Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

ADVERTISEMENT

News

Association of KRAS Variant Subtypes With Survival, Recurrence in Surgically Treated Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

Researchers sought to investigate the prognostic association of KRAS variant subtypes with survival and reoccurrence in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC).

Through a cohort study performed in China, 1024 patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) were evaluated. To note, 621 (60.6%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 59.2 (10.2) years. A total of 14 various subtypes of KRAS variants affecting 127 (12.4%) were identified. More specifically, G12D was the most frequent allele in this cohort, accounting for 55 of 127 identified KRAS variants (43.3%), followed by G12V (25 [19.7%]), G12C (9 [7.1%]), and G13D (8 [6.3%]).

Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to compare overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to January 2021.

“Multivariable analysis revealed that G12 KRAS variants but not non-G12 KRAS variants were independently associated with worse OS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.69; 95% CI, 1.31-2.18; P < .001) and DFS (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.16-1.88; P = .002). Among the patients with G12 KRAS variants, the G12V KRAS variant was the strongest prognostic determinant for the worst OS (HR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.94-4.79; P < .001) and DFS (HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.13-2.85; P = .01),” investigators stated.

To conclude, unlike non-G12 KRAS variants, the presence of G12 KRAS variants were discovered to be associated with inferior survival and increased risk of recurrence. G12V variants exhibited the most negative outcomes in the cohort’s entirety.


Source:
Zhou S, Xin H, Sun R, et al. Association of KRAS Variant Subtypes With Survival and Recurrence in Patients With Surgically Treated Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma. JAMA Surg. 2022;157(1):59–65. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2021.5679

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement