Evaluation of Overall Survival Rate of Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Depending on Choice of Treatment, Location of Primary Focus and RAS Genes Mutation Status

Cover Page


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Morbidity with colorectal cancer (CRC) in the Yaroslavl region (YR) accounts for 13.4% of all cases identified in 2021, and ranks third after skin cancer and lung cancer. In the mortality structure, CRC makes 14.2% and is the second leading cause of death. Locally advanced and metastatic forms of the tumor process are identified in more than half the patients.

AIM: To evaluate the overall survival rate of patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) in the territory of the YR depending on the volume of surgical treatment, chemo- and targeted treatment regimens and the presence of RAS genes mutations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: On the base of the Yaroslavl Regional Clinical Oncology Hospital, the data of 291 patients with mCRC who underwent treatment in the period from 2015 to 2022, were analyzed. The mean age of patients was 63.0 ± 8.6 years. There were 52% of men (n = 151), and 48% of women (n = 140). The patients were divided to two groups depending on the status of RAS genes mutations: group I (n = 145) — patients with the identified mutation; group II (n = 146) — patients with ‘wild-type’ mutation. The patients were additionally divided to three subgroups depending on the type of treatment: subgroup A (58.1%; n = 169) — removal of the primary focus (PF) in combination with antitumor chemotherapy (CT); subgroup B (31.6%; n = 92) — CT without surgical treatment; subgroup C (10.3%; n = 30) — removal of the PF and resection of liver metastases in combination with CT.

RESULTS: The overall survival rate (OSR) depending on the type of treatment was in subgroup A — 21.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) 18.6-23.3) months; in subgroup B — 11.2 (95% CI 9.9–12.5) months; in subgroup C — 21.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) 18.6–23.3) months. OSR with RAS mutation: in subgroup 1A — 17.7 (95% CI 13.8–21.7) months; in subgroup IB — 11.1 (95% CI 8.3–13.2) months; in subgroup IC — 13.2 (95% CI 4.07–22.7) months. OSR with ‘wild-type’ mutation: subgroup IIA: Cetuximab — 33.6 (95% CI 26.7–40.4) months, Panitumumab — 23.8 (95% CI 19.7–27.9) months (p = 0.01); subgroup IIB: Cetuximab — 22.3 (95% CI 17.0–27.5) months, Panitumumab — 15.2 (95% CI 10.7–19.6) months (p = 0.012); subgroup IIC: Cetuximab — 27.5 (95% CI 17.8–37.1) months, Panitumumab — 38.8 (95% CI 13.9–63.6) months (p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mutation in RAS genes, the best OSR values were noted in case of surgical removal of the PF in combination with palliative drug therapy. In patients with ‘wild-type’ mutation of RAS genes the best OSR parameters were recorded in surgical removal of the PF and of metastases in the liver in combination with palliative polyCT and Panitumumab. The lowest OSR was found in the subgroup of patients with use of CT without surgical treatment in the presence of RAS mutation. High OSR parameters were found with mutation in G13codon, and with use of surgical treatment with mutation in A146 codon.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Nikolay P. Shiryayev

Regional Clinical Oncology Hospital; Yaroslavl State Medical University

Author for correspondence.
Email: shiryaev.nikolay89@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9267-2730
SPIN-code: 5935-2465
ResearcherId: GLT-0605-2022
Russian Federation, Yaroslavl; Yaroslavl

Sergey V. Cheporov

Regional Clinical Oncology Hospital; Yaroslavl State Medical University

Email: sergey.cheporov@rambler.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2776-4994
SPIN-code: 6843-1441
Scopus Author ID: 25951379200
ResearcherId: GLT-0576-2022

MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.), Associate Professor

Russian Federation, Yaroslavl; Yaroslavl

Viktor N. Malashenkо

Regional Clinical Oncology Hospital; Yaroslavl State Medical University

Email: malashenko_1957@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2440-3395
SPIN-code: 4229-9481

MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor

Russian Federation, Yaroslavl; Yaroslavl

Yuliya A. Kesel'man

Yaroslavl State Medical University

Email: yulk.smirnowa@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1747-9391
SPIN-code: 5925-3667
Russian Federation, Yaroslavl

Anastasiya E. Akimova

Yaroslavl State Medical University

Email: 79807738528@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3861-0819
SPIN-code: 2206-9183
Russian Federation, Yaroslavl

Valeriya V. Milafetnova

Yaroslavl State Medical University

Email: valerry00@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6531-8410
SPIN-code: 9181-6890
Russian Federation, Yaroslavl

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2021;71(3):209–49. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660
  2. Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM, et al. Colon Cancer, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2021;19(3):329–59. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2021.0012
  3. Kaprin AD, Starinskiy VV, Shakhzadova AO, editors. Zlokachestvennyye novoobrazovaniya v Rossii v 2020 godu (zabolevayemost’ i smertnost’). Moscow; 2021. (In Russ).
  4. Muñoz–Maldonado C, Zimmer Y, Medová M. A Comparative Analysis of Individual RAS Mutations in Cancer Biology. Frontiers in Oncology. 2019;9:1088. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01088
  5. Engstrand J, Strömberg C, Nilsson H, et al. Synchronous and metachronous liver metastases in patients with colorectal cancer–towards a clinically relevant definition. World Journal of Surgical Oncology. 2019;17(1):228. doi: 10.1186/s12957-019-1771-9
  6. Yao Y–C, Chen J–Q, Yin L., et al. Primary tumor resection with or without metastasectomy for left- and right-sided stage IV colorectal cancer: an instrumental variable analysis. BMC. Gastroenterology. 2022;22(1):114. doi: 10.1186/s12876-022-02184-2
  7. Tejpar S, Stintzing S, Ciardiello F, et al. Prognostic and Predictive Relevance of Primary Tumor Location in Patients With RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Retrospective Analyses of the CRYSTAL and FIRE-3 Trials. JAMA. Oncology. 2017;3(2):194–201. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.3797
  8. Tryakin AA, Balunov PA. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of the use of targeted therapy and chemotherapy in the first- and second-line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer. Medical Council. 2018;(19):50–5. (In Russ). doi: 10.21518/2079-701X-2018-19-50-55
  9. Burtness B, Anadkat M, Basti S, et al. NCCN Task Force Report: Management of Dermatologic and Other Toxicities Associated With EGFR Inhibition in Patients With Cancer. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. 2009;7(S1):S5–21. doi: 10.6004/jnccn. 2009.0074

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
2. Fig. 1. Overall survival rate of group I patients (RAS-positive) depending on the conducted treatment (n = 145).

Download (27KB)
3. Fig. 2. Overall survival rate of patients of subgroup IIA (surgical removal of the primary focus and palliative polychemotherapy) depending on the conducted drug therapy (n = 80).

Download (28KB)
4. Fig. 3. Overall survival rate of patients of subgroup IIB (drug therapy without surgical treatment) depending on the conducted drug therapy (n = 41).

Download (26KB)
5. Fig. 4. Overall survival rate of patients of subgroup IIC (surgical removal of the primary focus with resection of liver metastases and palliative polychemotherapy) depending on the conducted drug therapy (n = 25).

Download (26KB)

Copyright (c) 2023 Eco-Vector


Media Registry Entry of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Communications (Roskomnadzor) PI No. FS77-76803 dated September 24, 2019.



This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies