Patients with Colorectal Cancer and BRAFV600E-Mutation in Argentina: A Real-World Study: The EMOGI-CRC01 Study
Rattachement africain : ar, uy. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background/Objectives: BRAF-mutation is a poor prognostic factor in colorectal cancer (CRC). There is a need for real-world data in low-middle-income countries regarding clinical characteristics, outcomes, and treatment strategies. This study aims to describe progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the first-line setting, and sequences of treatment regimens. Methods: We retrospective analyze patients from ten oncology centers in Argentina, diagnosed with BRAFV600E-mutated advanced CRC between January 2014 and July 2023. Results: A total of 161 patients with metastatic CRC and BRAFV600E-mutation. The median age was 58.5 (IQR 47-69) and 21.7% were MMR-deficient (dMMR). 93.8% of the patients received first-line treatment. With a median follow-up of 23 months (95% CI 16.5 - 33.4 months), the median OS was 20.6 months (95% CI 18.4 - 29 months) and PFS 9 months (95% CI 7.4 - 10.5 months). The most common regimen was doublet chemotherapy plus anti-VEGF in 49%. 26% received BRAF inhibitors in second line setting. Conclusions: This study represents, to the best of our knowledge, the largest published real-world cohort of BRAFV600E-mutated CRC in Latin America. The heterogeneity in treatments reflect the existence of barriers to access high-cost drugs in our country. Cooperative efforts are needed to understand the particular characteristics of this subgroup of patients.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Patients with Colorectal Cancer and BRAFV600E-Mutation in Argentina: A Real-World Study: The EMOGI-CRC01 Study
- Date Crossref
- 22/01/2025
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- posted-content
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.