Відмінності між версіями «Of Cancer published by John Wiley Sons Ltd on behalf of»

Матеріал з HistoryPedia
Перейти до: навігація, пошук
м
м
 
(не показано 3 проміжні версії 2 учасників)
Рядок 1: Рядок 1:
−
Kaplan eier survival curves illustrating differences in time to relapse (left panels) and disease-specific survival (right panels) after liver surgery for metastatic colorectal cancer comparing patients harboring no [https://www.medchemexpress.com/G007-LK.html G007-LK] mutations to patients harboring intraindividual mutation heterogeneity across either KRAS, BRAF, TP53 or PI3K and patients revealing at least one homogenous but no heterogeneous mutation in either gene (a). Similar analyses comparing patients harboring no mutations, heterogeneous or homogeneous mutations in either KRAS or BRAF without attention to TP53 or PI3K status (b). p-values are from log-rank tests. p-values relate to comparison between all three groups. p* values relate to the difference between patients harboring heterogeneous vs. homogenous mutations.Mutation heterogeneity and prognosis after liver resectionThe potential impact of mutation heterogeneity (defined as different mutation status between metastases harvested from the same patient at the same surgical procedure) on outcome was evaluated in the subgroup of patient harboring two or more liver deposits (n 5 94). First, we confirmed the prognostic impact of KRAS, BRAF and PI3K mutation status revealed in the total patient cohort in the subgroup of patients harboring multiple deposits (Supporting Information Table S5). Next, we compared outcome between (i) patients with mutation heterogeneity affecting either KRAS, BRAF, PI3K or TP53 across metastatic deposits (n 5 13), (ii) [https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-35 title= 1479-5868-9-35] patients harboring a homogeneous mutation in at least one gene across all metastatic deposits and with no heterogeneous mutation and (iii) patients with no mutations across either gene. Comparing all three groups, univariate analysis revealed asignificant different TTR (median of 4 vs. 5 vs. 15 months, p [https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2064 title= ejsp.2064] 58 months, p  65 years) Sex (male vs. female) Nodal status of primary (N1 vs. N0) Synchronous vs. metachronous mets. Multiple vs. single mets. TP53 mutations PIK3CA mutations KRAS or BRAF mutations (mut vs. double wt) Chemotherapy1 1.08 0.93 1.55 2.00 1.73 0.92 1.12 2.34 0.39 95  CI (0.71, 1.65) (0.62, 1.40) (0.97, 2.48) (1.21, 3.29) (1.11, 2.68) (0.61,1.42) (0.63, 1.97) (1.50, 3.66) (0.23, 0.64) p values 0.720 0.726 0.064 0.007 0.015 0.720 0.700
+
Similar analyses comparing patients harboring no mutations, heterogeneous or [http://hnbkgy.com/comment/html/?201520.html Patterns develop into conscious and can be worked on. Awareness of oneself] homogeneous mutations in either KRAS or BRAF without attention to TP53 or PI3K status (b). 4b).Multivariate analysesAs KRAS and BRAF mutations were mutually exclusive, these parameters (BRAF or KRAS mutation vs. wild-type status forC Int. J. Cancer: 139, 647?56 (2016) V 2016 The Authors International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley  Sons Ltd on behalf of Union for International Cancer ControlMolecular Cancer BiologyMutations and heterogeneity in colorectal liver metastasesTable 2. Results from Cox regression for all patients (n 5 151) Time to relapse (TTR) HR Age ( 65 years) Sex (male vs. female) Nodal status of primary (N1 vs. N0) Synchronous vs. metachronous mets. Multiple vs. single mets. TP53 mutations PIK3CA mutations KRAS or BRAF mutations (mut vs. double wt) Chemotherapy1 1.08 0.93 1.55 2.00 1.73 0.92 1.12 2.34 0.39 95  CI (0.71, 1.65) (0.62, 1.40) (0.97, 2.48) (1.21, 3.29) (1.11, 2.68) (0.61,1.42) (0.63, 1.97) (1.50, 3.66) (0.23, 0.64) p values 0.720 0.726 0.064 0.007 0.015 0.720 0.700 [https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-35 title= 1479-5868-9-35] patients harboring a homogeneous mutation in at least one gene across all metastatic deposits and with no heterogeneous mutation and (iii) patients with no mutations across either gene. Comparing all three groups, univariate analysis revealed asignificant different TTR (median of 4 vs. 5 vs. 15 months, p [https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2064 title= ejsp.2064] 58 months, p

Поточна версія на 18:51, 8 грудня 2017

Similar analyses comparing patients harboring no mutations, heterogeneous or Patterns develop into conscious and can be worked on. Awareness of oneself homogeneous mutations in either KRAS or BRAF without attention to TP53 or PI3K status (b). 4b).Multivariate analysesAs KRAS and BRAF mutations were mutually exclusive, these parameters (BRAF or KRAS mutation vs. wild-type status forC Int. J. Cancer: 139, 647?56 (2016) V 2016 The Authors International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley Sons Ltd on behalf of Union for International Cancer ControlMolecular Cancer BiologyMutations and heterogeneity in colorectal liver metastasesTable 2. Results from Cox regression for all patients (n 5 151) Time to relapse (TTR) HR Age ( 65 years) Sex (male vs. female) Nodal status of primary (N1 vs. N0) Synchronous vs. metachronous mets. Multiple vs. single mets. TP53 mutations PIK3CA mutations KRAS or BRAF mutations (mut vs. double wt) Chemotherapy1 1.08 0.93 1.55 2.00 1.73 0.92 1.12 2.34 0.39 95 CI (0.71, 1.65) (0.62, 1.40) (0.97, 2.48) (1.21, 3.29) (1.11, 2.68) (0.61,1.42) (0.63, 1.97) (1.50, 3.66) (0.23, 0.64) p values 0.720 0.726 0.064 0.007 0.015 0.720 0.700 title= 1479-5868-9-35 patients harboring a homogeneous mutation in at least one gene across all metastatic deposits and with no heterogeneous mutation and (iii) patients with no mutations across either gene. Comparing all three groups, univariate analysis revealed asignificant different TTR (median of 4 vs. 5 vs. 15 months, p title= ejsp.2064 58 months, p

Отримано з http://istoriya.soippo.edu.ua/index.php?title=Of_Cancer_published_by_John_Wiley_Sons_Ltd_on_behalf_of&oldid=262581