III colon cancers from an adjuvant chemotherapy trial (N0147 alliance). Clin Cancer Res. 20:3033–3043. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Kadowaki S, Kakuta M, Takahashi S, Takahashi A, Arai Y, Nishimura Y, Yatsuoka T, Ooki A, Yamaguchi K, Matsuo K, et al: Prognostic value of KRAS and BRAF mutations in curatively resected colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 21:1275–1283. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Alberts SR, Sargent DJ, Nair S, Mahoney MR, Mooney M, Thibodeau SN, Smyrk TC, Sinicrope FA, Chan E, Gill S, et al: Effect of oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin with or without cetuximab on survival among patients with resected stage III colon cancer: A randomized trial. JAMA. 307:1383–1393. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Lee DW, Kim KJ, Han SW, Lee HJ, Rhee YY, Bae JM, Cho NY, Lee KH, Kim TY, Oh DY, et al: KRAS mutation is associated with worse prognosis in stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer patients treated with adjuvant FOLFOX. Ann Surg Oncol. 22:187–194. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Blons H, Emile JF, Le Malicot K, Juliè C, Zaanan A, Tabernero J, Mini E, Folprecht G, Van Laethem JL, Thaler J, et al: Prognostic value of KRAS mutations in stage III colon cancer: Post hoc analysis of the PETACC8 phase III trial dataset. Ann Oncol. 25:2378–2385. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Won DD, Lee JI, Lee IK, Oh ST, Jung ES and Lee SH: The prognostic significance of KRAS and BRAF mutation status in Korean colorectal cancer patients. BMC Cancer. 17:4032017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Gao XH, Yu GY, Hong YG, Lian W, Chouhan H, Xu Y, Liu LJ, Bai CG and Zhang W: Clinical significance of multiple gene detection with a 22-gene panel in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded specimens of 207 colorectal cancer patients. Int J Clin Oncol. 24:141–152. 2019. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Natsume S, Yamaguchi T, Takao M, Iijima T, Wakaume R, Takahashi K, Matsumoto H, Nakano D, Horiguchi SI, Koizumi K and Miyaki M: Clinicopathological and molecular differences between right-sided and left-sided colorectal cancer in Japanese patients. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 48:609–618. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Inoue Y, Saigusa S, Iwata T, Okugawa Y, Toiyama Y, Tanaka K, Uchida K, Mohri Y and Kusunoki M: The prognostic value of KRAS mutations in patients with colorectal cancer. Oncol Rep. 28:1579–1584. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Chang MH, Lee IK, Si Y, Lee KS, Woo IS and Byun JH: Clinical impact of K-ras mutation in colorectal cancer patients treated with adjuvant FOLFOX. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 68:317–323. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Kim HS, Heo JS, Lee J, Lee JY, Lee MY, Lim SH, Lee WY, Kim SH, Park YA, Cho YB, et al: The impact of KRAS mutations on prognosis in surgically resected colorectal cancer patients with liver and lung metastases: A retrospective analysis. BMC Cancer. 16:1202016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Buim ME, Fanelli MF, Souza VS, Romero J, Abdallah EA, Mello CA, Alves V, Ocea LM, Mingues NB, Barbosa PN, et al: Detection of KRAS mutations in circulating tumor cells from patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer Biol Ther. 16:1289–1295. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Cabrera-Mendoza F, Gainza-Lagunes S, Castañeda-Andrade I and Castro-Zarate A: Clinical relevance of the K-ras oncogene in colorectal cancer: Experience in a Mexican population. Rev Gastroenterol Mex. 79:166–170. 2014.(In Spanish). PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Zekri J, Rizvi A, Al-Maghrabi J and Bin Sadiq B: K-ras in colorectal cancer tumors from saudi patients: Frequency, Clinco-pathological Association and clinical outcome. Open Colorectal Cancer J. 5:22–27. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar | |
|
Sastre J, Vidaurreta M, Gómez A, Rivera F, Massutí B, López MR, Abad A, Gallen M, Benavides M, Aranda E, et al: Prognostic value of the combination of circulating tumor cells plus KRAS in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 12:280–286. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Serenari M, Alvarez FA, Ardiles V, de Santibañes M, Pekolj J and de Santibañes E: The ALPPS approach for colorectal liver metastases: Impact of KRAS mutation status in survival. Dig Surg. 35:303–310. 2018. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Graf W, Cashin PH, Ghanipour L, Enblad M, Botling J, Terman A and Birgisson H: Prognostic impact of BRAF and KRAS mutation in patients with colorectal and appendiceal peritoneal metastases scheduled for CRS and HIPEC. Ann Surg Oncol. 27:293–300. 2020. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Winder T, Mündlein A, Rhomberg S, Dirschmid K, Hartmann BL, Knauer M, Drexel H, Wenzl E, De Vries A and Lang A: Different types of K-Ras mutations are conversely associated with overall survival in patients with colorectal cancer. Oncol Rep. 21:1283–1287. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
