Purpose: To determine the prevalence and prognostic value of mismatch repair (MMR) status and its relation to BRAF mutation (BRAFMT) status in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Experimental Design: A pooled analysis of four phase III studies in first-line treatment of mCRC (CAIRO, CAIRO2, COIN, and FOCUS) was performed. Primary outcome parameter was the hazard ratio (HR) for median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in relation to MMR and BRAF. For the pooled analysis, Cox regression analysis was performed on individual patient data.

Results: The primary tumors of 3,063 patients were analyzed, of which 153 (5.0%) exhibited deficient MMR (dMMR) and 250 (8.2%) a BRAFMT. BRAFMT was observed in 53 (34.6%) of patients with dMMR tumors compared with 197 (6.8%) of patients with proficient MMR (pMMR) tumors (P < 0.001). In the pooled dataset, median PFS and OS were significantly worse for patients with dMMR compared with pMMR tumors [HR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.12–1.57 and HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.13–1.61, respectively), and for patients with BRAFMT compared with BRAF wild-type (BRAFWT) tumors (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.17–1.54 and HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.66–2.19, respectively). PFS and OS were significantly decreased for patients with BRAFMT within the group of patients with pMMR, but not for BRAF status within dMMR, or MMR status within BRAFWT or BRAFMT.

Conclusions: Prevalence of dMMR and BRAFMT in patients with mCRC is low and both biomarkers confer an inferior prognosis. Our data suggest that the poor prognosis of dMMR is driven by the BRAFMT status. Clin Cancer Res; 20(20); 5322–30. ©2014 AACR.

Translational Relevance

This is the first pooled analysis on individual patient data to assess the role of the mismatch repair (MMR) status in relation to the BRAF mutation (BRAFMT) status in respect to prevalence and outcome in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). These patients participated in four large randomized prospective phase III studies, namely the CAIRO, CAIRO2, COIN, and FOCUS studies. We show that the prevalence of deficient MMR (dMMR) and BRAFMT is low in patients with mCRC. Both biomarkers confer an inferior prognosis. We observed a higher incidence of BRAFMT in dMMR tumors than reported for patients with early-stage dMMR colorectal cancer, and our data suggest that the poor prognosis of dMMR is driven by BRAFMT status.

Colorectal cancer is a heterogeneous disease arising through different pathways (1, 2). Three molecular pathways are well known to be involved in the multistep process of colorectal carcinogenesis, including the chromosomal instability (CIN) pathway, the mutator pathway [microsatellite instability (MSI)], and the epigenetic instability pathway or CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP), the latter of which has substantial overlap with the other two.

MSI is the result of a deficient DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) system. A germline mutation in one of the MMR genes, most often MLH1 or MSH2, is the cause of dMMR in patients with Lynch syndrome, which comprises 0.8% to 5% of all colorectal cancers (3). dMMR is also observed in 10% to 20% of patients with sporadic colorectal cancer, of which the majority of dMMR tumors are due to inactivation of MLH1 (∼95%), caused by hypermethylation of the gene promoter, with MSH2 and MSH6 accounting for a smaller percentage (3–5). These dMMR tumors have distinct features, such as origin in the proximal colon, prominent lymphocytic infiltrate, poorly differentiated morphology, mucinous or signet ring differentiation (6), and association with a favorable prognosis in early-stage colorectal cancer (7). In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the prevalence of dMMR is low (3.5%; refs. 8, 9). This supports the hypothesis that dMMR tumors have a reduced metastatic potential (10, 11). Because of its lower frequency, the prognostic role of dMMR in mCRC has not been properly evaluated thus far.

The presence of a BRAF mutation (BRAFMT) in a dMMR tumor indicates a sporadic origin, and essentially excludes a diagnosis of Lynch syndrome (12, 13). In colorectal cancer, the overall prevalence of BRAFMT is approximately 10% (14). BRAFMT has a negative prognostic impact, although this may be restricted to patients with proficient MMR (pMMR) tumors (15, 16). Data on the role of BRAF in relation to MMR status in mCRC are scarce and are derived from small subsets of selected patients.

The current study was initiated to assess the role of MMR in relation to the BRAFMT status in respect to prevalence and outcome in patients with mCRC who participated in four large prospective phase III studies: CAIRO (17), CAIRO2 (18), COIN (19, 20), and FOCUS (21).

Patients and treatment

Data were derived from patients with mCRC included in four large phase III studies in first-line treatment: CAIRO (ClinicalStudys.gov; NCT00312000), CAIRO2 (ClinicalStudys.gov; NCT00208546), COIN (ISRCTN; 27286448), and FOCUS (ISRCTN; 79877428), of which the results have been published previously (17–21). Collection of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded material (FFPE) of the primary tumor was part of the initial protocol in all four studies.

MMR status

For samples of both CAIRO studies, immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed on FFPE tissue with antibodies against MMR proteins hMLH1, hMSH2, hMSH6, and hPMS2. In addition, MSI analysis was performed where there was an absence of MMR protein expression or equivocal IHC results. dMMR status was determined using two microsatellite markers (BAT 25 and BAT 26). If only one of these markers showed instability, the analysis was extended with four additional markers (BAT 40, D2S123, D5S346, and D17S250). A tumor was defined as dMMR if at least two of the six markers showed instability or pMMR if none of the markers showed instability. Tumors with only one of the markers showing instability were defined as dMMR-low and included in the pMMR category. For samples from the COIN study, dMMR status was assessed using two microsatellite markers (BAT25 and BAT26). If only one of these markers showed instability, the tumor was defined as dMMR, and as pMMR if no instability was observed. For samples from the FOCUS study, dMMR status was based on loss of MLH1 and MSH2 protein expression, assessed by IHC. If either protein showed loss of expression, the tumor was defined as dMMR, and pMMR if no loss of expression was observed.

Hypermethylation status of the MLH1 gene promoter

Hypermethylation of the MLH1 gene promoter in patients with a dMMR tumor was analyzed in samples from the CAIRO and CAIRO2 studies only and therefore not included in the pooled analysis. The DNA methylation status of the MLH1 promoter region was determined after bisulfite treatment of the DNA using the EZ DNA Methylation Kit (ZYMO Research), as described previously (8).

BRAFMT status

The BRAF V600E mutation status was assessed in duplicate by high-resolution melting (HRM) sequencing analysis for tumor material in the CAIRO study (22) and by direct sequencing analysis in the CAIRO2 study (23). For samples of the COIN and FOCUS studies, the BRAF V600E mutation status was determined by Pyrosequencing (and Sequenom in COIN), and verified by Sanger sequencing as described previously (19, 24). Non-V600E BRAFMT detected by these assays (n = 19) were not included in the current analyses on outcome.

Statistical methods

Individual patient data were included in the pooled analysis. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as the time from the date of randomization to first progression or death, whichever came first. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from randomization to the date of death. The primary outcome measure was the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS and OS in relation to MMR and BRAFMT status. For PFS and OS, all studies were included in a Cox regression model (proportional hazard model) by using the study as a factor in the model. In this way, dependence of the hazard on study could be modeled. The HR was corrected for study effect. Survival curves were plotted and log-rank tests were performed to compare survival for the different groups defined. A statistical interaction analysis for survival data of dMMR and BRAF status was performed. All analyses were conducted using the SAS system version 9.2; P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Study population and MMR/BRAFMT status

Tumor and normal samples from 3,063 out of 6,155 randomized mCRC patients were available and suitable for analysis of both MMR and BRAFMT status. Of these 3,063 patients, 322 patients participated in the CAIRO study, 516 patients in the CAIRO2 study, 1,461 patients in the COIN study, and 764 patients in the FOCUS study.

The prevalence of MMR status and BRAFMT status and their correlation are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. dMMR was found in tumors of 153 (5.0%) patients and 250 (8.2%) patients had a BRAFMT (Table 1). There was no evidence of heterogeneity for the prevalence of dMMR and BRAFMT in the four studies; P = 0.614 and P = 0.943, respectively (Table 1). A BRAFMT was observed in 53 (34.6%) of patients with dMMR tumors compared with 197 (6.8%) of patients with pMMR tumors (P < 0.001; Table 2). There was heterogeneity for the prevalence of combined MMR and BRAFMT status between the four studies. In the CAIRO study, there were significantly more patients with a combined dMMR and BRAFMT (dMMR/BRAFMT) tumor compared with the other three studies (P = 0.002; Table 2).

Table 1.

Prevalence of MMR and BRAFMT status in patients with mCRC subdivided by study

dMMRpMMRTotalBRAFMTBRAFWTTotal
CAIRO 18 (5.6%) 304 (94.4%) 322 25 (7.8%) 297 (92.2%) 322 
CAIRO2 29 (5.6%) 487 (94.4%) 516 45 (8.7%) 471 (91.3%) 516 
COIN 65 (4.4%) 1,396 (95.6%) 1,461 120 (8.2%) 1,341 (91.8%) 1,461 
FOCUS 41 (5.4%) 723 (94.6%) 764 60 (7.9%) 704 (92.1%) 764 
Pooled dataset 153 (5.0%) 2,910 (95.0%) 3,063 250 (8.2%) 2,813 (91.8%) 3,063 
P   0.614   0.943 
dMMRpMMRTotalBRAFMTBRAFWTTotal
CAIRO 18 (5.6%) 304 (94.4%) 322 25 (7.8%) 297 (92.2%) 322 
CAIRO2 29 (5.6%) 487 (94.4%) 516 45 (8.7%) 471 (91.3%) 516 
COIN 65 (4.4%) 1,396 (95.6%) 1,461 120 (8.2%) 1,341 (91.8%) 1,461 
FOCUS 41 (5.4%) 723 (94.6%) 764 60 (7.9%) 704 (92.1%) 764 
Pooled dataset 153 (5.0%) 2,910 (95.0%) 3,063 250 (8.2%) 2,813 (91.8%) 3,063 
P   0.614   0.943 

NOTE: P values represent heterogeneity between the four studies.

Abbreviations: mt, mutant tumors; wt, wild-type tumors.

Table 2.

Prevalence of BRAFMT status stratified for MMR status, and MMR status stratified for BRAF status in mCRC patients subdivided by study

BRAFMTBRAFWTdMMRpMMR
dMMRpMMRTotaldMMRpMMRTotalBRAFMTBRAFWTTotalBRAFMTBRAFWTTotal
CAIRO 12 (48.0%) 13 (52.0%) 25 6 (2.0%) 291 (98.0%) 297 12 (66.7%) 6 (33.3%) 18 13 (4.3%) 291 (95.7%) 304 
CAIRO2 12 (26.7%) 33 (73.3%) 45 17 (3.6%) 454 (96.4%) 471 12 (41.4%) 17 (58.6%) 29 33 (6.8%) 454 (93.2%) 487 
COIN 20 (16.7%) 100 (83.3%) 120 45 (3.4%) 1,296 (96.6%) 1,341 20 (30.8%) 45 (69.2%) 65 100 (7.2%) 1,296 (92.8%) 1,396 
FOCUS 9 (15.0%) 51 (85.0%) 60 32 (4.5%) 672 (95.5%) 704 9 (22.0%) 32 (78.0%) 41 51 (7.1%) 672 (92.9%) 723 
Pooled dataset 53 (21.2%) 197 (78.8%) 250 100 (3.6%) 2,713 (96.4%) 2,813 53 (34.6%) 100 (65.4%) 153 197 (6.8%) 2,713 (93.2%) 2,910 
P   0.002   0.239   0.007   0.330 
BRAFMTBRAFWTdMMRpMMR
dMMRpMMRTotaldMMRpMMRTotalBRAFMTBRAFWTTotalBRAFMTBRAFWTTotal
CAIRO 12 (48.0%) 13 (52.0%) 25 6 (2.0%) 291 (98.0%) 297 12 (66.7%) 6 (33.3%) 18 13 (4.3%) 291 (95.7%) 304 
CAIRO2 12 (26.7%) 33 (73.3%) 45 17 (3.6%) 454 (96.4%) 471 12 (41.4%) 17 (58.6%) 29 33 (6.8%) 454 (93.2%) 487 
COIN 20 (16.7%) 100 (83.3%) 120 45 (3.4%) 1,296 (96.6%) 1,341 20 (30.8%) 45 (69.2%) 65 100 (7.2%) 1,296 (92.8%) 1,396 
FOCUS 9 (15.0%) 51 (85.0%) 60 32 (4.5%) 672 (95.5%) 704 9 (22.0%) 32 (78.0%) 41 51 (7.1%) 672 (92.9%) 723 
Pooled dataset 53 (21.2%) 197 (78.8%) 250 100 (3.6%) 2,713 (96.4%) 2,813 53 (34.6%) 100 (65.4%) 153 197 (6.8%) 2,713 (93.2%) 2,910 
P   0.002   0.239   0.007   0.330 

NOTE: Statistically significant results are set in bold. P values represent heterogeneity between the four studies.

Abbreviations: mt, mutant tumors; wt, wild-type tumors.

Patient and tumor characteristics (sex, age, location of the primary tumor, performance status, and number of metastatic sites involved) for the different subgroups defined by the combined MMR and BRAFMT status are summarized in Supplementary Table S1. Hypermethylation of MLH1 was the main cause of dMMR in both CAIRO and CAIRO2 studies (30 out of 45 patients), this was associated with a high frequency of BRAFMT (73%) compared with tumors without MLH1 hypermethylation (7%).

Survival data

The survival data of the individual studies, the pooled dataset, and the pooled analysis for patients with dMMR, pMMR, BRAFMT, and BRAF wild-type (BRAFWT) tumors are presented in Table 3. The median PFS and OS were significantly worse for patients with dMMR compared with pMMR tumors [PFS: 6.2 vs. 7.6 months, respectively; HR, 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12–1.57; P = 0.001; OS: 13.6 vs. 16.8 months, respectively; HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.13–1.61; P = 0.001). Median PFS and OS were also significantly worse for patients with BRAFMT compared with BRAFWT tumors (PFS: 6.2 vs. 7.7 months, respectively; HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.17–1.54; P < 0.001; OS: 11.4 vs. 17.2 months, respectively; HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.66–2.19; P < 0.001).

Table 3.

Individual study data, pooled dataset, and pooled analysis of survival data in relation to MMR and BRAFMT status

dMMRpMMRBRAFMTBRAFWT
CAIRO 
 Number of patients 18 304 25 297 
 PFS mo. (95% CI) 5.7 (4.2–8.8) 6.9 (6.2–7.9) 5.1 (4.1–7.7) 7.0 (6.3–8.2) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.34 (0.81–2.22) 1.57 (1.03–2.38) 
 OS mo. (95% CI) 14.8 (12.0–26.0) 17.9 (16.1–19.2) 11.3 (8.3–15.0) 18.1 (16.2–19.4) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.26 (0.74–2.16) 2.20 (1.43–3.38) 
CAIRO2 
 Number of patients 29 487 45 471 
 PFS mo. (95% CI) 7.5 (6.4–10.5) 10.5 (9.6–11.4) 6.9 (6.2–8.5) 10.6 (9.7–11.8) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.66 (1.13–2.45) 2.03 (1.48–2.79) 
 OS mo. (95% CI) 15.6 (12.9–22.3) 22.0 (20.3–24.1) 13.1 (10.7–16.5) 22.4 (21.0–24.9) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.60 (1.07–2.40) 2.30 (1.65–3.20) 
COIN 
 Number of patients 65 1,396 120 1,341 
 PFS mo. (95% CI) 5.7 (5.4–6.1) 6.5 (6.2–6.8) 5.8 (5.6–6.2) 6.5 (6.3–6.9) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.56 (1.20–2.02) 1.38 (1.14–1.68) 
 OS mo. (95% CI) 10.7 (9.3–13.0) 16.0 (15.0–16.9) 10.2 (9.0–11.7) 16.5 (15.3–17.1) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.80 (1.37–2.37) 2.02 (1.65–2.48) 
FOCUS 
 Number of patients 41 723 60 704 
 PFS mo. (95% CI) 8.1 (6.5–9.1) 8.0 (7.4–8.3) 8.1 (6.8–8.9) 8.0 (7.4–8.3) 
 HR (95% CI) 0.98 (0.71–1.35) 0.98 (0.74–1.28) 
 OS mo. (95% CI) 16.6 (13.6–21.7) 15.5 (14.5–16.6) 12.3 (10.5–14.8) 15.7 (14.8–17.0) 
 HR (95% CI) 0.90 (0.64–1.27) 1.52 (1.15–2.00) 
Pooled dataset 
 Number of patients 153 2,910 250 2,813 
 PFS mo. (95% CI) 6.2 (5.9–7.0) 7.6 (7.3–8.0) 6.2 (6.0–6.8) 7.7 (7.4–8.0) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.33 (1.12–1.57) 1.34 (1.17–1.54) 
 OS mo. (95% CI) 13.6 (12.4–15.6) 16.8 (16.3–17.5) 11.4 (10.5–12.4) 17.2 (16.7–18.0) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.35 (1.13–1.61) 1.91 (1.66–2.19) 
dMMRpMMRBRAFMTBRAFWT
CAIRO 
 Number of patients 18 304 25 297 
 PFS mo. (95% CI) 5.7 (4.2–8.8) 6.9 (6.2–7.9) 5.1 (4.1–7.7) 7.0 (6.3–8.2) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.34 (0.81–2.22) 1.57 (1.03–2.38) 
 OS mo. (95% CI) 14.8 (12.0–26.0) 17.9 (16.1–19.2) 11.3 (8.3–15.0) 18.1 (16.2–19.4) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.26 (0.74–2.16) 2.20 (1.43–3.38) 
CAIRO2 
 Number of patients 29 487 45 471 
 PFS mo. (95% CI) 7.5 (6.4–10.5) 10.5 (9.6–11.4) 6.9 (6.2–8.5) 10.6 (9.7–11.8) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.66 (1.13–2.45) 2.03 (1.48–2.79) 
 OS mo. (95% CI) 15.6 (12.9–22.3) 22.0 (20.3–24.1) 13.1 (10.7–16.5) 22.4 (21.0–24.9) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.60 (1.07–2.40) 2.30 (1.65–3.20) 
COIN 
 Number of patients 65 1,396 120 1,341 
 PFS mo. (95% CI) 5.7 (5.4–6.1) 6.5 (6.2–6.8) 5.8 (5.6–6.2) 6.5 (6.3–6.9) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.56 (1.20–2.02) 1.38 (1.14–1.68) 
 OS mo. (95% CI) 10.7 (9.3–13.0) 16.0 (15.0–16.9) 10.2 (9.0–11.7) 16.5 (15.3–17.1) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.80 (1.37–2.37) 2.02 (1.65–2.48) 
FOCUS 
 Number of patients 41 723 60 704 
 PFS mo. (95% CI) 8.1 (6.5–9.1) 8.0 (7.4–8.3) 8.1 (6.8–8.9) 8.0 (7.4–8.3) 
 HR (95% CI) 0.98 (0.71–1.35) 0.98 (0.74–1.28) 
 OS mo. (95% CI) 16.6 (13.6–21.7) 15.5 (14.5–16.6) 12.3 (10.5–14.8) 15.7 (14.8–17.0) 
 HR (95% CI) 0.90 (0.64–1.27) 1.52 (1.15–2.00) 
Pooled dataset 
 Number of patients 153 2,910 250 2,813 
 PFS mo. (95% CI) 6.2 (5.9–7.0) 7.6 (7.3–8.0) 6.2 (6.0–6.8) 7.7 (7.4–8.0) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.33 (1.12–1.57) 1.34 (1.17–1.54) 
 OS mo. (95% CI) 13.6 (12.4–15.6) 16.8 (16.3–17.5) 11.4 (10.5–12.4) 17.2 (16.7–18.0) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.35 (1.13–1.61) 1.91 (1.66–2.19) 

NOTE: Statistically significant results are shown in bold.

Abbreviations: mo., median PFS and OS time in months; mt, mutant tumor; wt, wild-type tumor.

To determine a possible interaction between MMR and BRAF status, with respect to the survival, a Cox regression was performed by using the study as a factor in the model. For PFS and OS, all studies were included in a Cox regression model (proportional hazard model) by using the study as a factor in the model. Results are presented for MMR status in a BRAFMT and BRAFWT background, and vice versa for BRAF status in a dMMR and pMMR background in Table 4. Survival curves, as estimated by the Cox regression, are presented in Fig. 1. In BRAFMT tumors stratified by MMR status, there was no significant survival difference for patients with dMMR compared with pMMR tumors (PFS: 6.1 vs. 6.2 months, respectively; HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.62–1.46; P = 1.000; OS: 11.7 vs. 11.3 months, respectively; HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.68–1.63; P = 1.000). Also in BRAFWT tumors stratified by MMR status, there was no significant survival difference for patients with dMMR compared with pMMR tumors (PFS: 6.3 vs. 7.8 months, respectively; HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.00–1.75; P = 0.051; OS: 15.0 vs. 17.3 months, respectively; HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.91–1.65; P = 0.463). In dMMR tumors stratified by BRAF status, there was no significant survival difference for patients with BRAFMT compared with BRAFWT tumors (PFS: 6.1 vs. 6.3 months, respectively; HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.67–1.70; P = 1.000; OS: 11.7 vs. 15.0 months, respectively; HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.93–2.46; P = 0.155). In pMMR tumors stratified by BRAF status, there was a significantly decreased median PFS and OS for patients with BRAFMT compared with BRAFWT tumors (PFS: 6.2 vs. 7.8 months, respectively; HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10–1.64; P < 0.001; OS: 11.3 vs. 17.3 months, respectively; HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.57–2.40; P < 0.001) The test for interaction between dMMR and BRAFMT was statistically not significant (PFS: HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.54–1.16; P = 0.234; OS: HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.52–1.15; P = 0.211).

Figure 1.

PFS (A) and OS (B) curves of all patients included in the pooled dataset comparing patients with dMMR/BRAFMT tumors, dMMR/BRAFWT tumors, pMMR/BRAFMT tumors, and pMMR/BRAFWT tumors.

Figure 1.

PFS (A) and OS (B) curves of all patients included in the pooled dataset comparing patients with dMMR/BRAFMT tumors, dMMR/BRAFWT tumors, pMMR/BRAFMT tumors, and pMMR/BRAFWT tumors.

Close modal
Table 4.

Individual study data, pooled dataset, and pooled analysis of survival data and association between MMR and BRAFMT status

