Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31350822›Full record

ArticleMolecular oncology2019

RAS and BRAF mutations in cell-free DNA are predictive for outcome of cetuximab monotherapy in patients with tissue-tested RAS wild-type advanced colorectal cancer.

Erik J van Helden, Lindsay Angus, C Willemien Menke-van der Houven van Oordt, Daniëlle A M Heideman, Eline Boon, Suzanne C van Es, Sandra A Radema, Carla M L van Herpen, Derk Jan A de Groot, Elisabeth G E de Vries and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. MiR-31 as a predictive biomarker of cetuximab efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: systematic review.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Co-delivery systems: hope for clinical application?Drug delivery and translational research · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Dynamic liquid biopsy components as predictive and prognostic biomarkers in colorectal cancer.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2022
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Erik J van HeldenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Lindsay AngusDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7928-1102
C Willemien Menke-van der Houven van OordtDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Daniëlle A M HeidemanDepartment of Pathology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Eline BoonDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Suzanne C van EsDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, The Netherlands.
Sandra A RademaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Carla M L van HerpenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Derk Jan A de GrootDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, The Netherlands.
Elisabeth G E de VriesDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Groningen, The Netherlands.
Maurice P H M JansenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1258-9804
Stefan SleijferDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Henk M W VerheulDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLErasmus MC · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In metastatic colorectal cancer, RAS and BRAF mutations cause resistance to anti-EGFR therapies, such as cetuximab. Heterogeneity in RAS and BRAF mutations might explain nonresponse in a subset of patients receiving cetuximab. Analyzing mutations in plasma-derived circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) could provide a more comprehensive overview of the mutational landscape as compared to analyses of primary and/or metastatic tumor tissue. Therefore, this prospective multicenter study followed 34 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who were tissue-tested as RAS wild-type (exons 2-4) during routine work-up and received third-line cetuximab monotherapy. BRAF mutation status was also tested but did not exclude patients from therapy. At baseline and upon disease progression, cell-free DNA (cfDNA) was isolated for targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS). At 8 weeks, we determined that patients had benefited from treatment. NGS of cfDNA identified three patients with RAS mutations not detected in tumor tissue during routine work-up. Another six patients had a BRAF or rare RAS mutation in ctDNA and/or tumor tissue. Relative to patients without mutations in RAS/BRAF, patients with mutations at baseline had shorter progression-free survival [1.8 versus 4.9 months (P < 0.001)] and overall survival [3.1 versus 9.4 months (P = 0.001)]. In patients with clinical benefit (progressive disease after 8 weeks), ctDNA testing revealed previously undetected mutations in RAS/BRAF (71%) and EGFR (47%), which often emerged polyclonally. Our results indicate that baseline NGS of ctDNA can identify additional RAS mutation carriers, which could improve patient selection for anti-EGFR therapies. Acquired resistance, in patients with initial treatment benefit, is mainly explained by polyclonal emergence of RAS, BRAF, and EGFR mutations in ctDNA.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overCetuximabCirculating Tumor DNAColorectal NeoplasmsDisease-Free SurvivalDisease ProgressionDNA Mutational AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMutationNeoplasm StagingProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafras ProteinsCetuximabCirculating Tumor DNAProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafras ProteinsbiomarkersBRAFcell-free DNAcetuximabcolorectal cancerRAS mutations

Identifiers

PMID31350822
PMCPMC6822250
OpenAlexW2965294890

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.