Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

The prognostic significance of KRAS and BRAF mutation status in Korean colorectal cancer patients

BMC Cancer201717:403

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3381-7

Received: 21 January 2017

Accepted: 22 May 2017

Published: 5 June 2017

Abstract

Background

BRAF and KRAS mutations are well-established biomarkers in anti-EGFR therapy. However, the prognostic significance of these mutations is still being examined. We determined the prognostic value of BRAF and KRAS mutations in Korean colorectal cancer (CRC) patients.

Methods

From July 2010 to September 2013, 1096 patients who underwent surgery for CRC at Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital were included in the analysis. Resected specimens were examined for BRAF, KRAS, and microsatellite instability (MSI) status. All data were reviewed retrospectively.

Results

Among 1096 patients, 401 (36.7%) had KRAS mutations and 44 (4.0%) had BRAF mutations. Of 83 patients, 77 (92.8%) had microsatellite stable (MSS) or MSI low (MSI-L) status while 6 (7.2%) patients had MSI high (MSI-H) status. Patients with BRAF mutation demonstrated a worse disease-free survival (DFS, HR 1.990, CI 1.080–3.660, P = 0.02) and overall survival (OS, HR 3.470, CI 1.900–6.330, P < 0.0001). Regarding KRAS status, no significant difference was noted in DFS (P = 0.0548) or OS (P = 0.107). Comparing the MSS/MSI-L and MSI-H groups there were no significant differences in either DFS (P = 0.294) or OS (P = 0.557).

Conclusions

BRAF mutation, rather than KRAS, was a significant prognostic factor in Korean CRC patients at both early and advanced stages. The subgroup analysis for MSI did not show significant differences in clinical outcome. BRAF should be included in future larger prospective biomarker studies on CRC.

Keywords

BRAF mutation KRAS mutation MSI Colorectal cancer

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer in females and the third most common cancer in males worldwide [1]. It is one of the most rapidly growing cancers in Korea with an annual increase (from 1999 to 2009) of 6.2% in men and 6.8% in women [2]. Despite advances in CRC treatment and a decline in the mortality rate over the past few decades, CRC remains the second most common cause of cancer death in females and third common cause of cancer death in males [3].

Considerable advances have been made in the characterization of genetic alterations in CRC in support of genome-wide profiling. The Cancer Genome Atlas Network accomplished the largest comprehensive molecular analysis of CRC to date [4]. Based on somatic mutation rates, colorectal adenocarcinomas were classified as hypermutated or non-hypermutated. The hypermutated group had somatic mutations caused by high microsatellite instability (MSI), usually with MLH1 silencing or mismatch repair gene mutations. BRAF and ACVR2A mutations were enriched in hypermutated samples. However, the non-hypermutated group had frequent gene copy number alterations. In addition, APC, TP53, KRAS, and PIK3CA mutations were observed. These are characteristic of chromosomal instability [4].

The v-Ki-ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS), a member of the Ras subfamily, is a proto-oncogene that encodes a 21 kDa GTPase located on the short arm of chromosome 12 [5]. The RAS protein activates several downstream signaling cascades such as the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) and PI3K pathways that regulate multiple cellular functions including cell proliferation, differentiation, motility, survival, and intracellular trafficking [6]. KRAS is considered a key downstream component of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling pathway; therefore, mutations of the gene result in a constitutive activation of the EGFR signaling cascade [5]. KRAS mutations are identified in 30–50% of CRCs and are usually point mutations that occur in codons 12 and 13, less often in codon 61, and very infrequently at other sites such as codons 59, 146, 19, or 20 [5, 7]. KRAS mutation is a well-established biomarker that predicts resistance to therapy using anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies in metastatic CRC [8]. However, the prognostic value of KRAS mutations in CRC is controversial. Some studies revealed that KRAS mutations are associated with poorer prognosis, while others have reported no association [912].

The v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 (BRAF) is a serine/threonine kinase that plays a part in cell proliferation, survival, and differentiation; [13]. Activating BRAF mutations have been detected in various malignant tumors such as melanoma, papillary thyroid cancer, CRC, ovarian cancer, and hairy cell leukemia [1315]. In CRC, BRAF mutations are reported in 4.7 to 20% of tumors [13, 16]. Usually, BRAF and KRAS mutations are usually mutually exclusive [17]. The most common BRAF mutation, found in over 90% of human cancers, is a glutamic acid for valine substitution at codon 600 in exon 15 (V600E), leading to constitutive activation of the MAPK pathway [18]. The predictive role of BRAF mutation in response to anti-EGFR therapy remains uncertain; however, previous studies found that BRAF mutations are associated with an adverse clinical outcome, especially in advanced stage CRC [16, 19, 20].

In the present study, we comprehensively investigated KRAS and BRAF mutation status in Korean CRC patients. In addition, we analyzed the relationship of KRAS and BRAF mutation with MSI status.

Methods

Patients and treatment

We retrospectively reviewed specimens from 1096 consecutive patients who underwent surgical CRC resection at Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, between July 2010 and September 2013. CRC cases with tissue blocks eligible for the KRAS and BRAF mutation testing were included in this study. Two gastrointestinal pathologists reviewed and classified CRC slides according to World Health Organization classification. Clinicopathological parameters were obtained from patient medical records and pathology reports at our institution. Adjuvant chemotherapy was recommended to high-risk (cancer obstruction, perforation, poor differentiation, or lymphovascular/perineural invasion) stage II or stage III CRC patients. According to the BRAF and KRAS mutational status, patients were offered targeted agents as an adjunct to systemic chemotherapy. However, due to insurance coverage issues, only 3 patients received anti-EGFR and only 12 received anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy during the study period. Approval for this study was acquired from the Institutional Review Board of the Catholic University of Korea, College of Medicine (KC16RISI0011).

DNA isolation and analysis of KRAS and BRAF mutations

For DNA isolation, 10-μm-thick sections from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue samples were used for each case. Hematoxylin & eosin sections were used as a reference and the largest tumor area was scraped off with a scalpel under a dissecting microscope. Genomic DNA was extracted using the QIAamp DNA FFPE tissue kit (Qiagen Inc., Valencia, CA) according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. Sanger sequencing was performed using an ABI 3730 automated sequencer (Applied Biosystems, Inc., Foster City, CA), to detect the presence of KRAS exon 2 mutations with previously reported primers [21]. Exon 15 of the BRAF gene was amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using the following forward primer (5′-AATGCTTGCTCTGATAGGAAAAT-3′) and reverse primer (5′-TAATCAGTGGAAAAATAGCCTC-3′), resulting in a 209 base pair PCR product. The resultant PCR products were purified using the QIAquick PCR Purification Kit (Qiagen Inc., Valencia, CA) and the appropriate protocol on the QIAcube robotic workstation. Each chromatogram was visually inspected for abnormalities.

