FGFR2 Point Mutations in 466 Endometrioid Endometrial Tumors: Relationship with MSI, KRAS, PIK3CA, CTNNB1 Mutations and Clinicopathological Features

Sara A Byron, Michael Gartside, Matthew A Powell, Candice L Wellens, Feng Gao, David G Mutch, Paul J Goodfellow and Pamela M Pollock

PLOS ONE, 2012, vol. 7, issue 2, 1-9

Abstract: Mutations in multiple oncogenes including KRAS, CTNNB1, PIK3CA and FGFR2 have been identified in endometrial cancer. The aim of this study was to provide insight into the clinicopathological features associated with patterns of mutation in these genes, a necessary step in planning targeted therapies for endometrial cancer. 466 endometrioid endometrial tumors were tested for mutations in FGFR2, KRAS, CTNNB1, and PIK3CA. The relationships between mutation status, tumor microsatellite instability (MSI) and clinicopathological features including overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazard models. Mutations were identified in FGFR2 (48/466); KRAS (87/464); CTNNB1 (88/454) and PIK3CA (104/464). KRAS and FGFR2 mutations were significantly more common, and CTNNB1 mutations less common, in MSI positive tumors. KRAS and FGFR2 occurred in a near mutually exclusive pattern (p = 0.05) and, surprisingly, mutations in KRAS and CTNNB1 also occurred in a near mutually exclusive pattern (p = 0.0002). Multivariate analysis revealed that mutation in KRAS and FGFR2 showed a trend (p = 0.06) towards longer and shorter DFS, respectively. In the 386 patients with early stage disease (stage I and II), FGFR2 mutation was significantly associated with shorter DFS (HR = 3.24; 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.35–7.77; p = 0.008) and OS (HR = 2.00; 95% CI 1.09–3.65; p = 0.025) and KRAS was associated with longer DFS (HR = 0.23; 95% CI 0.05–0.97; p = 0.045). In conclusion, although KRAS and FGFR2 mutations share similar activation of the MAPK pathway, our data suggest very different roles in tumor biology. This has implications for the implementation of anti-FGFR or anti-MEK biologic therapies.

Date: 2012
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0030801 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 30801&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0030801

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030801

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().