Purpose Outcomes for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have been improved by the identification of biomarkers predictive and prognostic of clinical outcome. The present retrospective analysis was undertaken to assess the utility of key biomarkers and clinical parameters in predicting outcomes in Spanish patients with mCRC. Methods We retrospectively analyzed tumor samples from a series of patients aged > 18 years with mCRC who were treated at the Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón Spain. Real-time polymerase chain reaction was used to detect KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations. The key outcome of interest was overall survival (OS). Survival curves were estimated using the KaplanMeier method and stratified by the variables of greatest clinical interest. Differences were tested using the log-rank test. Results Median OS in the overall population was 24.4 months. Triple WT patients (WT KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF) and quadruple WT patients (WT KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA) had significantly better OS than those who did not have triple or quadruple WT tumors. OS was significantly better in patients with left- vs. right-sided tumors, patients with resected primary tumors and metastases vs. those without resection, and patients with isolated hepatic and isolated pulmonary metastases. Conclusions This retrospective, observational study has confirmed the prognostic value of the location and resection status of the primary tumor and metastases in Spanish patients with mCRC. Triple WT status, in particular, was prognostic in this patient population, with PIK3CA adding to the prognostic value in the quadruple WT population (AU)
Humans , Genetic Markers , Colorectal Neoplasms/genetics , Colorectal Neoplasms/pathology , Neoplasm Metastasis/genetics , Neoplasm Metastasis/pathology , Retrospective Studies , Time Factors , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Biomarkers, Tumor , Prognosis
PURPOSE: Outcomes for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have been improved by the identification of biomarkers predictive and prognostic of clinical outcome. The present retrospective analysis was undertaken to assess the utility of key biomarkers and clinical parameters in predicting outcomes in Spanish patients with mCRC. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed tumor samples from a series of patients aged > 18 years with mCRC who were treated at the Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón Spain. Real-time polymerase chain reaction was used to detect KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations. The key outcome of interest was overall survival (OS). Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and stratified by the variables of greatest clinical interest. Differences were tested using the log-rank test. RESULTS: Median OS in the overall population was 24.4 months. Triple WT patients (WT KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF) and quadruple WT patients (WT KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA) had significantly better OS than those who did not have triple or quadruple WT tumors. OS was significantly better in patients with left- vs. right-sided tumors, patients with resected primary tumors and metastases vs. those without resection, and patients with isolated hepatic and isolated pulmonary metastases. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective, observational study has confirmed the prognostic value of the location and resection status of the primary tumor and metastases in Spanish patients with mCRC. Triple WT status, in particular, was prognostic in this patient population, with PIK3CA adding to the prognostic value in the quadruple WT population.
Class I Phosphatidylinositol 3-Kinases/genetics , Colorectal Neoplasms/genetics , GTP Phosphohydrolases/genetics , Genes, ras , Membrane Proteins/genetics , Mutation/genetics , Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf/genetics , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Biomarkers, Tumor/genetics , Colorectal Neoplasms/mortality , Colorectal Neoplasms/pathology , Colorectal Neoplasms/surgery , Female , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Male , Middle Aged , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , Spain , Time Factors
The coming into force of Directive 2001/20/EC represented a step forward in harmonising clinical trial regulation in European countries, guaranteeing a uniform protection of subjects participating in clinical research across Europe. However, it led to a disproportionate increase in the bureaucratization, and thus, it became evident that procedures needed to be simplified without detriment to patients safety. Thus, Regulation 536/2014, that repealed Directive 2001/20/EC, with the aim of decreasing the growing bureaucratization and stimulating clinical research in Europe, established simplified procedures, such as regulating a common procedure for authorising trials in Europe, the institution of strict assessment timelines, or the definition of new concepts, such as «low-intervention clinical trial». The legal form of a Regulation allowed the norm to be directly applied to Member States without the need for transposition. By means of the new Royal Decree, the national legislation is adapted to make the application of the regulation feasible and it allows the development of the aspects that the Regulation leaves to national legislation. Both documents seek to stimulate clinical research with medicinal products to foster knowledge, facilitate transparency, and reinforce subjects safety. This will surely be the case, but with this revision, we will look at the novelties and key aspects that are most relevant to investigators and we will analyse the consequences for all parties involved in clinical research (AU)
No disponible
Humans , Male , Female , Clinical Trials as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence , Patient Freedom of Choice Laws/standards , Legal Intervention , Controlled Before-After Studies/legislation & jurisprudence , Compensation and Redress/legislation & jurisprudence , 51725/legislation & jurisprudence , Biomedical Research/legislation & jurisprudence , Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committees/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Care Coordination and Monitoring , Helsinki Declaration , European Union/organization & administration
The coming into force of Directive 2001/20/EC represented a step forward in harmonising clinical trial regulation in European countries, guaranteeing a uniform protection of subjects participating in clinical research across Europe. However, it led to a disproportionate increase in the bureaucratization, and thus, it became evident that procedures needed to be simplified without detriment to patient's safety. Thus, Regulation 536/2014, that repealed Directive 2001/20/EC, with the aim of decreasing the growing bureaucratization and stimulating clinical research in Europe, established simplified procedures, such as regulating a common procedure for authorising trials in Europe, the institution of strict assessment timelines, or the definition of new concepts, such as "low-intervention clinical trial". The legal form of a Regulation allowed the norm to be directly applied to Member States without the need for transposition. By means of the new Royal Decree, the national legislation is adapted to make the application of the regulation feasible and it allows the development of the aspects that the Regulation leaves to national legislation. Both documents seek to stimulate clinical research with medicinal products to foster knowledge, facilitate transparency, and reinforce subjects' safety. This will surely be the case, but with this revision, we will look at the novelties and key aspects that are most relevant to investigators and we will analyse the consequences for all parties involved in clinical research.
Clinical Trials as Topic/legislation & jurisprudence , Government Regulation , Humans , Spain