MSI analysis

Five microsatellite markers (BAT-25, BAT-26, D2S123, D5S346, and D17S250) recommended by a National Cancer Institute workshop on MSI determined the microsatellite status [22]. PCR analyses were performed and the shift of PCR products from tumor DNA was compared to normal DNA. Tumors with at least 2 of the 5 microsatellite markers displaying shifted alleles were classified as MSI-H, whereas tumors with only 1 marker exhibiting a novel band were classified as MSI-L. Samples in which all microsatellite markers displayed the same patterns in tumor and normal tissues were classified as MSS; subsequently, MSS and MSI-L tumors were grouped for analyses based on genetic implications [22].

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were analyzed by student’s t or Mann-Whitney U test, expressed as the mean ±SD. For categorical variables, χ2-test analysis or Fisher’s exact test was used. Survival analysis was performed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS software version 18 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) and the R programing language (R Core Team 2015, A language and environment for statistical computing, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, URL http://www.r-project.org/). A P-value of <0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Patient characteristics according to KRAS or BRAF mutation status

The present study included 1092 patients with KRAS and 1096 patients with BRAF mutation data. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the clinicopathological characteristics of patients. A total of 401 patients (36.7%) had KRAS mutations. KRAS mutated CRCs were significantly associated with females (45.1% vs 34.6% with wild-type KRAS; P = 0.001), right sided tumors (32.4% vs 21.0%; P < 0.001), higher T stage (T4, 15.3% vs 11.0%; P = 0.005), well to moderate differentiation (98.7% vs 94.7%; P = 0.002), and mucinous adenocarcinoma (9.2% vs 4.9%; P = 0.002). BRAF mutations were detected in 44 patients (4.0%). The proportion of BRAF mutation was higher in tumors located in the right colon (56.8% vs 23.9% with wild-type BRAF; P = 0.001), with an advanced tumor stage (T4, 29.5% vs 11.9%; P = 0.005), with lymph node metastasis (N2, 38.6% vs 20.5%; P = 0.015), and with lymphatic invasion (65.9% vs 44.0%; P = 0.007). BRAF mutated tumors trended toward poorly differentiated histology (10.0% vs 3.6%, P = 0.099) and an infiltrative growth pattern (22.7% vs 15.2%; P = 0.065) compared to wild-type BRAF tumors, but these were not statistically significant. In addition, gender distribution according to KRAS mutation status did not differ significantly, showing a bimodal distribution pattern along the colorectum. Distributions with respect to tumor sites for all three tumor subgroups (KRAS-mutated, BRAF-mutated and null CRCs), stratified for gender, are shown in Fig. 1a–c.
Table 1

Clinicopathologic characteristics according to KRAS mutation status

 

Patients with KRAS status

p-value

Negative

Positive

Total

(N = 691)

(N = 401)

(N = 1092)

Sex

   

0.001

 Male

452 (65.4%)

220 (54.9%)

672 (61.5%)

 

 Female

239 (34.6%)

181 (45.1%)

420 (38.5%)

 

Age

   

0.771

  < 50 year

90 (13.0%)

49 (12.2%)

139 (12.7%)

 

  ≥ 50 year

601 (87.0%)

352 (87.8%)

953 (87.3%)

 

Location

   

<0.001

 Rt colon

145 (21.0%)

130 (32.4%)

275 (25.2%)

 

 Lt colon

309 (44.7%)

158 (39.4%)

467 (42.8%)

 

 Rectum

221 (32.0%)

107 (26.7%)

328 (30.0%)

 

 Multiple

16 (2.3%)

6 (1.5%)

22 (2.0%)

 

Stage

   

0.889

 Tis

15 (2.2%)

8 (2.0%)

23 (2.1%)

 

 StageI

129 (18.8%)

75 (18.8%)

204 (18.8%)

 

 StageII

195 (28.3%)

112 (28.0%)

307 (28.2%)

 

 StageIII

256 (37.2%)

142 (35.5%)

398 (36.6%)

 

 StageIV

93 (13.5%)

63 (15.8%)

156 (14.3%)

 

T stage

   

0.005

 T1

71 (10.5%)

25 (6.4%)

96 (9.0%)

 

 T2

100 (14.8%)

77 (19.7%)

177 (16.6%)

 

 T3

429 (63.6%)

229 (58.6%)

658 (61.8%)

 

 T4

74 (11.0%)

60 (15.3%)

134 (12.6%)

 

N stage

   

0.897

 N0

362 (52.5%)

207 (51.6%)

569 (52.2%)

 

 N1

184 (26.7%)

106 (26.4%)

290 (26.6%)

 

 N2

143 (20.8%)

88 (21.9%)

231 (21.2%)

 

M stage

   

0.35

 M0

598 (86.5%)

338 (84.3%)

936 (85.7%)

 

 M1

93 (13.5%)

63 (15.7%)

156 (14.3%)

 

Lymphatic invasion

   

0.163

 Absent

392 (56.8%)

209 (52.2%)

601 (55.1%)

 

 Present

298 (43.2%)

191 (47.8%)

489 (44.9%)

 

Venous invasion

   

0.055

 Absent

558 (81.0%)

343 (85.8%)

901 (82.7%)

 

 Present

131 (19.0%)

57 (14.2%)

188 (17.3%)

 

Perineural invasion

   

0.123

 Absent

537 (77.8%)

294 (73.5%)

831 (76.2%)

 

 Present

153 (22.2%)

106 (26.5%)

259 (23.8%)

 

Differentiation

   

0.002

 Well/Moderate

629 (94.7%)

374 (98.7%)

1003 (96.2%)

 

 Poor

35 (5.3%)

5 (1.3%)

40 (3.8%)

 

Histology

   

0.008

 Non-mucinous adenocarcinoma

657 (95.1%)

364 (90.8%)

1021 (93.5%)

 

 Mucinous adenocarcinoma

34 (4.9%)

37 (9.2%)

71 (6.5%)

 

Recur

   

0.143

 Recur

593 (85.8%)

330 (82.3%)

923 (84.5%)

 

 Non-recur

98 (14.2%)

71 (17.7%)

169 (15.5%)

 

Expire

   

0.219

 Expire

629 (91.0%)

355 (88.5%)

984 (90.1%)

 

 Non- Expire

62 (9.0%)

46 (11.5%)

108 (9.9%)

 

Neoadjuvant Tx

   

0.217

 No

605 (87.6%)

364 (90.8%)

969 (88.7%)

 

 CTx

31 (4.5%)

10 (2.5%)

41 (3.8%)

 

 RT

2 (0.3%)

0 (0.0%)

2 (0.2%)

 

 CCRT

53 (7.7%)

27 (6.7%)

80 (7.3%)

 
Table 2

Clinicopathologic characteristics according to BRAF mutation status

 

Patients with BRAF status

p-value

Negative

Positive

Total

(N = 1052)

(N = 44)

(N = 1096)

Sex

   

0.149

 Male

652 (62.0%)

22 (50.0%)

674 (61.5%)

 

 Female

400 (38.0%)

22 (50.0%)

422 (38.5%)

 

Age

   

0.375

  < 50 year

131 (12.5%)

8 (18.2%)

139 (12.7%)

 

  ≥ 50 year

921 (87.5%)

36 (81.8%)

957 (87.3%)

 

Location

   

0

 Rt colon

252 (24.0%)

25 (56.8%)

277 (25.3%)

 

 Lt colon

455 (43.3%)

14 (31.8%)

469 (42.8%)

 

 Rectum

324 (30.8%)

4 (9.1%)

328 (29.9%)

 

 Multiple

21 (2.0%)

1 (2.3%)

22 (2.0%)

 

Stage

   

0.226

 Tis

23 (2.2%)

0 (0.0%)

23 (2.1%)

 

 StageI

205 (19.6%)

5 (11.4%)

210 (19.2%)

 

 StageII

323 (30.9%)

12 (27.3%)

335 (30.7%)

 

 StageIII

496 (47.4%)

27 (61.4%)

523 (47.9%)

 

T stage

   

0.006

 T1

93 (9.1%)

3 (6.8%)

96 (9.0%)

 

 T2

173 (16.9%)

4 (9.1%)

177 (16.6%)

 

 T3

637 (62.1%)

24 (54.5%)

661 (61.8%)

 

 T4

122 (11.9%)

13 (29.5%)

135 (12.6%)

 

N stage

   

0.015

 N0

553 (52.7%)

17 (38.6%)

570 (52.1%)

 

 N1

282 (26.9%)

10 (22.7%)

292 (26.7%)

 

 N2

215 (20.5%)

17 (38.6%)

232 (21.2%)

 

M stage

    

 M0

3 (75.0%)

0 (0.0%)

3 (75.0%)

 

 M1

1 (25.0%)

0 (0.0%)

1 (25.0%)

 

Lymphatic invasion

   

0.007

 Absent

588 (56.0%)

15 (34.1%)

603 (55.1%)

 

 Present

462 (44.0%)

29 (65.9%)

491 (44.9%)

 

Venous invasion

   

0.109

 Absent

873 (83.2%)

32 (72.7%)

905 (82.8%)

 

 Present

176 (16.8%)

12 (27.3%)

188 (17.2%)

 

Perineural invasion

   

0.451

 Absent

804 (76.6%)

31 (70.5%)

835 (76.3%)

 

 Present

246 (23.4%)

13 (29.5%)

259 (23.7%)

 

Differentiation

   

0.081

 Well

96 (9.5%)

2 (5.0%)

98 (9.4%)

 

 Moderate

875 (86.9%)

34 (85.0%)

909 (86.8%)

 

 Poor

36 (3.6%)

4 (10.0%)

40 (3.8%)

 

Histology

   

0.302

 Non-mucinous adenocarcinoma

986 (93.7%)

39 (88.6%)

1025 (93.5%)

 

 Mucinous adenocarcinoma

66 (6.3%)

5 (11.4%)

71 (6.5%)

 

Recur

   

0.113

 Recur

894 (85.0%)

33 (75.0%)

927 (84.6%)

 

 Non-recur

158 (15.0%)

11 (25.0%)

169 (15.4%)

 

Expire

   

0

 Expire

956 (90.9%)

32 (72.7%)

988 (90.1%)

 

 Non-Expire

96 (9.1%)

12 (27.3%)

108 (9.9%)

 

Neoadjuvant Tx

   

0.589

 No

929 (88.3%)

41 (93.2%)

970 (88.5%)

 

 CTx

40 (3.8%)

2 (4.5%)

42 (3.8%)

 

 RT

2 (0.2%)

0 (0.0%)

2 (0.2%)

 

 CCRT

81 (7.7%)

1 (2.3%)

82 (7.5%)

 
Fig. 1

Tumor distribution according to KRAS and BRAF mutation status. a Male patients, b Female patients and c All patients

Mutation frequencies in KRAS and BRAF

A KRAS codon 12 mutation was observed in 296 patients. A KRAS codon 13 mutation was observed in 98 patients. Seven other patients had either KRAS codon 14 or 30 mutations. The most frequent amino acid change was Gly12Asp, which accounted for 36.9% of KRAS mutations (148/401). The second most frequent mutation was Gly13Asp (24.2%, 97/401), and the third was Gly12Val (21.9%, 88/401). Table 3 lists detailed nucleotide and codon changes. Regarding BRAF mutations, Val600Glu in exon 15 showed the highest frequency (97.7%, 43/44) (Table 4). In addition, our data revealed 3 KRAS and BRAF co-mutated cases. Among these 3 cases, 2 had Gly13Asp KRAS mutations, 1 had a Gly12Asp mutation, and all BRAF mutations were Val600Glu. All 3 cases had lymph node metastasis and were included in stage III; however, no recurrences or deaths were observed.
Table 3

