Skip to main content
main-content

01.12.2017 | Research article | Ausgabe 1/2017 Open Access

BMC Cancer 1/2017

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

Zeitschrift:
BMC Cancer > Ausgabe 1/2017
Autoren:
Daeyoun David Won, Jae Im Lee, In Kyu Lee, Seong-Taek Oh, Eun Sun Jung, Sung Hak Lee
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.​1186/​s12885-017-3381-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
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

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, χ 2-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%)
 

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).
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).

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).

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).

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.

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.
Zusatzmaterial
Literatur
Über diesen Artikel

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2017

BMC Cancer 1/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Onkologie und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Bildnachweise