BRAFMTBRAFWTdMMRpMMR
dMMRpMMRdMMRpMMRBRAFMTBRAFWTBRAFMTBRAFWT
CAIRO 
 Number of patients 12 13 291 12 13 291 
 PFS mo. (95% CI) 6.6 (4.6–12.6) 4.1 (2.4–6.4) 3.6 (2.0–16.4) 7.1 (6.4–8.2) 6.6 (4.6–12.6) 3.6 (2.0–16.4) 4.1 (2.4–6.4) 7.1 (6.4–8.2) 
 HR (95% CI) 2.38 (0.80–7.09) 3.19 (0.96–10.63) 0.34 (0.08–1.44) 2.60 (1.21–5.55) 
 OS mo. (95% CI) 13.2 (10.1–28.6) 8.3 (5.9–13.6) 18.6 (12.4–53.5) 18.2 (16.2–19.4) 13.2 (10.1–28.6) 18.6 (12.4–53.5) 8.3 (5.9–13.6) 18.2 (16.2–19.4) 
 HR (95% CI) 2.14 (0.70–6.54) 0.97 (0.25–3.57) 1.63 (0.34–7.77) 3.29 (1.53–7.04) 
CAIRO2 
 Number of patients 12 33 17 454 12 17 33 454 
 PFS mo. (95% CI) 5.7 (4.4–8.5) 7.5 (6.4–9.7) 9.3 (7.2–14.8) 10.7 (9.9–12.1) 5.7 (4.4–8.5) 9.3 (7.2–14.8) 7.5 (6.4–9.7) 10.7 (9.9–12.1) 
 HR (95% CI) 0.54 (0.22–1.34) 1.25 (0.62–2.49) 2.65 (0.95–7.41) 1.79 (1.09–2.93) 
 OS mo. (95% CI) 10.4 (7.8–17.2) 14.1 (11.5–19.4) 21.0 (15.2–36.4) 22.4 (21.1–25.0) 10.4 (7.8–17.2) 21.0 (15.2–36.4) 14.1 (11.5–19.4) 22.4 (21.1–25.0) 
 HR (95% CI) 0.61 (0.25–1.52) 1.14 (0.54–2.40) 2.94 (1.02–8.52) 2.04 (1.21–3.44) 
COIN 
 Number of patients 20 100 45 1,296 20 45 100 1,296 
 PFS mo. (95% CI) 5.9 (5.4–8.5) 5.8 (5.6–6.2) 5.6 (5.1–6.1) 6.6 (6.3–7.0) 5.9 (5.4–8.5) 5.6 (5.1–6.1) 5.8 (5.6–6.2) 6.6 (6.3–7.0) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.05 (0.53–2.11) 1.72 (1.14–2.60) 0.78 (0.37–1.66) 1.42 (1.07–1.88) 
 OS mo. (95% CI) 10.5 (8.2–16.3) 10.2 (8.9–11.8) 10.8 (9.2–14.0) 16.7 (15.6–17.5) 10.5 (8.2–16.3) 10.8 (9.2–14.0) 10.2 (8.9–11.8) 16.7 (15.6–17.5) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.04 (0.52–2.10) 1.85 (1.19–2.88) 1.08 (0.50–2.34) 2.07 (1.54–2.79) 
FOCUS 
 Number of patients 51 32 672 32 51 672 
 PFS mo. (95% CI) 6.8 (4.9–12.0) 8.3 (6.8–9.1) 8.3 (6.8–9.6) 8.0 (7.4–8.3) 6.8 (4.9–12.0) 8.3 (6.8–9.6) 8.3 (6.8–9.1) 8.0 (7.4–8.3) 
 HR (95% CI) 0.75 (0.28–2.00) 0.91 (0.56–1.49) 1.37 (0.49–3.79) 0.93 (0.63–1.39) 
 OS mo. (95% CI) 13.5 (9.8–28.7) 12.2 (10.2–14.8) 17.5 (14.0–24.0) 15.6 (14.7–16.9) 13.5 (9.8–28.7) 17.5 (14.0–24.0) 12.2 (10.2–14.8) 15.6 (14.7–16.9) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.21 (0.44–3.36) 0.85 (0.50–1.44) 1.51 (0.52–4.42) 1.55 (1.03–2.33) 
Pooled dataset 
 Number of patients 53 197 100 2,713 53 100 197 2,713 
 PFS mo. (95% CI) 6.1 (5.6–7.7) 6.2 (6.0–6.9) 6.3 (5.8–7.4) 7.8 (7.4–8.1) 6.1 (5.6–7.7) 6.3 (5.8–7.4) 6.2 (6.0–6.9) 7.8 (7.4–8.1) 
 HR (95% CI) 0.95 (0.62–1.46) 1.32 (1.00–1.75) 1.07 (0.67–1.70) 1.34 (1.10–1.64) 
 OS mo. (95% CI) 11.7 (9.9–14.4) 11.3 (10.3–12.5) 15.0 (13.1–18.0) 17.3 (16.7–18.1) 11.7 (9.9–14.4) 15.0 (13.1–18.0) 11.3 (10.3–12.5) 17.3 (16.7–18.1) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.05 (0.68–1.63) 1.22 (0.91–1.65) 1.51 (0.93–2.46) 1.94 (1.57–2.40) 
BRAFMTBRAFWTdMMRpMMR
dMMRpMMRdMMRpMMRBRAFMTBRAFWTBRAFMTBRAFWT
CAIRO 
 Number of patients 12 13 291 12 13 291 
 PFS mo. (95% CI) 6.6 (4.6–12.6) 4.1 (2.4–6.4) 3.6 (2.0–16.4) 7.1 (6.4–8.2) 6.6 (4.6–12.6) 3.6 (2.0–16.4) 4.1 (2.4–6.4) 7.1 (6.4–8.2) 
 HR (95% CI) 2.38 (0.80–7.09) 3.19 (0.96–10.63) 0.34 (0.08–1.44) 2.60 (1.21–5.55) 
 OS mo. (95% CI) 13.2 (10.1–28.6) 8.3 (5.9–13.6) 18.6 (12.4–53.5) 18.2 (16.2–19.4) 13.2 (10.1–28.6) 18.6 (12.4–53.5) 8.3 (5.9–13.6) 18.2 (16.2–19.4) 
 HR (95% CI) 2.14 (0.70–6.54) 0.97 (0.25–3.57) 1.63 (0.34–7.77) 3.29 (1.53–7.04) 
CAIRO2 
 Number of patients 12 33 17 454 12 17 33 454 
 PFS mo. (95% CI) 5.7 (4.4–8.5) 7.5 (6.4–9.7) 9.3 (7.2–14.8) 10.7 (9.9–12.1) 5.7 (4.4–8.5) 9.3 (7.2–14.8) 7.5 (6.4–9.7) 10.7 (9.9–12.1) 
 HR (95% CI) 0.54 (0.22–1.34) 1.25 (0.62–2.49) 2.65 (0.95–7.41) 1.79 (1.09–2.93) 
 OS mo. (95% CI) 10.4 (7.8–17.2) 14.1 (11.5–19.4) 21.0 (15.2–36.4) 22.4 (21.1–25.0) 10.4 (7.8–17.2) 21.0 (15.2–36.4) 14.1 (11.5–19.4) 22.4 (21.1–25.0) 
 HR (95% CI) 0.61 (0.25–1.52) 1.14 (0.54–2.40) 2.94 (1.02–8.52) 2.04 (1.21–3.44) 
COIN 
 Number of patients 20 100 45 1,296 20 45 100 1,296 
 PFS mo. (95% CI) 5.9 (5.4–8.5) 5.8 (5.6–6.2) 5.6 (5.1–6.1) 6.6 (6.3–7.0) 5.9 (5.4–8.5) 5.6 (5.1–6.1) 5.8 (5.6–6.2) 6.6 (6.3–7.0) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.05 (0.53–2.11) 1.72 (1.14–2.60) 0.78 (0.37–1.66) 1.42 (1.07–1.88) 
 OS mo. (95% CI) 10.5 (8.2–16.3) 10.2 (8.9–11.8) 10.8 (9.2–14.0) 16.7 (15.6–17.5) 10.5 (8.2–16.3) 10.8 (9.2–14.0) 10.2 (8.9–11.8) 16.7 (15.6–17.5) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.04 (0.52–2.10) 1.85 (1.19–2.88) 1.08 (0.50–2.34) 2.07 (1.54–2.79) 
FOCUS 
 Number of patients 51 32 672 32 51 672 
 PFS mo. (95% CI) 6.8 (4.9–12.0) 8.3 (6.8–9.1) 8.3 (6.8–9.6) 8.0 (7.4–8.3) 6.8 (4.9–12.0) 8.3 (6.8–9.6) 8.3 (6.8–9.1) 8.0 (7.4–8.3) 
 HR (95% CI) 0.75 (0.28–2.00) 0.91 (0.56–1.49) 1.37 (0.49–3.79) 0.93 (0.63–1.39) 
 OS mo. (95% CI) 13.5 (9.8–28.7) 12.2 (10.2–14.8) 17.5 (14.0–24.0) 15.6 (14.7–16.9) 13.5 (9.8–28.7) 17.5 (14.0–24.0) 12.2 (10.2–14.8) 15.6 (14.7–16.9) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.21 (0.44–3.36) 0.85 (0.50–1.44) 1.51 (0.52–4.42) 1.55 (1.03–2.33) 
Pooled dataset 
 Number of patients 53 197 100 2,713 53 100 197 2,713 
 PFS mo. (95% CI) 6.1 (5.6–7.7) 6.2 (6.0–6.9) 6.3 (5.8–7.4) 7.8 (7.4–8.1) 6.1 (5.6–7.7) 6.3 (5.8–7.4) 6.2 (6.0–6.9) 7.8 (7.4–8.1) 
 HR (95% CI) 0.95 (0.62–1.46) 1.32 (1.00–1.75) 1.07 (0.67–1.70) 1.34 (1.10–1.64) 
 OS mo. (95% CI) 11.7 (9.9–14.4) 11.3 (10.3–12.5) 15.0 (13.1–18.0) 17.3 (16.7–18.1) 11.7 (9.9–14.4) 15.0 (13.1–18.0) 11.3 (10.3–12.5) 17.3 (16.7–18.1) 
 HR (95% CI) 1.05 (0.68–1.63) 1.22 (0.91–1.65) 1.51 (0.93–2.46) 1.94 (1.57–2.40) 

NOTE: Statistically significant results are shown in bold.

Abbreviations: mo., median PFS or OS time in months; mt, mutant tumor; wt, wild-type tumor.

This study presents the largest dataset on the role of tumor MMR status and BRAFMT status in respect to prevalence and outcome in a population of patients (n = 3,063) with mCRC who participated in four prospective phase III studies. We found that dMMR and BRAFMT in mCRC each have a low prevalence (5% and 8.2%, respectively), and that both biomarkers indicate a poor prognosis. Given the absence of a statistically significant interaction between BRAFMT and dMMR, our data suggest that the poor prognostic value of dMMR is driven by the BRAFMT status.

