Skip to main content
Download PDF

Oncologic relevance of genetic alterations in sporadic synchronous and solitary colorectal cancer: a retrospective multicenter study

BMC Gastroenterology volume 23, Article number: 297 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Oncologic impact of genetic alteration across synchronous colorectal cancer (CRC) still remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the oncologic relevance according to genetic alteration between synchronous and solitary CRC with performing systematic review.

Methods

Multicenter retrospective analysis was performed for CRC patients with curative resection. Genetic profiling was consisted of microsatellite instability (MSI) testing, RAS (K-ras, and N-ras), and BRAF (v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1) V600E mutation. Multivariate analyses were conducted using logistic regression for synchronicity, and Cox proportional hazard model with stage-adjusting for overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS).

Results

It was identified synchronous (n = 36) and solitary (n = 579) CRC with similar base line characteristics. RAS mutation was associated to synchronous CRC with no relations of MSI and BRAF. During median follow up of 77.8 month, Kaplan–meier curves showed significant differences according to MSI-high for OS, and in RAS, and BRAF mutation for DFS, respectively. In multivariable analyses, RAS and BRAF mutation were independent factors (RAS, HR = 1.808, 95% CI = 1.18–2.77, p = 0.007; BRAF, HR = 2.417, 95% CI = 1.32–4.41, p = 0.004). Old age was independent factor for OS (HR = 3.626, 95% CI = 1.09–12.00, p = 0.035).

Conclusion

This study showed that oncologic outcomes might differ according to mutation burden characterized by RAS, BRAF, and MSI between synchronous CRC and solitary CRC. In addition, our systematic review highlighted a lack of data and much heterogeneity in genetic characteristics and survival outcomes of synchronous CRC relative to that of solitary CRC.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Multiplicity in colorectal cancer (CRC) is defined as a synchronous cancer in which at least one additional colorectal tumor is detected simultaneously to the initially diagnosed primary CRC in a single individual. Although synchronous CRC accounts for a small proportion of cases, approximately 2%–10% of all CRCs [1, 2], it differs from solitary CRC in terms of the extent of curative resection required for the tumor location [3] and molecular genomic heterogeneity [4, 5] because tumor carcinogenesis is influenced by genetic, epigenetic, and environmental factors [6]. Those complexities can affect the management and prognosis of synchronous CRC.

Previous studies have compared the clinicopathologic features and prognosis between synchronous and solitary CRC [3, 7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. However, some studies included CRC patients with a metachronous tumor or stage IV cancer and others lacked data for synchronous CRC-related gene information or survival outcomes in large populations. In our prior literature reviews [15, 16], we identified heterogeneity in the oncologic outcomes in studies comparing both cancers [1, 6, 9, 11,12,13,14, 17, 18]. Study populations that include patients with Lynch syndrome or familial adenomatous polyposis might exhibit selection bias, as synchronous CRCs harboring multiple genes associated with hereditary tumors rather than sporadic tumors can show heterogeneous prognosis [6, 16, 19,20,21]. Synchronous CRCs are frequently characterized by microsatellite instability (MSI), which is caused by epigenetic inactivation of the MLH1 gene via promoter methylation, whereas Lynch syndrome is caused by germline mutations in the mismatch repair (MMR) genes [22]. Furthermore, the V600E mutation in BRAF (v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1) in MSI-high CRC with methylation of MLH1 promoters is associated with poor prognosis and decreased likelihood of Lynch syndrome [23]. Previous studies have established the prognostic roles of MSI status, BRAF mutations, and RAS mutations in solitary CRC with concordance for MSI-deficient status [23,24,25,26]. However, the oncologic impact of these genetic factors in synchronous CRC, relative to solitary CRC, remains unclear [27].

