Cargando…

KRAS Assessment Following ESMO Recommendations for Colorectal Liver Metastases. Is It Always Worth It?

Background: Genetic evaluation is essential in assessing colorectal cancer (CRC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). The aim of this study was to determine the pragmatic value of KRAS on oncological outcomes after CRLM according to the ESMO recommendations and to query whether it is necessary to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Morató, Olga, Villamonte, Maria, Sánchez-Velázquez, Patricia, Pueyo-Périz, Eva, Grande, Luís, Ielpo, Benedetto, Rosso, Edoardo, Anselmo, Alessandro, Burdío, Fernando
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8951263/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35326950
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10030472
_version_ 1784675341668712448
author Morató, Olga
Villamonte, Maria
Sánchez-Velázquez, Patricia
Pueyo-Périz, Eva
Grande, Luís
Ielpo, Benedetto
Rosso, Edoardo
Anselmo, Alessandro
Burdío, Fernando
author_facet Morató, Olga
Villamonte, Maria
Sánchez-Velázquez, Patricia
Pueyo-Périz, Eva
Grande, Luís
Ielpo, Benedetto
Rosso, Edoardo
Anselmo, Alessandro
Burdío, Fernando
author_sort Morató, Olga
collection PubMed
description Background: Genetic evaluation is essential in assessing colorectal cancer (CRC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). The aim of this study was to determine the pragmatic value of KRAS on oncological outcomes after CRLM according to the ESMO recommendations and to query whether it is necessary to request KRAS testing in each situation. Methods: A retrospective cohort of 126 patients who underwent surgery for hepatic resection for CRLM between 2009 and 2020 were reviewed. The patients were divided into three categories: wild-type KRAS, mutated KRAS and impractical KRAS according to their oncological variables. The impractical (not tested) KRAS group included patients with metachronous tumours and negative lymph nodes harvested. Disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and hepatic recurrence-free survival (HRFS) were calculated by the Kaplan–Meier method, and a multivariable analysis was conducted using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Results: Of the 108 patients identified, 35 cases had KRAS wild-type, 50 cases had a KRAS mutation and the remaining 23 were classified as impractical KRAS. Significantly longer medians for OS, HRFS and DFS were found in the impractical KRAS group. In the multivariable analyses, the KRAS mutational gene was the only variable that was maintained through OS, HRFS and DFS. For HRFS (HR: 13.63; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.35–100.62; p = 0.010 for KRAS), for DFS (HR: 10.06; 95% CI: 2.40–42.17; p = 0.002 for KRAS) and for OS (HR: 4.55%; 95% CI: 1.37–15.10; p = 0.013). Conclusion: Our study considers the possibility of unnecessary KRAS testing in patients with metachronous tumours and negative lymph nodes harvested. Combining the genetic mutational profile (i.e., KRAS in specific cases) with tumour characteristics helps patient selection and achieves the best prognosis after CRLM resection.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8951263
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89512632022-03-26 KRAS Assessment Following ESMO Recommendations for Colorectal Liver Metastases. Is It Always Worth It? Morató, Olga Villamonte, Maria Sánchez-Velázquez, Patricia Pueyo-Périz, Eva Grande, Luís Ielpo, Benedetto Rosso, Edoardo Anselmo, Alessandro Burdío, Fernando Healthcare (Basel) Article Background: Genetic evaluation is essential in assessing colorectal cancer (CRC) and colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM). The aim of this study was to determine the pragmatic value of KRAS on oncological outcomes after CRLM according to the ESMO recommendations and to query whether it is necessary to request KRAS testing in each situation. Methods: A retrospective cohort of 126 patients who underwent surgery for hepatic resection for CRLM between 2009 and 2020 were reviewed. The patients were divided into three categories: wild-type KRAS, mutated KRAS and impractical KRAS according to their oncological variables. The impractical (not tested) KRAS group included patients with metachronous tumours and negative lymph nodes harvested. Disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and hepatic recurrence-free survival (HRFS) were calculated by the Kaplan–Meier method, and a multivariable analysis was conducted using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Results: Of the 108 patients identified, 35 cases had KRAS wild-type, 50 cases had a KRAS mutation and the remaining 23 were classified as impractical KRAS. Significantly longer medians for OS, HRFS and DFS were found in the impractical KRAS group. In the multivariable analyses, the KRAS mutational gene was the only variable that was maintained through OS, HRFS and DFS. For HRFS (HR: 13.63; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.35–100.62; p = 0.010 for KRAS), for DFS (HR: 10.06; 95% CI: 2.40–42.17; p = 0.002 for KRAS) and for OS (HR: 4.55%; 95% CI: 1.37–15.10; p = 0.013). Conclusion: Our study considers the possibility of unnecessary KRAS testing in patients with metachronous tumours and negative lymph nodes harvested. Combining the genetic mutational profile (i.e., KRAS in specific cases) with tumour characteristics helps patient selection and achieves the best prognosis after CRLM resection. MDPI 2022-03-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8951263/ /pubmed/35326950 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10030472 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Morató, Olga
Villamonte, Maria
Sánchez-Velázquez, Patricia
Pueyo-Périz, Eva
Grande, Luís
Ielpo, Benedetto
Rosso, Edoardo
Anselmo, Alessandro
Burdío, Fernando
KRAS Assessment Following ESMO Recommendations for Colorectal Liver Metastases. Is It Always Worth It?
title KRAS Assessment Following ESMO Recommendations for Colorectal Liver Metastases. Is It Always Worth It?
title_full KRAS Assessment Following ESMO Recommendations for Colorectal Liver Metastases. Is It Always Worth It?
title_fullStr KRAS Assessment Following ESMO Recommendations for Colorectal Liver Metastases. Is It Always Worth It?
title_full_unstemmed KRAS Assessment Following ESMO Recommendations for Colorectal Liver Metastases. Is It Always Worth It?
title_short KRAS Assessment Following ESMO Recommendations for Colorectal Liver Metastases. Is It Always Worth It?
title_sort kras assessment following esmo recommendations for colorectal liver metastases. is it always worth it?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8951263/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35326950
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10030472
work_keys_str_mv AT moratoolga krasassessmentfollowingesmorecommendationsforcolorectallivermetastasesisitalwaysworthit
AT villamontemaria krasassessmentfollowingesmorecommendationsforcolorectallivermetastasesisitalwaysworthit
AT sanchezvelazquezpatricia krasassessmentfollowingesmorecommendationsforcolorectallivermetastasesisitalwaysworthit
AT pueyoperizeva krasassessmentfollowingesmorecommendationsforcolorectallivermetastasesisitalwaysworthit
AT grandeluis krasassessmentfollowingesmorecommendationsforcolorectallivermetastasesisitalwaysworthit
AT ielpobenedetto krasassessmentfollowingesmorecommendationsforcolorectallivermetastasesisitalwaysworthit
AT rossoedoardo krasassessmentfollowingesmorecommendationsforcolorectallivermetastasesisitalwaysworthit
AT anselmoalessandro krasassessmentfollowingesmorecommendationsforcolorectallivermetastasesisitalwaysworthit
AT burdiofernando krasassessmentfollowingesmorecommendationsforcolorectallivermetastasesisitalwaysworthit