Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34887523›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2022

Impact of KRAS, BRAF and microsatellite instability status after cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC in a national cohort of colorectal peritoneal metastasis patients.

S G Larsen, M A Goscinski, S Dueland, S E Steigen, E Hofsli, A Torgunrud, M Lund-Iversen, V J Dagenborg, K Flatmark, H Sorbye

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Expert consensus on the optimal management of BRAFAsia-Pacific journal of clinical oncology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

S G LarsenSection for Surgical Oncology, Norwegian Radium Hospital, Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. stl@ous-hf.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9831-1995
M A GoscinskiSection for Surgical Oncology, Norwegian Radium Hospital, Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
S DuelandDepartment of Oncology, Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
S E SteigenDepartment of Clinical Pathology, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
E HofsliThe Cancer Clinic, St. Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway.
A TorgunrudDepartment of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
M Lund-IversenDepartment of Clinical Pathology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
V J DagenborgSection for Surgical Oncology, Norwegian Radium Hospital, Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
K FlatmarkSection for Surgical Oncology, Norwegian Radium Hospital, Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
H SorbyeDepartment of Oncology, Haukeland University Hospital and Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Oslo University Hospital · NONorwegian University of Science and Technology · NOHaukeland University Hospital · NOUniversity Hospital of North Norway · NOUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) carrying BRAF (mutBRAF) or KRAS mutation (mutKRAS) have an inferior prognosis after liver or lung surgery, whereas the prognostic role in the context of peritoneal metastasis (PM) after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has been less investigated.

methodsIn total, 257 patients with non-appendiceal PM-CRC were included from the Norwegian National Unit for CRS-HIPEC.

resultsIn total, 180 patients received CRS-HIPEC with Mitomycin C, 77 patients received palliative surgery only. In the CRS-HIPEC group, mutBRAF was found in 24.7%, mutKRAS 33.9% and double wild-type 41.4% without differences in survival. MSI was found in 29.3% of mutBRAF cases. Patients with mutBRAF/MSI had superior 5-year survival compared to mutBRAF with MSS (58.3% vs 25.2%, P = 0.022), and better 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) compared to mutKRAS (48.6% vs 17.2%, P = 0.049). Peritoneal Cancer Index and the number of lymph node metastasis were prognostic for OS, and the same two, location and gender prognostic for DFS in multivariate analysis.

conclusionsPM-CRC with CRS-HIPEC patients has a surprisingly high proportion of mutBRAF (24.7%). Survival was similar comparing mutBRAF, mutKRAS and double wild-type cases, whereas a small subgroup with mutBRAF and MSI had better survival. Patients with mutBRAF tumours and limited PM should be considered for CRS-HIPEC.

Indexed as

Microsatellite InstabilityAdultColorectal NeoplasmsCytoreduction Surgical ProceduresFemaleHumansHyperthermic Intraperitoneal ChemotherapyLymphatic MetastasisMaleMiddle AgedMitomycinMutationPalliative CarePeritoneal NeoplasmsPrognosisProspective StudiesBRAF protein, humanKRAS protein, humanMitomycinProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)

Identifiers

PMID34887523
PMCPMC8888568
OpenAlexW4200130083

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.