Several aspects of our study warrant further discussion. In this pooled analysis, different methods for detecting dMMR were applied, which, however, have all been validated for the detection of dMMR in colorectal cancer. In both CAIRO studies, an approach based on test methods described in the Bethesda criteria, used for standard clinical practice for patients suspected for Lynch syndrome, has been applied (25). The COIN study analyzed the BAT25 and BAT26 mononucleotide markers, which have a high sensitivity (94%) and specificity (98%), and the use of these two markers alone identifies 97% of MSI tumors (26). The FOCUS study evaluated MLH1 and MSH2 protein expression by IHC, which is a sensitive (92.3%) and specific (100%) method for screening for dMMR (27).

We acknowledge that the difference in MMR detection methods represents a weakness of our study; however, the comparable prevalence of the dMMR status among the four studies in this pooled analysis, ranging from 4.4% to 5.6%, argues against this. The results from the individual studies show that the patient population with dMMR tumors is heterogeneous. The observed difference in the prevalence of a BRAFMT in dMMR tumors suggests a possible difference in the origin of dMMR, sporadic versus hereditary. Unfortunately, data on the hypermethylation status of the MLH1 gene promoter, which could differentiate between these two groups, are not available of all four studies.

Furthermore, different methods for detecting the BRAF V600E mutation were applied. HRM sequencing, Sanger sequencing, and Pyrosequencing have all shown to be reliable methods (22, 28). Data from systematic studies to assess the test accuracy or reproducibility of the different techniques used for BRAFMT testing are not available.

Another issue is the difference in availability of tumor samples among the trials. This is partly caused by nonavailability of an extra paraffin-embedded block for DNA analysis, and partly due to nonresected primary tumors in patients with synchronous disease. In these patients, often only a diagnostic biopsy was performed, which does not provide sufficient material for further molecular analysis for research purposes. This is an important, underexposed issue that may introduce a sample/case bias not only in our analysis, but in other translational studies in mCRC as well.

The low prevalence of dMMR in mCRC can be explained by the reduced potential of stage I–III dMMR tumors to metastasize (10, 11). However, the underlying mechanisms of this low metastatic potential are yet to be elucidated. It has been suggested that a greater immunoreactivity of dMMR tumors (29, 30) or decreased tumor cell viability due to excessive DNA damage (31) may play a role. In mCRC, data about the prevalence of BRAFMT in dMMR tumors are scarce, but in line with our results (32, 33). The strong inter-relationship between BRAFMT and dMMR is well established in early-stage colorectal cancer (14, 34); however, the etiology of both alterations still needs to be elucidated.

We observed a higher prevalence of BRAFMT in mCRC dMMR tumors (34.6%) than reported for early-stage dMMR colorectal cancer tumors (24%; 16). Patients with early-stage dMMR in general have a better prognosis compared with patient with early-stage pMMR; however, within the group of dMMR, patients with BRAFMT tumors have a worse prognosis (35). Subsequently, this may lead to a shift in the dMMR/BRAFMT ratio in patients with mCRC. There is increasing evidence identifying BRAFMT as a significant poor prognostic factor in early stage and mCRC (18, 36–38). BRAF is an oncogene and it is known that the mutations constitutively activate the MAPK pathway for cell growth, in the absence of extracellular stimuli. However, by itself BRAF is not sufficient for cancer and must cooperate with other processes to induce the fully cancerous state (39). Another explanation for the inferior prognosis of BRAFMT tumors might be their distinct pattern of metastatic spread. Previous studies have demonstrated a significantly increased rate of peritoneal and distant lymph node metastases and a decreased rate of lung metastases compared with BRAFWT tumors (9, 40).

It has been speculated that the worse prognostic value of dMMR tumors in mCRC may be related to a difference in metastatic spread. Earlier studies showed a reduced rate of liver metastases for dMMR tumors in mCRC (40), and a higher incidence of peritoneal metastases; these factors are known to be related to prognosis (41, 42). This was confirmed by a previous analysis of the COIN study (9), but these data are not available from the other studies of our analysis.

Finally, due to the different treatment regimens among the four studies of this pooled analysis, the predictive role of dMMR and BRAFMT in mCRC could not be addressed.

In conclusion, dMMR and BRAFMT each have a low prevalence in mCRC, and both biomarkers confer a poor prognosis. Our data suggest that the poor prognosis of dMMR is driven by the BRAFMT status. However, we caution against a firm conclusion on this issue because our study was not sufficiently powered to test this interaction.

J.P. Cheadle reports receiving a commercial research grant from Merck. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Conception and design: S. Venderbosch, T.S. Maughan, C.J.A. Punt, M. Koopman

Development of methodology: S. Venderbosch, I.D. Nagtegaal, C.J.A. Punt, M. Koopman

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): I.D. Nagtegaal, T.S. Maughan, C.G. Smith, J.P. Cheadle, R. Kaplan, P. Quirke, M.T. Seymour, S.D. Richman, G.A. Meijer, B. Ylstra, D.A.M. Heideman, M. Koopman

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): S. Venderbosch, I.D. Nagtegaal, C.G. Smith, J.P. Cheadle, D. Fisher, P. Quirke, M.T. Seymour, A.F.J. de Haan, C.J.A. Punt, M. Koopman

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: S. Venderbosch, I.D. Nagtegaal, T.S. Maughan, C.G. Smith, J.P. Cheadle, D. Fisher, R. Kaplan, P. Quirke, M.T. Seymour, S.D. Richman, G.A. Meijer, B. Ylstra, D.A.M. Heideman, A.F.J. de Haan, C.J.A. Punt, M. Koopman

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): R. Kaplan, D.A.M. Heideman, M. Koopman

Study supervision: P. Quirke, C.J.A. Punt

Other (laboratory analyses and interpretation of FOCUS data): P. Quirke

The authors thank the patients and their families who participated in all the studies and gave their consent for this research, and the investigators and pathologists who submitted samples for assessment. The CAIRO studies were conducted with the support of the network of the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG). The COIN and FOCUS studies were conducted with the support of Cancer Research UK, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Cancer Research Networks.

CAIRO: This study was supported by the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group (DCCG), a grant support from the Commissie Klinisch Toegepast Onderzoek (CKTO) of the Dutch Cancer Foundation (KWF), unrestricted scientific grants from Roche, Aventis, Sanofi, and Pfizer, the Cornelis Visser Foundation and the framework of CTMM, the Center for Translational Molecular Medicine, DeCoDe project (grant 03O-101).

CAIRO2: This study was supported by the DCCG, and grants for data management and analysis from the CKTO of the Dutch Cancer Foundation and unrestricted research grants from Roche, Merck Serono, Sanofi-Aventis. DxS.

COIN: This study was supported by the Bobby Moore Fund from Cancer Research UK, Cancer Research Wales, and the NISCHR Cancer Genetics Biomedical Research Unit. The COIN trial was funded by Cancer Research UK and the MRC. An unrestricted educational grant from Merck Serono provided additional support to this work and the trial.

FOCUS: This study was supported by Merck KGgA, Yorkshire Cancer Research, Leeds Experimental Cancer Medicine Center, and the Leeds CRUK Center.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
Hermsen
M
,
Postma
C
,
Baak
J
,
Weiss
M
,
Rapallo
A
,
Sciutto
A
, et al
Colorectal adenoma to carcinoma progression follows multiple pathways of chromosomal instability
.
Gastroenterology
2002
;
123
:
1109
19
.
2.
Jass
JR
. 
Classification of colorectal cancer based on correlation of clinical, morphological and molecular features
.
Histopathology
2007
;
50
:
113
30
.
3.
Cunningham
JM
,
Kim
CY
,
Christensen
ER
,
Tester
DJ
,
Parc
Y
,
Burgart
LJ
, et al
The frequency of hereditary defective mismatch repair in a prospective series of unselected colorectal carcinomas
.
Am J Hum Genet
2001
;
69
:
780
90
.
4.
Cunningham
JM
,
Christensen
ER
,
Tester
DJ
,
Kim
CY
,
Roche
PC
,
Burgart
LJ
, et al
Hypermethylation of the hMLH1 promoter in colon cancer with microsatellite instability
.
Cancer Res
1998
;
58
:
3455
60
.
5.
Kane
MF
,
Loda
M
,
Gaida
GM
,
Lipman
J
,
Mishra
R
,
Goldman
H
, et al
Methylation of the hMLH1 promoter correlates with lack of expression of hMLH1 in sporadic colon tumors and mismatch repair-defective human tumor cell lines
.
Cancer Res
1997
;
57
:
808
11
.
6.
Jass
JR
,
Do
KA
,
Simms
LA
,
Iino
H
,
Wynter
C
,
Pillay
SP
, et al
Morphology of sporadic colorectal cancer with DNA replication errors
.
Gut
1998
;
42
:
673
9
.
7.
Popat
S
,
Hubner
R
,
Houlston
RS
. 
Systematic review of microsatellite instability and colorectal cancer prognosis
.
J Clin Oncol
2005
;
23
:
609
18
.
8.
Koopman
M
,
Kortman
GA
,
Mekenkamp
L
,
Ligtenberg
MJ
,
Hoogerbrugge
N
,
Antonini
NF
, et al
Deficient mismatch repair system in patients with sporadic advanced colorectal cancer
.
Br J Cancer
2009
;
100
:
266
73
.
9.
Smith
CG
,
Fisher
D
,
Claes
B
,
Maughan
TS
,
Idziaszczyk
S
,
Peuteman
G
, et al
Somatic profiling of the epidermal growth factor receptor pathway in tumors from patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy {+/-} cetuximab
.
Clin Cancer Res
2013
;
19
:
4104
13
.
10.
Malesci
A
,
Laghi
L
,
Bianchi
P
,
Delconte
G
,
Randolph
A
,
Torri
V
, et al
Reduced likelihood of metastases in patients with microsatellite-unstable colorectal cancer
.
Clin Cancer Res
2007
;
13
:
3831
9
.
11.
Buckowitz
A
,
Knaebel
HP
,
Benner
A
,
Blaker
H
,
Gebert
J
,
Kienle
P
, et al
Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer is associated with local lymphocyte infiltration and low frequency of distant metastases
.
Br J Cancer
2005
;
92
:
1746
53
.
12.
Wang
L
,
Cunningham
JM
,
Winters
JL
,
Guenther
JC
,
French
AJ
,
Boardman
LA
, et al
BRAF mutations in colon cancer are not likely attributable to defective DNA mismatch repair
.
Cancer Res
2003
;
63
:
5209
12
.
13.
Domingo
E
,
Niessen
RC
,
Oliveira
C
,
Alhopuro
P
,
Moutinho
C
,
Espin
E
, et al
BRAF-V600E is not involved in the colorectal tumorigenesis of HNPCC in patients with functional MLH1 and MSH2 genes
.
Oncogene
2005
;
24
:
3995
8
.
14.
Rajagopalan
H
,
Bardelli
A
,
Lengauer
C
,
Kinzler
KW
,
Vogelstein
B
,
Velculescu
VE
. 
Tumorigenesis: RAF/RAS oncogenes and mismatch-repair status
.
Nature
2002
;
418
:
934
.
15.
Samowitz
WS
,
Sweeney
C
,
Herrick
J
,
Albertsen
H
,
Levin
TR
,
Murtaugh
MA
, et al
Poor survival associated with the BRAF V600E mutation in microsatellite-stable colon cancers
.
Cancer Res
2005
;
65
:
6063
9
.
16.
Roth
AD
,
Tejpar
S
,
Delorenzi
M
,
Yan
P
,
Fiocca
R
,
Klingbiel
D
, et al
Prognostic role of KRAS and BRAF in stage II and III resected colon cancer: results of the translational study on the PETACC-3, EORTC 40993, SAKK 60–00 trial
.
J Clin Oncol
2010
;
28
:
466
74
.
17.
Koopman
M
,
Antonini
NF
,
Douma
J
,
Wals
J
,
Honkoop
AH
,
Erdkamp
FL
, et al
Sequential versus combination chemotherapy with capecitabine, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin in advanced colorectal cancer (CAIRO): a phase III randomised controlled trial
.
Lancet
2007
;
370
:
135
42
.
18.
Tol
J
,
Koopman
M
,
Cats
A
,
Rodenburg
CJ
,
Creemers
GJ
,
Schrama
JG
, et al
Chemotherapy, bevacizumab, and cetuximab in metastatic colorectal cancer
.
N Engl J Med
2009
;
360
:
563
72
.
19.
Maughan
TS
,
Adams
RA
,
Smith
CG
,
Meade
AM
,
Seymour
MT
,
Wilson
RH
, et al
Addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based first-line combination chemotherapy for treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: results of the randomised phase 3 MRC COIN trial
.
Lancet
2011
;
377
:
2103
14
.
20.
Adams
RA
,
Meade
AM
,
Seymour
MT
,
Wilson
RH
,
Madi
A
,
Fisher
D
, et al
Intermittent versus continuous oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine combination chemotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: results of the randomised phase 3 MRC COIN trial
.
Lancet Oncol
2011
;
12
:
642
53
.
21.
Seymour
MT
,
Maughan
TS
,
Ledermann
JA
,
Topham
C
,
James
R
,
Gwyther
SJ
, et al
Different strategies of sequential and combination chemotherapy for patients with poor prognosis advanced colorectal cancer (MRC FOCUS): a randomised controlled trial
