Table 4.

RAS mutation and surgical outcomes in patients undergoing resection of colorectal liver metastases

Reference	Year	Gene analyzed	No. of patients	Frequency	Findings
Surgical margin
Brudvik et al. [50]	2016	RAS	633	229 (36%)	RAS mutation is associated with positive and closer surgical margin.
Margonis et al. [49]	2016	KRAS	411	153 (37%)	OS in RAS mutant patients was similar between R0 and R1 resections.
Ablation margin
Odisio et al. [71]	2017	RAS	92	36 (39%)	LTPFS after ablation was worse in RAS mutant patients.
Calandri et al. [72]	2018	RAS	136	54 (40%)	RAS and margin > 10 mm are predictors for LTPFS.
Jian et al.[51]	2019	KRAS	76	38 (50%)	KRAS and margin are predictors for LTPFS
Repeat hepatectomy
Denbo et al.[73]	2017	RAS	98	34 (35%)	RAS mutation was associated with worse OS and RFS after repeat hepatectomy
Two-stage hepatectomy
Passot et al. [58]	2016	RAS	93	40 (43%)	RAS mutation was associated with worse OS and RFS in patients undergoing two-stage hepatectomy.
Repeat surgery for recurrence after two-stage hepatectomy
Lillemoe et al. [61]	2018	RAS	83	36 (46%)	RAS mutation was associated with worse OS in patients undergoing resection after two-stage hepatectomy.
Synchronous liver and lung metastases
Mise et al. [64]	2015	KRAS	98	44 (45%)	KRAS mutation was associated with worse OS in patients undergoing CLM resection without resection of synchronous lung metastases.

Abbreviations: OS, overall survival; LTPFS, local tumor progression-free survival; RFS, recurrence-free survival; CLM, colorectal liver metastases.