East JE, Atkin WS, Bateman AC, Clark SK, Dolwani S, Ket SN, Leedham SJ, Phull PS, Rutter MD, Shepherd NA, et al: British society of gastroenterology position statement on serrated polyps in the colon and rectum. Gut. 66:1181–1196. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Lee CT, Huang YC, Hung LY, Chow NH, Su PF, Ho CL, Tsai HW, Chen YL, Lin SC, Lin BW, et al: Serrated adenocarcinoma morphology in colorectal mucinous adenocarcinoma is associated with improved patient survival. Oncotarget. 8:35165–35175. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Patai AV, Molnár B, Tulassay Z and Sipos F: Serrated pathway: Alternative route to colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 19:607–615. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Loy TS and Kaplan PA: Villous adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum: A clinicopathologic study of 36 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 28:1460–1465. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Palazzo JP, Edmonston TB, Chaille-Arnold LM and Burkholder S: Invasive papillary adenocarcinoma of the colon. Hum Pathol. 33:372–375. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Gonzalez RS, Cates JM, Washington MK, Beauchamp RD, Coffey RJ and Shi C: Adenoma-like adenocarcinoma: A subtype of colorectal carcinoma with good prognosis, deceptive appearance on biopsy and frequent KRAS mutation. Histopathology. 68:183–190. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Fecteau RE, Lutterbaugh J, Markowitz SD, Willis J and Guda K: GNAS mutations identify a set of right-sided, RAS mutant, villous colon cancers. PLoS One. 9:e879662014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Kim MJ, Hong SM, Jang SJ, Yu E, Kim JS, Kim KR, Gong G and Ro JY: Invasive colorectal micropapillary carcinoma: An aggressive variant of adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol. 37:809–815. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Pettinato G, Manivel CJ, Panico L, Sparano L and Petrella G: Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: Clinicopathologic study of 62 cases of a poorly recognized variant with highly aggressive behavior. Am J Clin Pathol. 121:857–866. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Hendifar A, Yang D, Lenz F, Lurje G, Pohl A, Lenz C, Ning Y, Zhang W and Lenz HJ: Gender disparities in metastatic colorectal cancer survival. Clin Cancer Res. 15:6391–6397. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Majek O, Gondos A, Jansen L, Emrich K, Holleczek B, Katalinic A, Nennecke A, Eberle A and Brenner H; GEKID Cancer Survival Working Group, : Sex differences in colorectal cancer survival: Population-based analysis of 164,996 colorectal cancer patients in Germany. PLoS One. 8:e680772013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Soulierès D, Greer W, Magliocco AM, Huntsman D, Young S, Tsao MS and Kamel-Reid S: KRAS mutation testing in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer with anti-EGFR therapies. Curr Oncol. 17 (Suppl 1):S31–S40. 2010.PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Chuko J, Yeh MK, Chen BJ and Hu KY: Efficacy of cetuximab on wild-type and mutant KRAS in colorectal cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Sci. 30:189–198. 2010. | |
|
Pollheimer MJ, Kornprat P, Lindtner RA, Harbaum L, Schlemmer A, Rehak P and Langner C: Tumor necrosis is a new promising prognostic factor in colorectal cancer. Hum Pathol. 41:1749–1757. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Väyrynen SA, Väyrynen JP, Klintrup K, Mäkelä J, Karttunen TJ, Tuomisto A and Mäkinen MJ: Clinical impact and network of determinants of tumour necrosis in colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 114:1334–1342. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Wikberg ML, Ling A, Li X, Öberg A, Edin S and Palmqvist R: Neutrophil infiltration is a favorable prognostic factor in early stages of colon cancer. Hum Pathol. 68:193–202. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Rao HL, Chen JW, Li M, Xiao YB, Fu J, Zeng YX, Cai MY and Xie D: Increased intratumoral neutrophil in colorectal carcinomas correlates closely with malignant phenotype and predicts patients' adverse prognosis. PLoS One. 7:e308062012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Sanz-Garcia E, Argiles G, Elez E and Tabernero J: BRAF mutant colorectal cancer: Prognosis, treatment, and new perspectives. Ann Oncol. 28:2648–2657. 2017. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Chen D, Huang JF, Liu K, Zhang LQ, Yang Z, Chuai ZR, Wang YX, Shi DC, Huang Q and Fu WL: BRAFV600E mutation and its association with clinicopathological features of colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 9:e906072014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI | |
|
Davies H, Bignell GR, Cox C, Stephens P, Edkins S, Clegg S, Teague J, Woffendin H, Garnett MJ, Bottomley W, et al: Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature. 417:949–954. 2002. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI |
