European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology · 2024
Effect of RAS and BRAF mutations on peritoneal metastasis risk and cytoreductive surgery/hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy efficacy in colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gao Ziming, Qi Xiang, Wang Ruiying, Wen Zhitong, Qi Hao, Ju Mingguang, Liu Xiaoxu, Wang Junye, Zhou Heng, Zhu Zhi, Liu Xiaofang, Li Kai
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with peritoneal metastasis (CRC-PM) have a worse prognosis than those with liver and lung metastases. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) followed by hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is an effective locoregional treatment for CRC-PM. To date, the prognostic analysis of CRS/HIPEC mostly focuses on clinical and pathological characteristics; however, genetic characteristics, such as RAS/BRAF mutation status, are not sufficient. This study aimed to systematically assess the correlation between RAS/BRAF status and PM risk, as well as the prognostic efficacy of CRS/HIPEC for CRC.
METHOD: This study was written in accordance with the 2020 guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library with the following keywords: "Peritoneal Neoplasms," "raf Kinases" and "ras Proteins". The fixed-effects model and inverse variance method were used for analysis. Odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were used to reflect the risk of PM associated with RAS/BRAF mutations. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % CI were used to evaluate the effects of RAS/BRAF mutations on the prognosis of CRS/HIPEC.
RESULT: Eighteen articles included 5567 patients. In the risk analysis of PM, patients with BRAF mutation were more likely to have PM than those with wild-type BRAF (OR = 2.28, 95 % CI = 1.73-3.01, P < 0.001, I2 = 0 %). In contrast, there was no significant difference in the effect of RAS mutation and wild-type on PM of CRC (OR = 1.28, 95 % CI = 0.99-1.66, P = .06, I2 = 0 %). In a prognostic analysis of CRS/HIPEC, RAS mutation predicted poor overall survival (HR = 1.68, 95 % CI = 1.39-2.02, P < 0.001, I2 = 1 %) and disease-free survival (HR = 1.61, 95 % CI = 1.34-1.94, P < 0.001, I2 = 42 %). The results for BRAF mutation was consistent with the prognostic impact of RAS mutation's overall survival (HR = 2.57, 95 % CI = 1.93-3.44, P < 0.001, I2 = 0 %) and disease-free survival (HR = 1.90, 95 % CI = 1.40-2.56, P < 0.001, I2 = 82 %).
CONCLUSION: BRAF mutation, rather than RAS mutation, was a high-risk factor for CRC-PM. And both BRAF and RAS mutations negatively affected the prognosis of CRS/HIPEC in CRC-PM patients. Our results could provide suggestions for the selection of comprehensive treatment for CRC-PM with RAS/BRAF mutations.
METHOD: This study was written in accordance with the 2020 guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane library with the following keywords: "Peritoneal Neoplasms," "raf Kinases" and "ras Proteins". The fixed-effects model and inverse variance method were used for analysis. Odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were used to reflect the risk of PM associated with RAS/BRAF mutations. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % CI were used to evaluate the effects of RAS/BRAF mutations on the prognosis of CRS/HIPEC.
RESULT: Eighteen articles included 5567 patients. In the risk analysis of PM, patients with BRAF mutation were more likely to have PM than those with wild-type BRAF (OR = 2.28, 95 % CI = 1.73-3.01, P < 0.001, I2 = 0 %). In contrast, there was no significant difference in the effect of RAS mutation and wild-type on PM of CRC (OR = 1.28, 95 % CI = 0.99-1.66, P = .06, I2 = 0 %). In a prognostic analysis of CRS/HIPEC, RAS mutation predicted poor overall survival (HR = 1.68, 95 % CI = 1.39-2.02, P < 0.001, I2 = 1 %) and disease-free survival (HR = 1.61, 95 % CI = 1.34-1.94, P < 0.001, I2 = 42 %). The results for BRAF mutation was consistent with the prognostic impact of RAS mutation's overall survival (HR = 2.57, 95 % CI = 1.93-3.44, P < 0.001, I2 = 0 %) and disease-free survival (HR = 1.90, 95 % CI = 1.40-2.56, P < 0.001, I2 = 82 %).
CONCLUSION: BRAF mutation, rather than RAS mutation, was a high-risk factor for CRC-PM. And both BRAF and RAS mutations negatively affected the prognosis of CRS/HIPEC in CRC-PM patients. Our results could provide suggestions for the selection of comprehensive treatment for CRC-PM with RAS/BRAF mutations.