Frequency of Mutations in KRAS exon2

KRAS codon 12

c.34G > A

Gly12Ser

16

c.34G > C

Gly12Arg

2

c.34G > T

Gly12Cys

31

c.35G > A

Gly12Asp

148

c.35G > T

Gly12Asp

1

c.35G > T

Gly12Val

88

c.38G > A

Gly12Asp

5

c.35G > C

Gly12Ala

11

KRAS codon 13

c.35G > A

Gly13Asp

1

c.38G > A

Gly13Asp

97

c.37G > T

Gly13Cys

2

c.36G > T

Gly13Val

2

c.38_39 GC > TT

Gly13Val

1

KRAS codon 14

c.40G > A

Val14lle

1

KRAS codon 30

c.90C > T

Asp30Asp

1

Table 4

Frequency of BRAF Mutations

BRAF codon 600

c.1799 T > A

Val600Glu

43

c.1796 C > G

Thr599Arg

1

Impact of KRAS and BRAF mutations on DFS and OS

After a median follow-up of 29 months, the 5-year disease free survival rate of the study population was 81%. There was no significant difference according to KRAS mutation status; however, DFS trended toward being shorter in patients with KRAS mutations than those with wild-type KRAS (P = 0.0548). DFS was also significantly worse in patients with BRAF mutated cancers compared to wild-type BRAF by both univariate (HR 1.98, P = 0.0252) and multivariate analyses (HR 2.222) (Fig. 2a and b).
Fig. 2

Kaplan-Meier curves for disease-free survival and overall survival according to KRAS or BRAF mutation status. a Disease-free survival (DFS) according to KRAS status, b DFS according to BRAF status, c Overall survival (OS) according to KRAS status and d OS according to BRAF status

Regarding OS, the 5-year rate was 80%. No significant difference in OS according to KRAS mutation status was revealed (P = 0.108). OS was significantly shorter for patients with BRAF mutations than those with wild-type BRAF by univariate analysis (HR 3.46, 95% CI 1.9–6.3, P < 0.0001). In the multivariate analysis, BRAF mutations also had a negative impact on OS (HR 4.037, 95% CI 2.172–7.506, P < 0.0001) (Fig. 2c and d). In addition, we assessed whether the detrimental effect of KRAS mutations was different according to mutation subtypes and showed that there were no significant differences in DFS (P = 0.931) or OS (P = 0.816) (Additional file 1: Fig. S1A and B).

Considering KRAS and BRAF mutations together, DFS and OS were significantly more favorable in patients with wild-type KRAS and BRAF compared to patients with mutations in both genes (HR 1.540, 95% CI 1.140–2.080, P = 0.0049) and OS (HR 1.860, 95% CI 1.280–2.720, P = 0.0010) (Fig. 3a and b).
Fig. 3

Kaplan-Meier curves for DFS and OS according to KRAS mutation status in combination with BRAF. a DFS according to KRAS mutation status in combination with BRAF and b OS according to KRAS mutation status in combination with BRAF

Subgroup analysis on DFS and OS by stage

In stage I colorectal cancer, BRAF mutations had a negative impact on both DFS (HR 3.936, 95% CI 2.120–7.306, P < 0.0001) and OS (HR 4.037, 95% CI 2.172–7.506, P < 0.0001). However, KRAS mutations did not demonstrate a significant effect on DFS (HR 1.539, 95% CI 1.039–2.279, P = 0.112) or OS (HR 1.555, 95% CI 1.048–2.305, P = 0.107) (Fig. 4a and b). In stage II and III colorectal cancer, BRAF mutations had a negative impact on DFS (HR 1.940, 95% CI 1.050–3.570, P = 0.0322) and OS (HR 3.320, 95% CI 1.820–6.070, P < 0.0001). However, KRAS mutations did not demonstrate a significant effect on DFS (HR 1.250, 95% CI 0.910–1.720, P = 0.169) or OS (HR 1.400, 95% CI 0.950–2.070, P = 0.0917) (Fig. 4c and d). In stage IV CRC, BRAF mutation status did not show a significant effect on DFS (HR 1.180, 95% CI 0.290–4.870, P = 0.82) or OS (HR 2.660, 95% CI 0.950–7.450, P = 0.0548). KRAS mutation status also did not demonstrate a significant effect on DFS (HR 1.140, 95% CI 0.670–1.930, P = 0.627) or OS (1.410, 95% CI 0.790–2.520, P = 0.247) (Fig. 4e and f).
Fig. 4

Kaplan-Meier curves for DFS and OS according to KRAS or BRAF status in CRC patients with different stage. a DFS according to KRAS or BRAF status in CRC patients with stage I, b OS according to KRAS or BRAF status in CRC patients with stage I, c DFS according to KRAS or BRAF status in CRC patients with stage II and III, d OS according to KRAS or BRAF status in CRC patients with stage II and III, e DFS according to KRAS or BRAF status in CRC patients with stage IV and f OS according to KRAS or BRAF status in CRC patients with stage IV

Patient characteristics according to MSI status

MSI test data were available in 83 patients. Univariate analysis was performed according to clinicopathologic factors and MSI status. A significant difference was noted in CRC location (P = 0.037). MSH-H had a higher frequency in colon cancers of the right side (66.7% vs 23.4%). MSS/MSI-L CRCs were more prevalent on the left (50.6% vs 16.7%). Regarding histological differentiation, a significant difference was noted (P = 0.012). MSI-H had higher number of poorly differentiated CRC (1.4% vs 25.0%). Mucinous CRC was observed more frequently in the MSI-H group (6.5% vs 83.3%, P < 0.001) (Table 5).
Table 5

Clinicopathologic characteristics according to MSI status

 

Patients with MSI status

p-value

MSS/MSI-L

MSI-H

total

(N = 77)

(N = 6)

(N = 83)

Sex

   

0.482

 Male

44 (57.1%)

2 (33.3%)

46 (55.4%)

 

 Female

33 (42.9%)

4 (66.7%)

37 (44.6%)

 

Age

   

0.608

  < 50 year

13 (16.9%)

0 (0.0%)

13 (15.7%)

 

  ≥ 50 year

64 (83.1%)

6 (100.0%)

70 (84.3%)

 

Location

   

0.037

 Rt colon

18 (23.4%)

4 (66.7%)

22 (26.5%)

 

 Lt colon

39 (50.6%)

1 (16.7%)

40 (48.2%)

 

 Rectum

17 (22.1%)

0 (0.0%)

17 (20.5%)

 

 Multiple

3 (3.9%)

1 (16.7%)

4 (4.8%)

 

Stage

   

0.642

 StageI

14 (18.2%)

2 (33.3%)

16 (19.3%)

 

 StageII

27 (35.1%)

2 (33.3%)

29 (34.9%)

 

