ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023
Genomic landscape of clinically advanced
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- How to find a needle in a haystack: a systematic review on targeting KRAS wild-type pancreatic cancer.Future oncology (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Targeted Therapy in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Current Advances and Challenges.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
- Exploratory analysis of gene aberrations and chemotherapy response: findings from a real-world database in Japan.British journal of cancer · 2026Observational
- Case Report: Long-term remission of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma after surgery and high-dose nicotinamide supplementation.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Clinicopathological and molecular characterization of KRAS wild-type pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas reveals precursor lesions with oncogenic mutations and fusions in RAS pathway genes.The Journal of pathology · 2025Article
- Phase Ia/Ib Study of Afatinib with Capecitabine in Patients with Refractory Solid Tumors and Pancreaticobiliary Cancers.Cancers · 2025Article
- Article
- Characteristics ofTherapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2025Article
- The Clinical Implications of KRAS Mutations and Variant Allele Frequencies in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: KRAS mutation is a common occurrence in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma (PDA) and is a driver mutation for disease development and progression. KRAS wild-type PDA may constitute a distinct molecular and clinical subtype. We used the Foundation one data to analyze the difference in Genomic Alterations (GAs) that occur in KRAS mutated and wild-type PDA. Methods: Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) data, tumor mutational burden (TMB), microsatellite instability (MSI) and PD-L1 by Immunohistochemistry (IHC) were analyzed. Results and discussion: Our cohort had 9444 cases of advanced PDA. 8723 (92.37%) patients had KRAS mutation. 721 (7.63%) patients were KRAS wild-type. Among potentially targetable mutations, GAs more common in KRAS wild-type included ERBB2 (mutated vs wild-type: 1.7% vs 6.8%, p <0.0001), BRAF (mutated vs wild-type: 0.5% vs 17.9%, p <0.0001), PIK3CA (mutated vs wild-type: 2.3% vs 6.5%, p <0.001), FGFR2 (mutated vs wild-type: 0.1% vs 4.4%, p <0.0001), ATM (mutated vs wild-type: 3.6% vs 6.8%, p <0.0001). On analyzing untargetable GAs, the KRAS mutated group had a significantly higher percentage of TP53 (mutated vs wild-type: 80.2% vs 47.6%, p <0.0001), CDKN2A (mutated vs wild-type: 56.2% vs 34.4%, p <0.0001), CDKN2B (mutated vs wild-type: 28.9% vs 23%, p =0.007), SMAD4 (mutated vs wild-type: 26.8% vs 15.7%, p <0.0001) and MTAP (mutated vs wild-type: 21.7% vs 18%, p =0.02). ARID1A (mutated vs wild-type: 7.7% vs 13.6%, p <0.0001 and RB1(mutated vs wild-type: 2% vs 4%, p =0.01) were more prevalent in the wild-type subgroup. Mean TMB was higher in the KRAS wild-type subgroup (mutated vs wild-type: 2.3 vs 3.6, p <0.0001). High TMB, defined as TMB > 10 mut/mB (mutated vs wild-type: 1% vs 6.3%, p <0.0001) and very-high TMB, defined as TMB >20 mut/mB (mutated vs wild-type: 0.5% vs 2.4%, p <0.0001) favored the wild-type. PD-L1 high expression was similar between the 2 groups (mutated vs wild-type: 5.7% vs 6%,). GA associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs) response including PBRM1 (mutated vs wild-type: 0.7% vs 3.2%, p <0.0001) and MDM2 (mutated vs wild-type: 1.3% vs 4.4%, p <0.0001) were more likely to be seen in KRAS wild-type PDA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.