.
Lancet
2007
;
370
:
143
52
.
22.
Heideman
DA
,
Lurkin
I
,
Doeleman
M
,
Smit
EF
,
Verheul
HM
,
Meijer
GA
, et al
KRAS and BRAF mutation analysis in routine molecular diagnostics: comparison of three testing methods on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor-derived DNA
.
J Mol Diagn
2012
;
14
:
247
55
.
23.
Tol
J
,
Dijkstra
JR
,
Klomp
M
,
Teerenstra
S
,
Dommerholt
M
,
Vink-Borger
ME
, et al
Markers for EGFR pathway activation as predictor of outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with or without cetuximab
.
Eur J Cancer
2010
;
46
:
1997
2009
.
24.
Richman
SD
,
Seymour
MT
,
Chambers
P
,
Elliott
F
,
Daly
CL
,
Meade
AM
, et al
KRAS and BRAF mutations in advanced colorectal cancer are associated with poor prognosis but do not preclude benefit from oxaliplatin or irinotecan: results from the MRC FOCUS trial
.
J Clin Oncol
2009
;
27
:
5931
7
.
25.
Boland
CR
,
Thibodeau
SN
,
Hamilton
SR
,
Sidransky
D
,
Eshleman
JR
,
Burt
RW
, et al
A National Cancer Institute Workshop on Microsatellite Instability for cancer detection and familial predisposition: development of international criteria for the determination of microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer
.
Cancer Res
1998
;
58
:
5248
57
.
26.
Cicek
MS
,
Lindor
NM
,
Gallinger
S
,
Bapat
B
,
Hopper
JL
,
Jenkins
MA
, et al
Quality assessment and correlation of microsatellite instability and immunohistochemical markers among population- and clinic-based colorectal tumors results from the Colon Cancer Family Registry
.
J Mol Diagn
2011
;
13
:
271
81
.
27.
Lindor
NM
,
Burgart
LJ
,
Leontovich
O
,
Goldberg
RM
,
Cunningham
JM
,
Sargent
DJ
, et al
Immunohistochemistry versus microsatellite instability testing in phenotyping colorectal tumors
.
J Clin Oncol
2002
;
20
:
1043
8
.
28.
Curry
JL
,
Torres-Cabala
CA
,
Tetzlaff
MT
,
Bowman
C
,
Prieto
VG
. 
Molecular platforms utilized to detect BRAF V600E mutation in melanoma
.
Semin Cutan Med Surg
2012
;
31
:
267
73
.
29.
Ishikawa
T
,
Fujita
T
,
Suzuki
Y
,
Okabe
S
,
Yuasa
Y
,
Iwai
T
, et al
Tumor-specific immunological recognition of frameshift-mutated peptides in colon cancer with microsatellite instability
.
Cancer Res
2003
;
63
:
5564
72
.
30.
Kloor
M
,
Becker
C
,
Benner
A
,
Woerner
SM
,
Gebert
J
,
Ferrone
S
, et al
Immunoselective pressure and human leukocyte antigen class I antigen machinery defects in microsatellite unstable colorectal cancers
.
Cancer Res
2005
;
65
:
6418
24
.
31.
Peltomaki
P
. 
Role of DNA mismatch repair defects in the pathogenesis of human cancer
.
J Clin Oncol
2003
;
21
:
1174
9
.
32.
Saridaki
Z
,
Papadatos-Pastos
D
,
Tzardi
M
,
Mavroudis
D
,
Bairaktari
E
,
Arvanity
H
, et al
BRAF mutations, microsatellite instability status and cyclin D1 expression predict metastatic colorectal patients' outcome
.
Br J Cancer
2010
;
102
:
1762
8
.
33.
Tie
J
,
Gibbs
P
,
Lipton
L
,
Christie
M
,
Jorissen
RN
,
Burgess
AW
, et al
Optimizing targeted therapeutic development: analysis of a colorectal cancer patient population with the BRAF(V600E) mutation
.
Int J Cancer
2011
;
128
:
2075
84
.
34.
Kambara
T
,
Simms
LA
,
Whitehall
VL
,
Spring
KJ
,
Wynter
CV
,
Walsh
MD
, et al
BRAF mutation is associated with DNA methylation in serrated polyps and cancers of the colorectum
.
Gut
2004
;
53
:
1137
44
.
35.
Lochhead
P
,
Kuchiba
A
,
Imamura
Y
,
Liao
X
,
Yamauchi
M
,
Nishihara
R
, et al
Microsatellite instability and BRAF mutation testing in colorectal cancer prognostication
.
J Natl Cancer Inst
2013
;
105
:
1151
6
.
36.
Farina-Sarasqueta
A
,
van
Lijnschoten G
,
Moerland
E
,
Creemers
GJ
,
Lemmens
VE
,
Rutten
HJ
, et al
The BRAF V600E mutation is an independent prognostic factor for survival in stage II and stage III colon cancer patients
.
Ann Oncol
2010
;
21
:
2396
403
.
37.
Ogino
S
,
Shima
K
,
Meyerhardt
JA
,
McCleary
NJ
,
Ng
K
,
Hollis
D
, et al
Predictive and prognostic roles of BRAF mutation in stage III colon cancer: results from intergroup trial CALGB 89803
.
Clin Cancer Res
2012
;
18
:
890
900
.
38.
Price
TJ
,
Hardingham
JE
,
Lee
CK
,
Weickhardt
A
,
Townsend
AR
,
Wrin
JW
, et al
Impact of KRAS and BRAF gene mutation status on outcomes from the phase III AGITG MAX trial of capecitabine alone or in combination with bevacizumab and mitomycin in advanced colorectal cancer
.
J Clin Oncol
2011
;
29
:
2675
82
.
39.
Dhomen
N
,
Marais
R
. 
New insight into BRAF mutations in cancer
.
Curr Opin Genet Dev
2007
;
17
:
31
9
.
40.
Tran
B
,
Kopetz
S
,
Tie
J
,
Gibbs
P
,
Jiang
ZQ
,
Lieu
CH
, et al
Impact of BRAF mutation and microsatellite instability on the pattern of metastatic spread and prognosis in metastatic colorectal cancer
.
Cancer
2011
;
117
:
4623
32
.
41.
Catalano
V
,
Loupakis
F
,
Graziano
F
,
Torresi
U
,
Bisonni
R
,
Mari
D
, et al
Mucinous histology predicts for poor response rate and overall survival of patients with colorectal cancer and treated with first-line oxaliplatin- and/or irinotecan-based chemotherapy
.
Br J Cancer
2009
;
100
:
881
7
.
42.
Franko
J
,
Shi
Q
,
Goldman
CD
,
Pockaj
BA
,
Nelson
GD
,
Goldberg
RM
, et al
Treatment of colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis with systemic chemotherapy: a pooled analysis of north central cancer treatment group phase III trials N9741 and N9841
.
J Clin Oncol
2012
;
30
:
263
7
.