Polymorphisms in<i>Cyclooxygenase-2</i>and<i>Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor</i>Are Associated with Progression-Free Survival Independent of K-ras in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated with Single-Agent Cetuximab
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recently, an objective response rate of 12% was reported in a phase II study of cetuximab in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) refractory to fluoropyrimidine-, oxaliplatin-, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy (IMC-0144). In this large molecular correlates study, we tested whether K-ras mutation status and polymorphisms in genes involved in the EGFR-signaling pathway were associated with clinical outcome in IMC-0144. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We analyzed all available tissue samples from 130 of 346 mCRC patients enrolled in the IMC-0144 phase II clinical trial of cetuximab. Genomic DNA was extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissues, and K-ras mutation status and the genotypes were analyzed using PCR-RFLP, direct DNA-sequencing, and 5'-end [gamma-33P] ATP-labeled PCR-protocols. RESULTS: The PFS of patients with cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) -765 G>C [C/C; risk ratio (RR), 0.31; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.12-0.84; P = 0.032], COX-2 +8473 T>C (C/C; RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.40-1.13; P = 0.003), EGF +61 A>G (G/G; RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.34-0.95; P = 0.042), and EGFR +497 G>A (A/G; RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.56-1.20; P = 0.017) genotypes was significantly longer compared with those with other genotypes. In addition, patients whose tumors did not have K-ras mutations showed better RR, PFS, and overall survival than patients with K-ras mutations. In multivariable analysis, COX-2 +8473 T>C (adjusted P = 0.013) and EGFR +497 G>A (adjusted P = 0.010) remained significantly associated with progression-free survival, independent of skin rash toxicity, K-ras mutation status, and Eastern Cooperative Group performance status. CONCLUSIONS: Polymorphisms in COX-2 and EGFR may be useful independent molecular markers to predict clinical outcome in patients with mCRC treated with single-agent cetuximab, independent of skin rash toxicity, K-ras mutation, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".