 StageIII

36 (46.8%)

2 (33.3%)

38 (45.8%)

 

T stage

   

0.984

 T1

9 (11.7%)

1 (16.7%)

10 (12.0%)

 

 T2

13 (16.9%)

1 (16.7%)

14 (16.9%)

 

 T3

39 (50.6%)

3 (50.0%)

42 (50.6%)

 

 T4

16 (20.8%)

1 (16.7%)

17 (20.5%)

 

N stage

   

0.788

 N0

41 (53.2%)

4 (66.7%)

45 (54.2%)

 

 N1

14 (18.2%)

1 (16.7%)

15 (18.1%)

 

 N2

22 (28.6%)

1 (16.7%)

23 (27.7%)

 

Lymphatic invasion

   

0.971

 Absent

46 (59.7%)

3 (50.0%)

49 (59.0%)

 

 Present

31 (40.3%)

3 (50.0%)

34 (41.0%)

 

Venous invasion

   

0.378

 Absent

58 (75.3%)

6 (100.0%)

64 (77.1%)

 

 Present

19 (24.7%)

0 (0.0%)

19 (22.9%)

 

Perineural invasion

   

0.248

 Absent

53 (68.8%)

6 (100.0%)

59 (71.1%)

 

 Present

24 (31.2%)

0 (0.0%)

24 (28.9%)

 

Differentiation

   

0.012

 Well

13 (17.8%)

0 (0.0%)

13 (16.9%)

 

 Moderate

59 (80.8%)

3 (75.0%)

62 (80.5%)

 

 Poor

1 (1.4%)

1 (25.0%)

2 (2.6%)

 

Histology

   

<0.001

 Non-mucinous adenocarcinoma

72 (93.5%)

1 (16.7%)

73 (88.0%)

 

 Mucinous adenocarcinoma

5 (6.5%)

5 (83.3%)

10 (12.0%)

 

Recur

   

0.608

 Recur

64 (83.1%)

6 (100.0%)

70 (84.3%)

 

 Non-recur

13 (16.9%)

0 (0.0%)

13 (15.7%)

 

Expire

   

1

 Expire

71 (92.2%)

6 (100.0%)

77 (92.8%)

 

 Non-Expire

6 (7.8%)

0 (0.0%)

6 (7.2%)

 

BRAF status

   

0.326

 Wild type

76 (98.7%)

5 (83.3%)

81 (97.6%)

 

 Mutation

1 (1.3%)

1 (16.7%)

2 (2.4%)

 

KRAS status

   

0.102

 Wild type

44 (57.1%)

6 (100.0%)

50 (60.2%)

 

 Mutation

33 (42.9%)

0 (0.0%)

33 (39.8%)

 

Impact of MSI status on DFS and OS

We compared DFS and OS between MSS/MSI-L and MSI-H groups to evaluate the value of MSI status as a prognostic marker. MSI status did not show a significant difference in DFS (P = 0.294) or OS (P = 0.557) (Fig. 5a and b).
Fig. 5

Kaplan-Meier curves for DFS and OS according to MSI status. a DFS according to MSI status and b OS according to MSI status

Discussion

In this study, we evaluated KRAS and BRAF mutational status in 1096 Korean CRC patients using direct sequencing. To the best of our knowledge, our study is one of the first to report the prognostic significance of KRAS and BRAF mutation status in the Korean CRC population. A major strength of this study was the comprehensive subgroup analysis done according to CRC stage and MSI status with a relatively large sample size.

We uncovered an overall KRAS mutation rate of 36.7% in colorectal cancers, which was consistent with most previous reports [2326]. We also found that proximal CRCs had a higher percentage of KRAS mutations compared to those at a distal location. This finding is in line with a recent study by Rosty et al. [27]. Furthermore, we found that the frequencies of KRAS mutations showed a bimodal distribution pattern along the colorectum. Consistent with previous studies, our data indicated that the frequency of KRAS mutated tumors was highest in the cecum (60%) [27, 28]. (Fig. 1a–c) The data emphasized the regional differences between proximal and distal CRCs with respect to clinicopathological and molecular pathogenesis [29]. In addition, we saw a bimodal distribution pattern in both male and female patients, which was different from Rosty et al. who showed that the frequencies of KRAS mutated carcinoma were diverse in different colorectal segments between male and female subjects [27]. Like CRCs with BRAF mutations, KRAS-mutated carcinomas had an increased frequency of the mucinous feature. Several others have also reported this finding [27, 30].

In the current study, we revealed that the G > A transition, followed by G > T transversion were the predominant types of KRAS mutations, and the substitution of aspartate for glycine at codon 12 was the most frequent change. Others have also identified the G > A transition and the glycine to aspartate transition on codon 12 as the most frequent type of KRAS activating mutation [3133]. For codon 13, the 38G > A transition was the most frequent type, which was similar to the findings of other studies [23, 34].

KRAS mutations were associated with a higher tumor stage (pT) in this study. However, there were no differences in risk of recurrence, DFS or OS in patients according to their KRAS mutation status. These findings are in agreement with those by Rosty et al.; however, the prognostic roles of KRAS mutations are still being debated [27, 34, 35].

The reported frequency of BRAF mutations in different populations varies widely. In this study, BRAF mutations were found in 4.0% of colorectal cancers, which is slightly lower than previous reports worldwide (Table 6) [3650]. In general, a lower incidence has been noted in Asian populations such as China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia [3739]. Interestingly, two studies from Korea showed higher BRAF mutation rates of 15.9% and 9.6% [40, 41]. The study cohort by Kim et al. consisted of advanced CRC patients, which might have influenced the higher mutation rate in their study [41]. Ahn et al. used the PNA-clamp real-time PCR method for the detection of BRAF mutations, which is known to be superior to direct sequencing in sensitivity and might have caused differences in the mutation rate among study groups [40, 51]. In addition, the enrolled patients of the study by Tsai et al. were under 30 years of age and distinct from other studies [47].
Table 6

Studies on BRAF mutation status in colorectal cancer patients

Reference (year)

Country

BRAF mutation % (n)

BRAF mutation type (%)

Methods

Prognostic value

Comments

Pai et al. (2012) [36]

USA

11.0 (20)

V600E (100)

real-time PCR

Significant

Stage I-IV proficient DNA mismatch repair

Kadowaki et al. (2015) [37]

Japan

4.9 (40)

V600E (80)

PCR combined with restriction enzyme digestion

Significant

Stage I-III independent of MSI status

Chen et al. (2014) [38]

China

4.2 (9)

V600E (88.9)

direct sequencing

Significant

Stage I-IV

Siraj et al. (2014) [39]

Saudi Arabia

2.5 (19)

V600E (89.5)

direct sequencing

No prognostic significance

Stage I-IV

Ahn et al. (2014) [40]

Korea

15.9 (26)

V600E (100)

PNA clamp real-time PCR

Significant

Stage I-IV

Kim et al. (2014) [41]

Korea

9.6 (13)

N/A

direct sequencing

Significant

Stage III-IV

Yaeger et al. (2014) [42]

USA

5 (92)

V600E (96.7)

mass spectrometry-based assay

Significant

Metastatic colorectal cancers

Eklof et al. (2013) [43]

Sweden

17.9 (35)

13.2 (54)

V600E (100)

allelic discrimination assay

Significant No prognostic significance

Stage I-IV two different cohorts

Renaud et al. (2015) [44]

France

10.6 (19)

V600E (100)

direct sequencing

Significant

Metachronous lung metastasis

de Cuba et al. (2015) [45]

Netherlands

51.0 (73)

V600E (100)

high resolution melting and sequencing

Significant

Stage II and III microsatellite instable colon cancers

Foltran et al. (2015) [46]

Italy

5.2 (10)

V600E (100)

pyrosequencing

Significant

Metastatic colorectal cancers

Tsai et al. (2015) [47]

Taiwan

18.6 (11)

V600E (100)

direct sequencing

Significant

Stage I-IV early-onset colorectal cancers

Saridaki et al. (2013) [48]

Greece

8.2 (41)

V600E (100)

real-time PCR

Significant

Metastatic colorectal cancers

Kalady et al. (2012) [49]

USA

11.7 (56)

V600E (98.2)

direct sequencing

Significant

Stage I-IV

Farina-Sarasqueta et al. (2010) [50]

Netherlands

19.9 (59)

V600E (100)

real-time PCR

Significant

Stage II and III independently of disease stage and therapy.

Present case

Korea

4.0 (44)

V600E (97.7)

direct sequencing

Significant

Stage I-IV Significant prognostic implications through all stages

In this study cohort, we revealed that BRAF mutation was significantly associated with poorer DFS and OS in colorectal cancers. In addition, BRAF mutational status was an independent prognostic factor for DFS and OS in multivariate analysis, which is consistent with previous studies (Table 5). Moreover, we compared different tumor stages and found that BRAF mutations were also associated with poorer DFS and OS in both stage I and stage II/III subgroups. However, there was no significant association between BRAF mutation and survival in the stage IV subgroup. Yaeger et al. recently showed that BRAF mutation confers a poor prognosis in metastatic CRC patients [42]. This discrepancy may come from the relatively small study population in this metastatic setting, ethnic distinctions and subsequent differences in BRAF mutation rates. Further studies in a larger population data are needed to confirm this result. Nevertheless, our findings highlight that the clinical meaning of BRAF mutation is similar to Korean CRC patients, even if the mutation frequency is lower than in western patients. Importantly, we revealed that BRAF mutation status is important in predicting the prognosis of early CRCs, which is one of the novel findings of our study. Our findings support a role for BRAF mutation in the natural history of CRC because only rare cases in our study cohort received targeted therapy other than the standard chemotherapy regimen after resection.

We found that only 0.3% (n = 3) of KRAS mutated CRC cases harbored BRAF mutations. Of these, two cases showed KRAS mutations at codon 13 (38G > A) with the remaining mutation at codon 12 (35G > A), and all three cases had the BRAF V600E mutation. The concomitant occurrence of KRAS and BRAF mutations is very rare in CRCs (< 1%), which imply tha they may play a role in different tumor subtypes [11, 52].

We analyzed the MSI status in 83 CRC patients and revealed a frequency of 7.2% for MSI-H, which appears somewhat lower than reports from western countries [53]. In line with our findings, a recent multicenter study by Oh et al. showed low frequencies of MSI-H in Korean CRC patients [53]. This result suggested ethnic differences in the molecular characteristics of colorectal tumorigenesis including MSI status. MSI is known to be associated with better clinical outcome in early stage CRCs than MSS cancers [54, 55]. In the present study, MSI status did not have significant prognostic value on DFS and OS; however, a tendency toward worse survival was observed in MSS and MSI-L cases.

BRAF activating mutations correlated with poor survival in MSS CRC. BRAF mutations occur in about 40% of MSI CRCs; however, it was unclear if it had a prognostic impact in this setting [45]. A recent study revealed that both BRAF and KRAS mutations are associated with poorer survival in MSI CRC patients compared to those with wild-type BRAF and KRAS genes [45]. However, we could not draw any meaningful conclusion about the BRAF and/or KRAS status in MSI CRC cohorts because the mutated cases in this study were rare.

A limitation of this study is the insufficiency of data on the efficacy of an EGFR-blocking antibody according to KRAS and BRAF mutation status due to only rare cases being treated by EGFR targeted therapy at our institution during the study period. In addition, the sample size was too small to evaluate the significance of the MSI status with infrequent KRAS and BRAF mutation subtypes. Subsequent translational studies from different cohorts are needed to confirm our data. Nevertheless, a strong point of this study is the relative large study cohort which reduce selection bias. We revealed BRAF mutation as an independent prognostic marker for CRCs throughout all stages.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our study demonstrated that BRAF mutation, occurring at a low frequency, was a significant prognostic factor in Korean CRC patients. Our data suggests that molecular features that include KRAS and BRAF mutations as well as MSI status in CRC patients are important in future clinical trials. Further large translational studies are required to validate the significance of both BRAF and/or KRAS mutation status in MSI CRCs.

Abbreviations

BRAF: 

v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1

CI: 

Confidence interval

CRC: 

Colorectal cancer

DFS: 

Disease free survival

EGFR: 

Epidermal growth factor receptor

FFPE: 

Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded

KRAS: 

v-Ki-ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog

MAPK: 

Mitogen-activated protein kinase

MSI: 

Microsatellite instability

OS: 

Overall survival

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all patients who agreed to participate in this study.

Funding

No specific funding was received for this study.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset presented in this investigation is available by request from the corresponding author.

Authors’ contributions

SHL conceptualized and designed this study. DDW collected the clinicopathologic data and performed the data analysis. SHL and DDW interpreted the analysis results and drafted the manuscript. DDW, JIL, IKL, STO, ESJ, SHL were involved in revising the manuscript and providing critical reviews. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Catholic University of Korea, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine (KC16RISI0011) and written informed consent was obtained by all patients.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Surgery, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea
(2)
Department of Surgery, Uijeongbu St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea
(3)
Department of Hospital Pathology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea

References

  1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:69–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Shin A, Kim KZ, Jung KW, Park S, Won YJ, Kim J, et al. Increasing trend of colorectal cancer incidence in Korea, 1999-2009. Cancer res Treat. 2012;44:219–26.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Jung KW, Won YJ, Oh CM, Kong HJ, Cho H, Lee DH, et al. Prediction of cancer incidence and mortality in Korea, 2015. Cancer res Treat. 2015;47:142–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Cancer Genome Atlas N. Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer. Nature. 2012;487:330–7.Google Scholar
  5. Arrington AK, Heinrich EL, Lee W, Duldulao M, Patel S, Sanchez J, et al. Prognostic and predictive roles of KRAS mutation in colorectal cancer. Int J Mol Sci. 2012;13:12153–68.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Poulogiannis G, Luo F, Arends MJ. RAS signalling in the colorectum in health and disease. Cell Commun Adhes. 2012;19:1–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Naguib A, Wilson CH, Adams DJ, Arends MJ. Activation of K-RAS by co-mutation of codons 19 and 20 is transforming. J Mol Signal. 2011;6:2.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Tran NH, Cavalcante LL, Lubner SJ, Mulkerin DL, LoConte NK, Clipson L, et al. Precision medicine in colorectal cancer: the molecular profile alters treatment strategies. Ther Adv med Oncol. 2015;7:252–62.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Tanaka M, Omura K, Watanabe Y, Oda Y, Nakanishi I. Prognostic factors of colorectal cancer: K-ras mutation, overexpression of the p53 protein, and cell proliferative activity. J Surg Oncol. 1994;57:57–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dix BR, Robbins P, Soong R, Jenner D, House AK, Iacopetta BJ. The common molecular genetic alterations in Dukes' B and C colorectal carcinomas are not short-term prognostic indicators of survival. Int J Cancer. 1994;59:747–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Roth AD, Tejpar S, Delorenzi M, Yan P, Fiocca R, Klingbiel D, et al. Prognostic role of KRAS and BRAF in stage II and III resected colon cancer: results of the translational study on the PETACC-3, EORTC 40993, SAKK 60-00 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:466–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hutchins G, Southward K, Handley K, Magill L, Beaumont C, Stahlschmidt J, et al. Value of mismatch repair, KRAS, and BRAF mutations in predicting recurrence and benefits from chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1261–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hertzman Johansson C, Egyhazi BS. BRAF inhibitors in cancer therapy. Pharmacol Ther. 2014;142:176–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Montagut C, Settleman J. Targeting the RAF-MEK-ERK pathway in cancer therapy. Cancer Lett. 2009;283:125–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Wan PT, Garnett MJ, Roe SM, Lee S, Niculescu-Duvaz D, Good VM, et al. Mechanism of activation of the RAF-ERK signaling pathway by oncogenic mutations of B-RAF. Cell. 2004;116:855–67.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Pietrantonio F, Petrelli F, Coinu A, Di Bartolomeo M, Borgonovo K, Maggi C, et al. Predictive role of BRAF mutations in patients with advanced colorectal cancer receiving cetuximab and panitumumab: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2015;51:587–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Vaughn CP, Zobell SD, Furtado LV, Baker CL, Samowitz WS. Frequency of KRAS, BRAF, and NRAS mutations in colorectal cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2011;50:307–12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Davies H, Bignell GR, Cox C, Stephens P, Edkins S, Clegg S, et al. Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature. 2002;417:949–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Rowland A, Dias MM, Wiese MD, Kichenadasse G, McKinnon RA, Karapetis CS, et al. Meta-analysis of BRAF mutation as a predictive biomarker of benefit from anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody therapy for RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2015;112:1888–94.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Chen D, Huang JF, Liu K, Zhang LQ, Yang Z, Chuai ZR, et al. BRAFV600E mutation and its association with clinicopathological features of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9:e90607.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim SY, Choi EJ, Yun JA, Jung ES, Oh ST, Kim JG, et al. Syndecan-1 expression is associated with tumor size and EGFR expression in colorectal carcinoma: a clinicopathological study of 230 cases. Int J med Sci. 2015;12:92–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Boland CR, Thibodeau SN, Hamilton SR, Sidransky D, Eshleman JR, Burt RW, et al. A National Cancer Institute workshop on microsatellite instability for cancer detection and familial predisposition: development of international criteria for the determination of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer. Cancer res. 1998;58:5248–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Yoon HH, Tougeron D, Shi Q, Alberts SR, Mahoney MR, Nelson GD, et al. KRAS codon 12 and 13 mutations in relation to disease-free survival in BRAF-wild-type stage III colon cancers from an adjuvant chemotherapy trial (N0147 alliance). Clin Cancer res. 2014;20:3033–43.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Ye JX, Liu Y, Qin Y, Zhong HH, Yi WN, Shi XY. KRAS and BRAF gene mutations and DNA mismatch repair status in Chinese colorectal carcinoma patients. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:1595–605.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Herzig DO, Tsikitis VL. Molecular markers for colon diagnosis, prognosis and targeted therapy. J Surg Oncol. 2015;111:96–102.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. De Roock W, Claes B, Bernasconi D, De Schutter J, Biesmans B, Fountzilas G, et al. Effects of KRAS, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations on the efficacy of cetuximab plus chemotherapy in chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective consortium analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:753–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosty C, Young JP, Walsh MD, Clendenning M, Walters RJ, Pearson S, et al. Colorectal carcinomas with KRAS mutation are associated with distinctive morphological and molecular features. Mod Pathol. 2013;26:825–34.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Yamauchi M, Morikawa T, Kuchiba A, Imamura Y, Qian ZR, Nishihara R, et al. Assessment of colorectal cancer molecular features along bowel subsites challenges the conception of distinct dichotomy of proximal versus distal colorectum. Gut. 2012;61:847–54.