Targeted Therapy for Colorectal Cancers With Non-V600 BRAF Mutations: Perspectives for Precision Oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BRAF mutations are found in up to 10% of colorectal cancers (CRC). Whereas the majority of BRAF mutant CRCs harbor V600 mutations, up to 25% express non-V600 BRAF mutations. It has been established that BRAF V600E mutations in CRC predict unresponsiveness to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibition-cetuximab and/or panitumumab-as a result of the constitutive activation of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway downstream of EGFR signaling. As more centers begin using next-generation sequencing assays to detect BRAF mutations, oncologists are more frequently confronted with treating patients with non-V600 BRAF mutations. In many instances, clinicians may be hesitant to use EGFR inhibitors for these patients, as it is largely assumed that tumors with non-V600 BRAF mutations activate the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway in a similar manner to RAS or BRAF V600E mutations and would therefore be equally refractory to EGFR inhibition; however, the evidence that currently exists to substantiate this claim is mixed and incomplete. Recent data demonstrate that non-V600 BRAF mutant CRC is a distinct clinical entity with a favorable prognosis compared with CRC with V600E mutations. Preclinical data and several case reports suggest that a subset of BRAF non-V600 mutations that impair the protein's kinase activity may in fact confer heightened sensitivity to EGFR inhibition because of dependency on upstream receptor tyrosine kinase signaling. This review summarizes the clinical characteristics and targeted therapy approaches for non-V600 BRAF mutant CRCs, speculates on the value of non-V600 BRAF mutations as predictive biomarkers of responsiveness to EGFR inhibitors, and highlights outstanding questions in this emerging area of precision oncology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".