Therefore, the aims of this study were to compare the oncologic relevance of BRAF mutations, KRAS mutations, and MSI status between synchronous and solitary CRC. In addition, we performed a systematic review of prior studies that compared the genetic status and survival outcomes between synchronous and solitary CRC.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of CRC patients who underwent curative surgery at four tertiary hospitals (Hallym Sacred Heart Hospital, Dontan Sacred Heart Hospital, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, and Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital) between March 2014 and December 2020. Patients diagnosed with familial adenomatous polyposis, hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC), and patients with inflammatory bowel disease combined with a metachronous malignancy were excluded from this study. Patients diagnosed with clinical or pathological stage IV CRC and patients without genetic information regarding their MSI status, BRAF mutations, and RAS mutations were also excluded. The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board (a central IRB No. 2022–12-022). The review board waived the requirement for informed consent because this study involved retrospective analyses.

Synchronous CRC was defined as follows: each lesion must be diagnosed as malignant, separate entities and must not be metastases of another tumor; and the synchronous lesions must be diagnosed simultaneously or within 6 months of diagnosis of the first tumor. For synchronous cancer, the most pathologically advanced lesion was defined as the index tumor. The tumor location and pathological status were defined relative to the index tumor. Asymptomatic patients were diagnosed in healthcare screening. Surgical resection was classified into three categories. Single segmental resection was defined as radical resection. Multiple segmental resections were defined as two radical resections with two anastomoses. Extended resection included total colectomy, subtotal collection, or total proctocolectomy. The surgical procedure, use of adjuvant/neoadjuvant therapy, and postoperative surveillance were determined by the attending physician based on the pathologic stage and the general condition of the patient in accordance with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline [28].

After histologic examination, we performed real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis of BRAF codon 600 and MSI status, and peptide nucleic acid clamp of KRAS (mutation in codons 12 and 13 of exon 2, codon 61 of exon 3, and codon 146 of exon 4), and NRAS (mutation of exons 2, 3, and 4) [29,30,31,32]. RAS mutations were defined as mutations in KRAS or NRAS. MSI status was determined using the markers BAT25, BAT26, NR21, NR24, and NR27 and classified as MSI-high (two or more unstable markers) or microsatellite stable (MSS; one or no unstable marker).

Categorical variables were compared using Pearson’s χ2 test, and continuous variables were compared using Student’s t test. Multivariable binomial logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate associations between the genetic factors and CRC synchronicity. The Kaplan–Meier method with the log-rank test was used to assess disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients stratified by RAS mutations, BRAS mutations, and MSI status. The proportional hazard ratio model with adjustment for pathological stage was used for multivariable analyses of DFS and OS. In all analyses, p-values of < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

We also performed systematic searches of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline, and Web of Science to identify all of the available studies on synchronous CRC that had been published and indexed up to October 31, 2022. We searched for comparative studies of solitary and synchronous or multiple CRC and excluded studies of metachronous CRC and noncomparative studies. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and Emtree terms were used in PubMed and EMBASE, respectively, together with separate words or word combinations to search the title or abstract.

Results

Of 615 patients available in the medical records, 36 patients (5.9%) were diagnosed for with synchronous CRC. The clinical characteristics were similar between the solitary CRC and synchronous CRC patients (Table 1). Multiple segmental resection or extended resection was performed in a greater proportion of synchronous CRC patients than solitary CRC patients (p < 0.001). Lymph node metastasis was more common (p = 0.037), and the number of harvested and retrieved lymph nodes was significantly greater (p = 0.002) in synchronous CRC patients (Table 2). Regarding genetic mutations, RAS mutations were more frequent in solitary CRC patients than in synchronous CRC patients (51.6% vs. 16.7, p < 0.001; Table 3). A multivariable analysis showed that the presence of RAS mutations was significantly associated with reduced risk of synchronous CRC, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.184 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07–0.45, p = 0.001). In addition, when we assessed genetic mutations stratified by tumor location, RAS mutations were more frequently detected in solitary CRC for both right-sided (56.6% vs. 6.3%, p < 0.001) and left-sided (52.2% vs. 21.4%, p = 0.026) tumors, whereas no differences were found for MSI status or BRAF mutations. The multivariable analyses showed that synchronous CRCs were less frequently associated with RAS mutations for both right-sided (OR = 0.05, 95% CI 0.01–0.39, p = 0.004) and left-sided (OR = 0.025, 95% CI 0.07–0.92, p = 0.038) tumors. MSI status and BRAF mutations were not associated with tumor location (Table 4).

