IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0065995.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Prognostic Role of BRAF Mutation in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Receiving Anti-EGFR Monoclonal Antibodies: A Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Zi-Xu Yuan
  • Xiao-Yan Wang
  • Qi-Yuan Qin
  • De-Feng Chen
  • Qing-Hua Zhong
  • Lei Wang
  • Jian-Ping Wang

Abstract

Background: BRAF mutation has been investigated as a prognostic factor in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) undergoing anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (moAbs), but current results are still inconclusive. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the relationship between BRAF mutation status and the prognosis of mCRC patients treated with moAbs. Methods: Eligible studies were identified by systematically searching Pubmed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Knowledge, and OVID. Risk ratio (RR) for overall response rate (ORR), Hazard ratios (HRs) for Progression free survival (PFS) and Overall survival (OS) were extracted or calculated. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted in KRAS wild-type and in different study types. The source of between-trial variation was explored by sensitivity analyses. Quality assessment was conducted by the Hayden’s criteria. Results: A total of twenty one trials including 5229 patients were identified for the meta-analysis. 343 patients displayed BRAF mutations of 4616 (7.4%) patients with known BRAF status. Patients with BRAF wild-type (WT) showed decreased risks of progression and death with an improved PFS(HR 0.38, 95% confidence intervals 0.29–0.51) and an improved OS (HR 0.35 [0.29–0.42]), compared to BRAF mutant. In KRAS WT population, there were even larger PFS benefit (HR 0.29[0.19,0.43]) and larger OS benefit (HR 0.26 [0.20,0.35]) in BRAF WT. A response benefit for BRAF WT was observed (RR 0.31[0.18,0.53]) in KRAS WT patients, but not observed in unselected patients (RR 0.76 [0.43–1.33]). The results were consistent in the subgroup analysis of different study types. Heterogeneity between trials decreased in the subgroup and explained by sensitivity analysis. No publication bias of ORR, PFS and OS were detected. Conclusions: The results indicate that BRAF mutant is a predictive biomarker for poor prognosis in mCRC patients undergoing anti-EGFR MoAbs therapy, especially in KRAS WT patients. Additional large prospective trials are required to confirm the predictive role of BRAF status.

Suggested Citation

  • Zi-Xu Yuan & Xiao-Yan Wang & Qi-Yuan Qin & De-Feng Chen & Qing-Hua Zhong & Lei Wang & Jian-Ping Wang, 2013. "The Prognostic Role of BRAF Mutation in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Receiving Anti-EGFR Monoclonal Antibodies: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-10, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0065995
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065995
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065995
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065995&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0065995?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrea Sartore-Bianchi & Federica Di Nicolantonio & Michele Nichelatti & Francesca Molinari & Sara De Dosso & Piercarlo Saletti & Miriam Martini & Tiziana Cipani & Giovanna Marrapese & Luca Mazzucchel, 2009. "Multi-Determinants Analysis of Molecular Alterations for Predicting Clinical Benefit to EGFR-Targeted Monoclonal Antibodies in Colorectal Cancer," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(10), pages 1-9, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0065995. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.