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Minoo P, Zlobec I, Peterson M, Terracciano L, Lugli A. Characterization of rectal, proximal and distal colon cancers based on clinicopathological, molecular and protein profiles. Int J Oncol. 2010;37:707–18.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lin JK, Chang SC, Wang HS, Yang SH, Jiang JK, Chen WC, et al. Distinctive clinicopathological features of Ki-ras mutated colorectal cancers. J Surg Oncol. 2006;94:234–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Andreyev HJ, Norman AR, Cunningham D, Oates JR, Clarke PA. Kirsten ras mutations in patients with colorectal cancer: the multicenter "RASCAL" study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:675–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Adams R, Meade A, Wasan H, Griffiths G, Maughan T. Cetuximab therapy in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer and intermittent palliative chemotherapy: review of the COIN trial. Expert rev Anticancer Ther. 2008;8:1237–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Martinetti D, Costanzo R, Kadare S, Alimehmeti M, Colarossi C, Canzonieri V, et al. KRAS and BRAF mutational status in colon cancer from Albanian patients. Diagn Pathol. 2014;9:187.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Lee DW, Kim KJ, Han SW, Lee HJ, Rhee YY, Bae JM, et al. KRAS mutation is associated with worse prognosis in stage III or high-risk stage II colon cancer patients treated with adjuvant FOLFOX. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:187–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Imamura Y, Morikawa T, Liao X, Lochhead P, Kuchiba A, Yamauchi M, et al. Specific mutations in KRAS codons 12 and 13, and patient prognosis in 1075 BRAF wild-type colorectal cancers. Clin Cancer res. 2012;18:4753–63.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Pai RK, Jayachandran P, Koong AC, Chang DT, Kwok S, Ma L, et al. BRAF-mutated, microsatellite-stable adenocarcinoma of the proximal colon: an aggressive adenocarcinoma with poor survival, mucinous differentiation, and adverse morphologic features. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36:744–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Kadowaki S, Kakuta M, Takahashi S, Takahashi A, Arai Y, Nishimura Y, et al. Prognostic value of KRAS and BRAF mutations in curatively resected colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21:1275–83.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Chen J, Guo F, Shi X, Zhang L, Zhang A, Jin H, et al. BRAF V600E mutation and KRAS codon 13 mutations predict poor survival in Chinese colorectal cancer patients. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:802.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Siraj AK, Bu R, Prabhakaran S, Bavi P, Beg S, Al Hazmi M, et al. A very low incidence of BRAF mutations in middle eastern colorectal carcinoma. Mol Cancer. 2014;13:168.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Ahn TS, Jeong D, Son MW, Jung H, Park S, Kim H, et al. The BRAF mutation is associated with the prognosis in colorectal cancer. J Cancer res Clin Oncol. 2014;140:1863–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Kim B, Park SJ, Cheon JH, Kim TI, Kim WH, Hong SP. Clinical meaning of BRAF mutation in Korean patients with advanced colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:4370–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Yaeger R, Cercek A, Chou JF, Sylvester BE, Kemeny NE, Hechtman JF, et al. BRAF mutation predicts for poor outcomes after metastasectomy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Cancer. 2014;120:2316–24.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Eklof V, Wikberg ML, Edin S, Dahlin AM, Jonsson BA, Oberg A, et al. The prognostic role of KRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA and PTEN in colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2013;108:2153–63.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Renaud S, Romain B, Falcoz PE, Olland A, Santelmo N, Brigand C, et al. KRAS and BRAF mutations are prognostic biomarkers in patients undergoing lung metastasectomy of colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer. 2015;112:720–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  45. de Cuba EM, Snaebjornsson P. Heideman DA, van Grieken NC. Fijneman RJ, et al. Prognostic value of BRAF and KRAS mutation status in stage II and III microsatellite instable colon cancers. Int J Cancer: Bosch LJ; 2015.Google Scholar
  46. Foltran L, De Maglio G, Pella N, Ermacora P, Aprile G, Masiero E, et al. Prognostic role of KRAS, NRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA mutations in advanced colorectal cancer. Future Oncol. 2015;11:629–40.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Tsai JH, Liau JY, Lin YL, Tseng LH, Lin LI, Yeh KH, et al. Frequent BRAF mutation in early-onset colorectal cancer in Taiwan: association with distinct clinicopathological and molecular features and poor clinical outcome. J Clin Pathol. 2015;Google Scholar
  48. Saridaki Z, Tzardi M, Sfakianaki M, Papadaki C, Voutsina A, Kalykaki A, et al. BRAFV600E mutation analysis in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in daily clinical practice: correlations with clinical characteristics, and its impact on patients' outcome. PLoS One. 2013;8:e84604.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Kalady MF, Dejulius KL, Sanchez JA, Jarrar A, Liu X, Manilich E, et al. BRAF mutations in colorectal cancer are associated with distinct clinical characteristics and worse prognosis. Dis Colon rectum. 2012;55:128–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Farina-Sarasqueta A, van Lijnschoten G, Moerland E, Creemers GJ, Lemmens VE, Rutten HJ, et al. The BRAF V600E mutation is an independent prognostic factor for survival in stage II and stage III colon cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:2396–402.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Kobunai T, Watanabe T, Yamamoto Y, Eshima K. The frequency of KRAS mutation detection in human colon carcinoma is influenced by the sensitivity of assay methodology: a comparison between direct sequencing and real-time PCR. Biochem Biophys res Commun. 2010;395:158–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Phipps AI, Buchanan DD, Makar KW, Win AK, Baron JA, Lindor NM, et al. KRAS-mutation status in relation to colorectal cancer survival: the joint impact of correlated tumour markers. Br J Cancer. 2013;108:1757–64.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Oh JR, Kim DW, Lee HS, Lee HE, Lee SM, Jang JH, et al. Microsatellite instability testing in Korean patients with colorectal cancer. Familial Cancer. 2012;11:459–66.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Merok MA, Ahlquist T, Royrvik EC, Tufteland KF, Hektoen M, Sjo OH, et al. Microsatellite instability has a positive prognostic impact on stage II colorectal cancer after complete resection: results from a large, consecutive Norwegian series. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:1274–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Sinicrope FA, Mahoney MR, Smyrk TC, Thibodeau SN, Warren RS, Bertagnolli MM, et al. Prognostic impact of deficient DNA mismatch repair in patients with stage III colon cancer from a randomized trial of FOLFOX-based adjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3664–72.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017