ArticleCancer science2016
Utility of KRAS mutation detection using circulating cell-free DNA from patients with colorectal cancer.
Article in Cancer science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
49 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.
- Circulating tumour DNA and its clinical utility in predicting treatment response or survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.British journal of cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Reliability of digital PCR in detecting KRAS mutation in colorectal cancer using plasma sample: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Pooled it
- The diagnostic accuracy of circulating free DNA for the detection of KRAS mutation status in colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis.Cancer medicine · 2019Pooled it
- Ligand-activated EGFR/MAPK signaling but not PI3K, are key resistance mechanisms to EGFR-therapy in colorectal cancer.Nature communications · 2025Trial
- Consensus Guideline for the Management of Colorectal Cancer with Peritoneal Metastases.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Clinical Impact of Baseline ctDNACancers · 2026Article
- Article
- Site-Specific Mutations on KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF Corelate With the Frequency of ctDNA in Colorectal Cancer.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Detection of KRAS Mutations Using Extracellular Vesicle DNA in Colorectal Cancer Patients.Cancer science · 2025Observational
- Evaluating Tumor Dynamics Using Circulating Tumor DNA in the Rare Cancer Anorectal Malignant Melanoma: A Report of Two Cases.Surgical case reports · 2025Article
- A panorama of colon cancer in the era of liquid biopsy.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2024Review
- Circulating Nucleic Acids in Colorectal Cancer: Diagnostic and Prognostic Value.Disease markers · 2024Review
- Clinical Validation of Plasma-Based Genotyping forJCO precision oncology · 2023Article
- Time for a lead-time definition? Author response to 'Why the length of recurrence free survival or "lead-times" can be misleading. Comment on: Callesen LB, Takacova T, Hamfjord J, et al. Circulating DNA in patients undergoing loco-regional treatment of colorectal cancer metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis'.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2023Article
- Accelerating the Development and Validation of Liquid Biopsy for Early Cancer Screening and Treatment Tailoring.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Relationship between perioperative oncological evaluation and recurrence using circulating tumor DNA with KRAS mutation in patients with colorectal cancer.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
- Which patients are prone to suffer liver metastasis? A review of risk factors of metachronous liver metastasis of colorectal cancer.European journal of medical research · 2022Review
- Liquid biopsy at the frontier of detection, prognosis and progression monitoring in colorectal cancer.Molecular cancer · 2022Review
- Circulating DNA in patients undergoing loco-regional treatment of colorectal cancer metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we evaluated the clinical utility of detecting KRAS mutations in circulating cell-free (ccf)DNA of metastatic colorectal cancer patients. We prospectively recruited 94 metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Circulating cell-free DNA was extracted from plasma samples and analyzed for the presence of seven KRAS point mutations. Using the Invader Plus assay with peptide nucleic acid clamping method and digital PCR, KRAS mutations were detected in the ccfDNA in 35 of 39 patients previously determined to have primary tumors containing KRAS mutations using the Luminex method, and in 5 of 55 patients with tumors containing wild-type KRAS. Curative resection was undertaken in 7 of 34 patients with primary and ccfDNA KRAS mutations, resulting in the disappearance of the mutation from the cell-free DNA in five of seven patients. Three of these patients had tumor recurrence and KRAS mutations in their ccfDNA reappeared. Epidermal growth factor receptor blockade was administered to 24 of the KRAS tumor wild-type patients. Of the 24 patients with wild-type KRAS in their primary tumors, three patients had KRAS mutations in their ccfDNA and did not respond to treatment with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) blockade. We also detected a new KRAS mutation in five patients during chemotherapy with EGFR blockade, before disease progression was detectable with imaging. The detection of KRAS mutations in ccfDNA is an attractive approach for predicting both treatment response and acquired resistance to EGFR blockade, and for detecting disease recurrence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.