MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414563978 · doi:10.3390/curroncol32090507

Clinical and Molecular Profiling of Colorectal Cancer: A Comprehensive Cohort Study of BRAF-Mutated Cases from a Tertiary Centre

2025· article· en· W4414563978 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Julia Freckelton, Justin Mencel, Iris J. M. Levink, Sheela Rao, Charlotte Fribbens, Paula Proszek, D. Brooks, Xin Liu, David Cunningham, Ian Chau, Naureen Starling

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchRoyal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
KeywordsNeuroblastoma RAS viral oncogene homologColorectal cancerKRASCohortConcomitantRetrospective cohort studyMutationDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Increasingly, identification of BRAF mutation in colorectal cancer is used to guide management and predict cancer behaviour. There is, however, still significant diversity within this cohort of patients, both in terms of clinical phenotype and treatment outcomes. This may be explained, at least in part, by differences between classes of BRAF mutations and the presence of concomitant mutations. Methods: We present a retrospective cohort study of sequential patients diagnosed with BRAF-mutated (V600 and non-V600) colorectal cancer between 2014 and 2022. Information regarding presentation, treatment outcomes and molecular subtype was identified using the electronic medical record. Results: This study included 406 patients with BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer, 253 (228 V600BRAF) of whom had localised disease and 153 (137 V600BRAF) with metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis. In patients with localised disease at diagnosis, the V600BRAF mutation was associated with older median age (73 vs. 63 years, p = 0.04) and a higher prevalence of right-sided primary (73% vs. 40%, p < 0.01), mismatch repair deficiency (56% vs. 8%, p < 0.01), and faster time to disease relapse (p = 0.006). In the metastatic setting, non-V600BRAF mutation was associated with a higher prevalence of KRAS mutation (27% vs. 1%, p < 0.01), NRAS mutation (14% vs. 3%, p = 0.04) and PIK3CA mutation (33% vs. 8%, p = 0.02). Mismatch repair deficiency was more common in patients with V600BRAF mutations than in those with non-V600BRAF mutations (20% vs. 0%, p = 0.01). The median survival of patients with the V600BRAF mutation was 14 months, and 34 months in those with non-V600BRAF mutations. Concomitant RNF43 mutation in metastatic disease, was associated with a significantly higher incidence of disease control from combined BRAF and EGFR inhibition, when compared to those without an RNF43 mutation (100% vs. 54%, p = 0.02). Conclusions: Presentation and outcomes of BRAF-mutated colorectal cancer are heterogenous. The type of BRAF mutation, and the presence of concomitant RNF43 mutation, may explain some of the differences in cancer behaviour. Routine reporting of RNF43 mutations would assist clinicians to give more personalised treatment recommendations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.376 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207