Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34660299›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021

Retrospective Comparative Analysis of KRAS G12C

Riccardo Giampieri, Alessio Lupi, Pina Ziranu, Alessandro Bittoni, Andrea Pretta, Federica Pecci, Mara Persano, Enrica Giglio, Cecilia Copparoni, Sonia Crocetti and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Frontiers in oncology · 2022
    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

15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Riccardo GiampieriClinica Oncologica-Dipartimento Scienze Cliniche e Molecolari-Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Alessio LupiClinica Oncologica-Dipartimento Scienze Cliniche e Molecolari-Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Pina ZiranuOncologia, Università ed Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
Alessandro BittoniClinica Oncologica-Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona, Ancona, Italy.
Andrea PrettaOncologia, Università ed Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
Federica PecciClinica Oncologica-Dipartimento Scienze Cliniche e Molecolari-Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Mara PersanoOncologia, Università ed Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
Enrica GiglioClinica Oncologica-Dipartimento Scienze Cliniche e Molecolari-Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Cecilia CopparoniClinica Oncologica-Dipartimento Scienze Cliniche e Molecolari-Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Sonia CrocettiClinica Oncologica-Dipartimento Scienze Cliniche e Molecolari-Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Alessandra MandolesiAnatomia Patologica-Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti di Ancona, Ancona, Italy.
Gavino FaaAnatomia Patologica-Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Sanità Pubblica-Università di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
Pierpaolo ConiAnatomia Patologica-Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche e Sanità Pubblica-Università di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
Mario ScartozziOncologia, Università ed Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy.
Rossana BerardiClinica Oncologica-Dipartimento Scienze Cliniche e Molecolari-Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy.
Marche Polytechnic University · ITAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Cagliari · ITOspedali Riuniti di Ancona · ITUniversity of Cagliari · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKRAS mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) define a subset of tumors that have primary resistance to anti-EGFR-based therapy. Data concerning whether different KRAS mutations may also have a prognostic value are lacking. Furthermore, novel KRAS G12C inhibitors are currently in development. The aim of our analysis was to compare response rates in patients treated with first-line chemotherapy doublet + Bevacizumab among different KRAS variants. Secondary end-points were progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

methodsPatients with KRAS mutated mCRC treated with either FOLFIRI/FOLFOX/XELOX + Bevacizumab were eligible for enrollment. Patients whose tumor harbored NRAS mutations or that coexpressed also BRAF mutations were excluded from this retrospective analysis. Patients' individual data were collected from patients' records. Propensity score matching (nearest method, 1:2 ratio) was used to define the two different groups of patients for comparison (KRAS G12C mutated

resultsA total of 120 patients were assessed in the final analysis. Out of the 120 patients, 15 (12%) were KRAS G12C mutated. In the whole cohort of patients, 59/120 (49%) had partial response (PR), 42/120 (35%) had stable disease (SD), and 19/120 (16%) had progressive disease (PD) as the best response. In KRAS G12C patients, 4/15 (27%) had PR, 6/15 (40%) had SD, and the remaining 5/15 (33%) had PD as the best response. In patients with other KRAS mutations, 55/105 (52%) had PR, 37/105 (35%) had SD, and the remaining 13/105 (12%) had PD as the best response. The difference in RR between the two groups of patients was statistically significant (p=0.017). On the other hand, no difference in PFS (p=0.76) and OS (p=0.56) was observed. After matching procedures, the difference in response rates between KRAS G12C mutated patients

conclusionsIn our cohort of patients, it was observed that KRAS G12C mutations are associated with worse response rates compared to other KRAS variants when treated with standard chemotherapy doublet + Bevacizumab. On the other hand, both PFS and OS were not significantly different. Based on these findings, we believe that new treatment options focused on KRAS G12C inhibition should be tested mainly in first-line setting and in addition to standard chemotherapy doublet + Bevacizumab for mCRC patients, as they might "fill the gap" in response rates that was seen in our study.

Indexed as

chemotherapyfirst lineG12CKRASmCRC

Identifiers

PMID34660299
PMCPMC8514824
OpenAlexW3203174711

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.