Table 1 Clinical characteristics of the patients between solitary and synchronous CRC patients
Full size table
Table 2 Pathologic features of the patients between solitary and synchronous CRC patients
Full size table
Table 3 Distribution of gene mutation and risk for synchronicity of colorectal cancer
Full size table
Table 4 Genetic profiling for solitary and synchronous colorectal cancer according to tumor location
Full size table

The median follow-up duration was 22.2 (range 1.0–89.1) months in patients with solitary CRC and 27.9 (range 10.1–73.3) months in patients with synchronous CRC. The DFS and OS rates were similar between solitary and synchronous CRC patients (DFS: 94.4% vs 82.6%, p = 0.041; OS: 94.3% vs 97.2%, p = 0.333). The Kaplan–Meier curves of DFS stratified by mutation status and tumor type revealed that DFS was worst for solitary CRC patients with RAS mutations (p = 0.020; Fig. 1a) or BRAF mutations (p = 0.023; Fig. 2a). However, there were no significant differences in OS according to the RAS (p = 0.651; Fig. 1b) or BRAF (p = 0.183; Fig. 2b) mutation status. Solitary CRC patients with MSI-high had the worst OS (p = 0.038; Fig. 3b), but not in DFS (p = 0.221; Fig. 3a). In the univariate analyses, pathologic stage, presence of RAS mutations, and presence of BRAF mutations were risk factors for DFS, whereas old age and MIS-high status were risk factors for OS. In the stage-adjusted multivariable analyses, RAS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.808, 95% CI 1.18–2.77, p = 0.007) and BRAF (HR 2.417, 95% CI 1.32–4.41, p = 0.004) mutations were independent risk factors for DFS, and old age was the only independent risk factor for OS (HR 3.626, 95% CI = 1.09–12.00, p = 0.035; Table 5).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The Kaplan–Meier curves stratified by RAS mutation status and tumor type. (a) disease-free survival and (b) overall survival

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

The Kaplan–Meier curves stratified by BRAF mutation status and tumor type. (a) disease-free survival and (b) overall survival

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

The Kaplan–Meier curves stratified by microsatellite instability status and tumor type. (a) disease-free survival and (b) overall survival

Full size image
Table 5 Univariate and multivariate analyses for disease-free survival and overall survival
Full size table

Discussion

This study showed that DFS might be influenced by the mutation burden, independent to clinical factors, or tumor burden in synchronous and solitary CRC. The genetic profiles revealed that RAS and BRAF mutations were associated with more pronounced effects than MSI on DFS. In this study, old age was the only risk factor for OS, regardless of the mutation profile and pathologic stage, and OS was not associated with MSI status in synchronous CRC. By contrast, a previous study suggested that, due to the concordance between MSI status and synchronicity, older individuals are more likely to develop multiple cancers through the MSI pathway, secondary to a widespread CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) and silencing of the MMR gene MLH1 by genetic and or environmental factors [6, 33]. However, the systematic review of studies comparing synchronous and solitary CRC revealed a lack of published data, as well as much heterogeneity in genetic and survival information, with unclear associations of clinical factors and genetic profiles with the prognosis of synchronous CRC (Table 6). Thus, we consider that the association between genetic mutations and the prognosis of synchronous CRC patients remains unclear and is open to debate. Undetermined association might implicate a complex hypothetical predisposition of development to synchronous CRC. Field effect as cancerization concept of molecular alterations induced by global DNA methylation such as LINE-1 methylation, MGMT promoter methylation or other CpG island methylation, has been proposed to explain the development of multiple primary malignancies in the same organ [34]. The epigenetic field effect can drive concordant or discordant genetic patterns in synchronous cancer pairs, which also exhibit different phenotypes depending on the MSI status, as a confounding effect that can lead to a worse prognosis than the corresponding solitary tumor [33]. Therefore, we suggest that many contributing factors to the controversy over the prognosis for synchronous CRC patients should be addressed in a controlled dataset of clinical, pathological, genetic, and survival information, accompanied by intensive surveillance.

Table 6 A systematic review of synchronous CRC compared with solitary CRC
Full size table

As a commonly identified genotype in multiple CRCs, MSI arising from promoter methylation of the biallelic hMLH1 gene differs to that arising from the HNPCC pathway [37]. In sporadic CRC, the risk of synchronicity was higher (2.14-fold) in patients with MSI than in patients with MSS, but there were no relationships between clinical features and the MSI genotype [38]. Global hypermethylation of colorectal epithelium, as independent events, could increase the frequency of multiple CRCs in older age instead of developing from a predisposition to cancer in patients with sporadic MSI CRC [20]. In terms of the oncologic outcomes, the association between MSI status and greater tumor burden in synchronous CRC suggests that synchronicity and BRAF mutations are risk factors for OS in patients with MSS CRC, but the disease-specific survival of MSI CRC patients was unaffected by synchronicity in a stage-adjusted analysis [33]. By contrast, a prospective cohort study found that the overall mortality was greater in synchronous CRC patients than in solitary CRC patients, and the authors reported that multiple colon cancers arose through the serrated pathway, which is characterized by high frequencies of BRAF mutations, CIMP-high, and MSI-high [6]. Another study reported contradictory results regarding the rarity of BRAF c.1799T4A mutation in synchronous advanced malignancies as a stage-independent predictor of poor prognosis in association with MSS, which is incompatible with the various epigenetic defects of synchronous CRCs [33].

Poor oncologic outcomes of synchronous CRC, in terms of the OS, DFS, and cancer-specific survival (CSS), were reported in a previous study using a matched-pairs analysis [36] (Table 6). Following disease relapse, it is important to select the most appropriate molecular-targeted drug by performing biomarker analysis [12]. However, the greater and heterogenous mutation burden of paired tumors makes it difficult to identify the most appropriate target, resulting in poor prognosis of patients with relapsed synchronous CRC. Adjuvant therapeutic strategies have not yet been established for relapsed synchronous CRC, and we are still dependent on the clinical guidelines for solitary CRC. For synchronous CRCs within the same patient, it has been reported that paired lesions display heterogeneity in canonical genes, including APC, KRAS, TP53, and PIK3CA, together with a high frequency of mutations, compared with solitary CRC. Therefore, when drugs such as vemurafenib and dabrafenib, which target the BRAF mutation pV600E, are used to treat one lesion, the other lesion might be unresponsive due to the heterogeneous mutation profile of paired synchronous CRCs [39]. Those molecular profiles develop independently, and lesions present with different gene copy numbers resulting in unique gene signatures in each lesion, combined with clonal mutations at different loci and accumulated timing [4]. When treating patients with BRAF-mutated synchronous CRC, in particular, the MSI status and genetic heterogenicity of the paired tumors should be considered rather than the tumor burden or clinical stage. According to a systematic review of patients with BRAF-mutated CRC, MSS was associated with worse prognosis than MSI, but the clinical stratification by MSI testing and heterogeneity of genetic mutations have not been established for patients with BRAF-mutated synchronous CRC [40]. Physician should also be aware that the poor prognosis of synchronous cancers might be independent of genetic factors such as BRAF mutations, MSI-high, and CIMP-high due to unidentified molecular events caused by the genetic or environmental background [6]. Several markers, such as the transcriptional effector RPL22, a candidate gene involved in nodal/transforming growth factor-β and the ribosomal protein–murine double minute 2 (MDM2)–p53 signaling pathway [4], as well as different methylation rates of CACNA1G, NEUROG1, and CDKN2A (p16) [1], might confound analyses of the prognosis of synchronous CRC.

Some studies have also demonstrated similar or better prognosis of synchronous CRC patients compared with solitary CRC patients, regardless of CIMP status and KRAS or BRAF mutations [1]. This prognostic pattern was observed in several studies that lacked genetic information [8, 9, 11, 13] (Table 6). Although there was no clear explanation for this finding, intensive perioperative colonoscopy detected associated adenomas that are more prone to progress into multiple colorectal cancers in old patients and slow growing tumors with an uncharacterized predisposition [11, 13, 35]. In addition, advanced surgical procedures could achieve comparable long-term outcomes for synchronous CRC patients, regardless of whether they underwent resection of more than two regions or extensive resection of a single region [3].

This study has some limitations, including a small sample size due to the exclusion of synchronous CRC patients without genetic information, which reduced the statistical power. The absence of data regarding CIMP status and germline mutation of MMR genes might also introduce bias in terms of assessing whether the synchronous CRCs were sporadic or Lynch-associated tumors. Furthermore, there were no data for palliative therapy for synchronous CRC patients with distant recurrence. Genetic information for BRAF mutation in included patients was not available in solitary CRC patients (n = 169, 29.1%), but all genetic information was available in synchronous CRC patients.

In conclusion, this study showed that the oncologic outcomes might differ according to the mutation burden characterized by RAS, BRAF, and MSI between synchronous CRC and solitary CRC. Furthermore, RAS and BRAF mutations were associated with worse DFS compared with MSI status, independently of clinical factors, stage, and tumor burden. Our systematic review highlighted a lack of data and much heterogeneity in the genetic characteristics and survival outcomes of synchronous CRC relative to that of solitary CRC. These factors make it difficult to predict the prognosis of synchronous CRC and complicate the decision-making process when selecting the most appropriate target drug following relapse of synchronous CRC.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

CRC:

Colorectal cancer

MSI:

Microsatellite instability

MMR:

Mismatch repair

BRAF:

V-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1

HNPCC:

Hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer

DFS:

Disease-free survival

OS:

Overall survival

References

  1. Bae JM, Cho NY, Kim TY, Kang GH. Clinicopathologic and molecular characteristics of synchronous colorectal cancers: heterogeneity of clinical outcome depending on microsatellite instability status of individual tumors. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55(2):181–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bae JM, Cho N-Y, Kim T-Y, Kang GH. Clinicopathologic and Molecular Characteristics of Synchronous Colorectal Cancers: Heterogeneity of Clinical Outcome Depending on Microsatellite Instability Status of Individual Tumors. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 2012;55(2):181–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee BC, Yu CS, Kim J, Lee JL, Kim CW, Yoon YS, et al. Clinicopathological features and surgical options for synchronous colorectal cancer. Medicine. 2017;96(9): e6224.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Wang X, Fang H, Cheng Y, Li L, Sun X, Fu T, et al. The molecular landscape of synchronous colorectal cancer reveals genetic heterogeneity. Carcinogenesis. 2018;39(5):708–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Hu H, Zhang Q, Huang R, Gao Z, Yuan Z, Tang Q, et al. Genomic Analysis Reveals Heterogeneity Between Lesions in Synchronous Primary Right-Sided and Left-Sided Colon Cancer. Front Mol Biosci. 2021;8: 689466.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Nosho K, Kure S, Irahara N, Shima K, Baba Y, Spiegelman D, et al. A prospective cohort study shows unique epigenetic, genetic, and prognostic features of synchronous colorectal cancers. Gastroenterology. 2009;137(5):1609-20 e1-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dykes SL, Qui H, Rothenberger DA, Garcia-Aguilar J. Evidence of a preferred molecular pathway in patients with synchronous colorectal cancer. Cancer. 2003;98(1):48–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lam AK, Carmichael R, Gertraud Buettner P, Gopalan V, Ho YH, Siu S. Clinicopathological significance of synchronous carcinoma in colorectal cancer. Am J Surg. 2011;202(1):39–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mulder SA, Kranse R, Damhuis RA, de Wilt JH, Ouwendijk RJ, Kuipers EJ, et al. Prevalence and prognosis of synchronous colorectal cancer: a Dutch population-based study. Cancer Epidemiol. 2011;35(5):442–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. van Leersum NJ, Aalbers AG, Snijders HS, Henneman D, Wouters MW, Tollenaar RA, et al. Synchronous colorectal carcinoma: a risk factor in colorectal cancer surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(4):460–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kato T, Alonso S, Muto Y, Noda H, Miyakura Y, Suzuki K, et al. Clinical characteristics of synchronous colorectal cancers in Japan. World J Surg Oncol. 2016;14(1):272.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Arakawa K, Hata K, Nozawa H, Kawai K, Tanaka T, Nishikawa T, et al. Prognostic Significance and Clinicopathological Features of Synchronous Colorectal Cancer. Anticancer Res. 2018;38(10):5889–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Latournerie M, Jooste V, Cottet V, Lepage C, Faivre J, Bouvier AM. Epidemiology and prognosis of synchronous colorectal cancers. Br J Surg. 2008;95(12):1528–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Derwinger K, Gustavsson B. A study of aspects on gender and prognosis in synchronous colorectal cancer. Clin Med Insights Oncol. 2011;5:259–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Yang J, Peng JY, Chen W. Synchronous colorectal cancers: a review of clinical features, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis. Dig Surg. 2011;28(5–6):379–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lam AK, Chan SS, Leung M. Synchronous colorectal cancer: clinical, pathological and molecular implications. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(22):6815–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Hu H, Chang DT, Nikiforova MN, Kuan SF, Pai RK. Clinicopathologic features of synchronous colorectal carcinoma: A distinct subset arising from multiple sessile serrated adenomas and associated with high levels of microsatellite instability and favorable prognosis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37(11):1660–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Warps AK, Detering R, Dekker JWT, Tollenaar R, Tanis PJ, Dutch CA. A 10-Year Evaluation of Short-Term Outcomes After Synchronous Colorectal Cancer Surgery: a Dutch Population-Based Study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2021;25(10):2637–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Konishi K, Shen L, Jelinek J, Watanabe Y, Ahmed S, Kaneko K, et al. Concordant DNA methylation in synchronous colorectal carcinomas. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2009;2(9):814–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Norrie MW, Hawkins NJ, Todd AV, Meagher AP, O’Connor TW, Ward RL. The role of hMLH1 methylation in the development of synchronous sporadic colorectal carcinomas. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45(5):674–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Giannini R, Lupi C, Loupakis F, Servadio A, Cremolini C, Sensi E, et al. KRAS and BRAF genotyping of synchronous colorectal carcinomas. Oncol Lett. 2014;7(5):1532–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Li K, Luo H, Huang L, Luo H, Zhu X. Microsatellite instability: a review of what the oncologist should know. Cancer Cell Int. 2020;20:16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 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(15):1151–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Inamura K. Colorectal Cancers: An Update on Their Molecular Pathology. Cancers. 2018;10:26.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Huang CJ, Huang SH, Chien CC, Lee HH, Yang SH, Chang CC, et al. Impact of microsatellite status on chemotherapy for colorectal cancer patients with KRAS or BRAF mutation. Oncol Lett. 2016;12(6):4427–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. de Cuba EM, Snaebjornsson P, Heideman DA, van Grieken NC, Bosch LJ, Fijneman RJ, et al. Prognostic value of BRAF and KRAS mutation status in stage II and III microsatellite instable colon cancers. Int J Cancer. 2016;138(5):1139–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. de Macedo MP, de Melo FM, Ribeiro Jda S, de Mello CA, de Souza Begnami MD, Soares FA, et al. RAS mutations vary between lesions in synchronous primary colorectal cancer: testing only one lesion is not sufficient to guide anti-EGFR treatment decisions. Oncoscience. 2015;2(2):125–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Benson AB, Venook AP, Al-Hawary MM, Arain MA, Chen YJ, Ciombor KK, et al. Colon Cancer, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021;19(3):329–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Vilar E, Gruber SB. Microsatellite instability in colorectal cancer—the stable evidence. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010;7(3):153–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Hecht JR, Mitchell E, Chidiac T, Scroggin C, Hagenstad C, Spigel D, et al. A Randomized Phase IIIB Trial of Chemotherapy, Bevacizumab, and Panitumumab Compared With Chemotherapy and Bevacizumab Alone for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;27(5):672–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Douillard J-Y, Oliner KS, Siena S, Tabernero J, Burkes R, Barugel M, et al. Panitumumab–FOLFOX4 Treatment and RAS Mutations in Colorectal Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(11):1023–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Moroni M, Veronese S, Benvenuti S, Marrapese G, Sartore-Bianchi A, Di Nicolantonio F, et al. Gene copy number for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and clinical response to antiEGFR treatment in colorectal cancer: a cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6(5):279–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Malesci A, Basso G, Bianchi P, Fini L, Grizzi F, Celesti G, et al. Molecular heterogeneity and prognostic implications of synchronous advanced colorectal neoplasia. Br J Cancer. 2014;110(5):1228–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Giovannucci E, Ogino S. DNA methylation, field effects, and colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(18):1317–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Fukatsu H, Kato J, Nasu JI, Kawamoto H, Okada H, Yamamoto H, et al. Clinical characteristics of synchronous colorectal cancer are different according to tumour location. Dig Liver Dis. 2007;39(1):40–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. He W, Zheng C, Wang Y, Dan J, Zhu M, Wei M, et al. Prognosis of synchronous colorectal carcinoma compared to solitary colorectal carcinoma: a matched pair analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;31(12):1489–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Lawes DA, Pearson T, Sengupta S, Boulos PB. The role of MLH1, MSH2 and MSH6 in the development of multiple colorectal cancers. Br J Cancer. 2005;93(4):472–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Kong P, Wu R, Lan Y, He W, Yang C, Yin C, et al. Association between Mismatch-repair Genetic variation and the Risk of Multiple Primary Cancers: A Meta-Analysis. J Cancer. 2017;8(16):3296–308.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Pakneshan S, Salajegheh A, Smith RA, Lam AK. Clinicopathological relevance of BRAF mutations in human cancer. Pathology. 2013;45(4):346–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Wu M, Kim YS, Ryu HS, Choi SC, Kim KY, Park WC, et al. MSI status is associated with distinct clinicopathological features in BRAF mutation colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pathol Res Pract. 2020;216(1): 152791.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thanks to M. Kim who conducted a systematic review in this study.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Hallym Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Anyang Si, Republic of Korea

    Il Tae Son, Minsung Kim & Bo Young Oh

  2. Department of Surgery, Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Min Jeong Kim & Jun Ho Park

  3. Department of Surgery, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Sang Nam Yoon & Byung Chun Kim

  4. Department of Surgery, Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, 40, Sukwoo-Dong, Hwaseong-Si, Gyeonggi-Do, Republic of Korea

    Jong Wan Kim

Authors
  1. Il Tae Son
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Minsung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bo Young Oh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Min Jeong Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sang Nam Yoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jun Ho Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Byung Chun Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jong Wan Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

IT. Son, M. Kim, B-Y. Oh, M.J. Kim, S.N. Yoon, J.H. Park, B.C. Kim, J.W. Kim made substantial contributions to the conception or design, the acquisition, collection of data, analysis, interpretation of data; systematic review in the work. IT. Son, M. Kim, and J.W. Kim drafted the work or revised manuscript critically. IT. Son, M. Kim, B-Y. Oh, M.J. Kim, S.N. Yoon, J.H. Park, B.C. Kim., J.W. Kim approved the version to be published. IT. Son, M. Kim, B-Y. Oh, M.J. Kim, S.N. Yoon, J.H. Park, B.C. Kim, and J.W. Kim agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jong Wan Kim.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol was approved by Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital Institutional Review Board / Ethics Committee (a central IRB No. 2022–12-022). Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital Institutional Review Board / Ethics Committee (a central IRB No. 2022–12-022), waived the need for informed consent to participate, in consideration of minimal risk research to human subjects. Research involving human participants, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Son, I.T., Kim, M., Oh, B.Y. et al. Oncologic relevance of genetic alterations in sporadic synchronous and solitary colorectal cancer: a retrospective multicenter study. BMC Gastroenterol 23, 297 (2023). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12876-023-02937-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12876-023-02937-7

Keywords

BMC Gastroenterology

ISSN: 1471-230X

Contact us