Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25888436›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR2015

KRAS testing of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in a community-based oncology setting: a retrospective database analysis.

Gebra Cuyun Carter, Pamela B Landsman-Blumberg, Barbara H Johnson, Paul Juneau, Steven J Nicol, Li Li, Veena Shankaran

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Middle East and North Africa Registry to Characterize Rate of RAS Testing Status in Newly Diagnosed Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2023
    Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Genomic Profiling forJCO precision oncology · 2019
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Heliyon · 2017
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Gebra Cuyun CarterEli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN, 46285, USA. cuyun_carter_gebra@lilly.com.
Pamela B Landsman-BlumbergTruven Health Analytics, Bethesda, MD, USA. pamela.blumberg@xcenda.com.
Barbara H JohnsonTruven Health Analytics, Bethesda, MD, USA. barbara.h.johnson@truvenhealth.com.
Paul JuneauTruven Health Analytics, Bethesda, MD, USA. paul.juneau@truvenhealth.com.
Steven J NicolEli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN, 46285, USA. nicol_steven@lilly.com.
Li LiEli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN, 46285, USA. li_li_x1@lilly.com.
Veena ShankaranUniversity of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. vshank@U.WASHINGTON.EDU.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2009, treatment guidelines were updated to recommend KRAS testing at diagnosis for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We investigated KRAS testing rates over time and compared characteristics of KRAS-tested and not-tested patients in a community-based oncology setting.

methodsAdult patients with a diagnosis of mCRC from 2008-2011 were selected from the ACORN Data Warehouse (ACORN Research LLC, Memphis, TN). Text mining of physician progress notes and full chart reviews identified KRAS-tested patients, test dates, and test results (KRAS status). The overall proportion of eligible patients KRAS-tested in each calendar year was calculated. Among KRAS-tested patients, the proportion tested at diagnosis (within 60 days) was calculated by year. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to compare patient characteristics at diagnosis between tested and not-tested cohorts, and to identify factors associated with KRAS testing.

resultsAmong 1,363 mCRC patients seen from 2008-2011, 648 (47.5%) were KRAS-tested. Among newly diagnosed mCRC patients, the rate of KRAS testing increased from 5.9% prior to 2008, to 13.9% in 2008, and then jumped dramatically to 32.3% in 2009, after which a modest yearly increase continued. The proportions of KRAS-tested patients who had been diagnosed in previous years but not tested previously increased from 17.7% in 2008 to 27.0% in 2009, then decreased to 19.0% in 2010 and 17.6% in 2011. Among patients who were KRAS-tested, the proportions tested at the time of diagnosis increased annually (to 78.4% in 2011). Patients more likely to have been tested included those with lung metastases, poor performance status, more comorbidities, and mCRC diagnosis in 2009 or later.

conclusionsThe frequency of KRAS testing increased over time, corresponding to changes in treatment guidelines and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor product labels; however, approximately 50% of eligible patients were untested during the study period.

Indexed as

Community Health ServicesGenetic TestingAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overColorectal NeoplasmsDatabases, FactualFemaleGenotypeHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasm MetastasisOdds RatioKRAS protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)

Identifiers

PMID25888436
PMCPMC4380249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.