Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27358198›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology2016

Prognostic factors after resection of colorectal liver metastases following preoperative second-line chemotherapy: Impact of RAS mutations.

G Passot, Y S Chun, S E Kopetz, M J Overman, C Conrad, T A Aloia, J-N Vauthey

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Hepatic metastasis from colorectal cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2019
    Review
  5. Review
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.

G PassotDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, USA.
Y S ChunDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, USA.
S E KopetzDepartment of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, USA.
M J OvermanDepartment of Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, USA.
C ConradDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, USA.
T A AloiaDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, USA.
J-N VautheyDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 1484, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: jvauthey@mdanderson.org.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAfter resection of colorectal liver metastases (CLM), RAS mutations are associated with modest survival benefit and second-line chemotherapy confers limited hope for cure.

objectiveTo evaluate the impact of RAS mutation after second-line chemotherapy for patients undergoing potentially curative liver resection for CLM.

methodsAmong 1357 patients operated for CLM between January 2005 and November 2014, patients with known RAS mutational status were identified. Outcomes after second-line chemotherapy were analyzed by RAS status.

resultsAmong 635 patients undergoing resection of CLM, 46 received second-line chemotherapy before resection, including 14 patients (30%) with RAS mutations. Patients who received second-line chemotherapy had significantly larger and greater number of liver metastases and were more likely to undergo major hepatectomy. Median overall (OS) and recurrence free survival (RFS) were significantly worse among patients requiring second-line chemotherapy (OS: 44.4 vs. 61.1 months, p = 0.021; RFS: 7.3 vs. 12.0 months, p = 0.001). Among patients undergoing liver resection after second-line chemotherapy, RAS mutations were associated with worse median OS and RFS (OS: 35.2 vs. 60.7 months, p = 0.038; RFS: 3.6 vs. 8.3 months, p = 0.015). RAS mutation was the only independent factor associated with OS and RFS. All patients with RAS mutations recurred within 18 months. Among patients with RAS wild-type tumors, the receipt of second-line chemotherapy did not affect OS (p = 0.493).

conclusionAmong patients undergoing resection of CLM after second-line chemotherapy, RAS mutational status is an independent predictor of survival and outweighs other factors to select patients for liver resection.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic AgentsColorectal NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHepatectomyHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLiver NeoplasmsMaleMetastasectomyMiddle AgedMutationNeoadjuvant TherapyAntineoplastic Agentsras ProteinsChemotherapyColorectalLiverMetastasesRAS

Identifiers

PMID27358198
PMCPMC5002377

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.