ArticleBJC reports2025
Primary tumour location, molecular alterations, treatments, and outcome in a population-based metastatic colorectal cancer cohort.
Article in BJC reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Relevance of Curative-Intent Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer Patients: Real-World Insights From a Certified Comprehensive Cancer Center in Germany.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Molecular-clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes in 163 metastatic colorectal neuroendocrine carcinomas with a comparison to colorectal adenocarcinomas.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- KRAS and NRAS mutations in Nordic population-based and real-world metastatic colorectal cancer cohorts.BJC reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMetastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients in trials are selected. The aim was to study mCRC features population-based.
methodsAll 765 mCRC patients in the Uppsala region, Sweden, 2010-2020 were identified and analysed for RAS (n = 356/708) and BRAF-V600E (n = 123/708) mutations (mt) and deficient mismatch repair (dMMR, n = 58/643).
resultsRight colon primary tumours were associated with BRAF-V600Emt and dMMR and had worse median overall survival (mOS) than left colon or rectal mCRC. RAS&BRAF wildtype (wt) and proficient MMR were seen in 22%, 45%, and 31% of right colon, left colon, and rectum, respectively. Patients with right colon primaries received best supportive care only more often (34% vs 25% vs 24%) and metastasectomy less often (21% vs 31% vs 33%) than left colon and rectal primaries. In molecularly homogeneous subgroups (RAS&BRAFwt/RASmt/BRAF-V600Emt/dMMR) no difference in mOS were seen between right and left colon primaries, whereas rectal primaries had better mOS (26/15/8/9 vs 24/21/8/8 vs 32/23/6/NA months, respectively). This was also the case in homogenous treatment groups. Primary tumour location turned non-significant in multivariable OS analyses.
conclusionsThe high variation of BRAF-V600Emt, RASmt, dMMR, and treatment allocation population-based per primary tumour location explain the poor outcome in right-sided cancers.
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.