Відмінності між версіями «Of Cancer published by John Wiley Sons Ltd on behalf of»
(Створена сторінка: Kaplan eier survival curves illustrating differences in time to relapse (left [https://www.medchemexpress.com/fosamprenavir-calcium-salt.html GW433908G web] pan...) |
м |
||
| Рядок 1: | Рядок 1: | ||
| − | Kaplan eier survival curves illustrating differences in time to relapse (left | + | 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 |
Версія за 09:03, 6 грудня 2017
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 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) 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 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
