Search

BACKGROUND The RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK and PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathways all belong to mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathways, Mutations in any one of the upstream genes (such as the RAS gene or the BRAF gene) may be transmitted to the protein through transcription or translation, resulting in abnormal activation of the signaling pathway. This study investigated the relationship between the KRAS gene mutation and the clinicopathological features and prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC), and the effect of KRAS mutations on its associated proteins in CRC, with an aim to clarify the cause of tumor progression and drug resistance caused by mutation of the KRAS gene. AIM To investigate the KRAS gene and RAS pathway signaling molecules in CRC and to analyze their relationship with clinicopathological features and prognosis METHODS Colorectal cancer tissue specimens from 196 patients were analyzed for KRAS mutations using quantitative polymerase chain reaction and for KRAS, BRAF, MEK, and ERK protein expression levels using immunohistochemistry of tumor microarrays. To analyze differences of RAS pathway signaling molecule expression levels in different KRAS gene status, the relationships between these parameters and clinicopathological features, 4-year progression-free survival, and overall survival were analyzed by independent sample t test, Kaplan-Meier plots, and the log-rank test. Predictors of overall and disease-free survival were assessed using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS Of the 196 patients, 62 (32%) carried mutations in codon 12 (53/62) or codon 13 (9/62) in exon 2 of the KRAS gene. KRAS, BRAF, ERK, and MEK protein expression was detected in 71.4%, 78.8%, 64.3%, and 50.8% of CRC tissues, respectively. There were no significant differences between KRAS mutation status and KRAS, BRAF, MEK, or ERK protein levels. Positive expression of KRAS and ERK was associated with poor tumor differentiation, and KRAS expression was also associated with age < 56 years. MEK expression was significantly associated with distant metastasis (P < 0.05). The 4-year progression-free survival rate, but not overall survival rate, was significantly higher in patients with KRAS-negative tumors than in those with KRAS-positive tumors (P < 0.05), whereas BRAF, MEK, and ERK expression was unrelated to survival. Multivariate analysis showed that only the expression of KRAS protein was a risk factor for tumor recurrence (P < 0.05). No other clinicopathological factors correlated with KRAS, BRAF, MEK, or ERK expression. CONCLUSION KRAS gene mutations do not affect downstream protein expression in CRC. KRAS protein is associated with poor tumor differentiation, older age, and a risk of tumor recurrence.

Mutations in the BRAF gene are well known for their oncogenic effects. Point mutations in V599 are particularly oncogenic and are considered important for therapeutic purposes. Along with wild type, other V599 mutated BRAF variants viz. V599E, V599D and V599R are reported and crystals of the former two with inhibitor (BAY43-9006) are further detailed. Both wild-type and mutated BRAF forms show similar interaction patterns with BAY43-9006, but the 599th residue did not show any involvement in the interactions. Upon BAY43-9006 binding, kinase domains of both forms were found adopting essentially identical conformations. However, BAY43-9006 shows a varied activity profile in the case of the wild and V599E variant of the BRAF protein. Furthermore, MMGBSA binding energy results for all four BRAF variants, further revealed the importance of the 599th residue. In-depth analysis viz. molecular dynamics, residue correlation studies and residue interaction network (RIN) analyses were conducted, providing a deep insight into the 599th residue and its impact on the overall dynamics of BRAF protein. Our findings reveal that the mutated residue at the 599th position not only changed the BAY43-9006–BRAF binding behaviour but also produced a massive impact on the overall dynamic behaviour of the protein. The insights obtained herein could be of great relevance for designing new BRAF inhibitors aimed at getting ideal activity against all BRAF forms.

Studies have shown that atypical Spitz tumors (ASTs) with homozygous deletions in 9p21 have worse prognosis than those without this finding. Conversely, numerous studies have shown that a range of other copy number aberrations including isolated 6q23 or 3p21 loss may be seen in ASTs without conferring higher risk for aggressive behavior. We studied 31 cases of ASTs with heterozygous 9p21 loss and hypothesize that heterozygous 9p21 loss in ASTs does not confer an increased risk for aggressive behavior. We compared clinical, histopathologic, and immunohistochemical features of 31 ASTs with heterozygous 9p21 deletions with 30 ASTs with homozygous 9p21 deletions. No ASTs with heterozygous 9p21 deletions resulted in distant metastasis. Severe cytologic atypia, a predominance of epithelioid cytomorphology and increased dermal mitotic activity were more frequent in ASTs with homozygous deletions versus ASTs with heterozygous deletions (P=0.0003, 0.0004, and 0.042, respectively). Expression of p16 and mutated BRAF proteins was also evaluated in 17 conventional (nonspitzoid) melanomas with homozygous 9p21 loss and the 2 groups of ASTs. Expression of p16 was retained in 67% of ASTs with heterozygous loss, whereas among ASTs with homozygous loss, 100% of cases had areas with complete loss of staining. Mutated BRAF protein expression was detected in 53% of conventional melanomas, in none of the ASTs with heterozygous loss, and in 1 AST with homozygous loss (P=0.0007 between homozygous ASTs and the conventional melanomas). Coexisting BRAF mutation and 9p21 deletion was more common in conventional melanomas than in ASTs with heterozygous or homozygous 9p21 deletion. BRAF mutation was highly uncommon among the ASTs.

The article summarizes the expert discussion and recommendations on the use of molecular markers and of biological targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), as well as a proposed treatment decision strategy for mCRC treatment. The meeting was conducted during the 11th ESMO/World Gastrointestinal Cancer Congress (WGICC) in Barcelona in June 2009. The manuscript describes the outcome of an expert discussion leading to an expert recommendation. The increasing knowledge on clinical and molecular markers and the availability of biological targeted therapies have major implications in the optimal management in mCRC. 21 Suppl 6 vi1 10

Objectives: Treatment decision-making in colorectal cancer is often guided by tumour tissue molecular analysis. The aim of this study was the development and validation of a high-resolution melting (HRM) method for the detection of KRAS, NRAS and BRAF mutations in Greek and Romanian patients with colorectal cancer and determination of the frequency of these mutations in the respective populations. Setting: Diagnostic molecular laboratory located in Athens, Greece. Participants: 2425 patients with colorectal cancer participated in the study. Primary and secondary outcome measures: 2071 patients with colorectal cancer (1699 of Greek and 372 of Romanian origin) were analysed for KRAS exon 2 mutations. In addition, 354 tumours from consecutive patients (196 Greek and 161 Romanian) were subjected to full KRAS (exons 2, 3 and 4), NRAS (exons 2, 3 and 4) and BRAF (exon 15) analysis. KRAS, NRAS and BRAF mutation detection was performed by a newly designed HRM analysis protocol, followed by Sanger sequencing. Results: KRAS exon 2 mutations (codons 12/13) were detected in 702 of the 1699 Greek patients with colorectal carcinoma analysed (41.3%) and in 39.2% (146/372) of the Romanian patients. Among the 354 patients who were subjected to full KRAS, NRAS and BRAF analysis, 40.96% had KRAS exon 2 mutations (codons 12/13). Among the KRAS exon 2 wild-type patients 15.31% harboured additional RAS mutations and 12.44% BRAF mutations. The newly designed HRM method used showed a higher sensitivity compared with the sequencing method. Conclusions: The HRM method developed was shown to be a reliable method for KRAS, NRAS and BRAF mutation detection. Furthermore, no difference in the mutation frequency of KRAS, NRAS and BRAF was observed between Greek and Romanian patients with colorectal cancer. 4 5