Table 5.
Multivariate analysis of RAS mutations’ evolution prognostic power.
| Co-variate | Dicothomization | Median survivals | No. ofevents/patients | P at univariate | HR | 95% CI | P at multivariate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | <65 y vs ≥65 y | 15.3 vs 18.3 | 12/47 vs 13/57 | 0.90 | 0.69 | 0.24–1.96 | 0.49 |
| Gender | M vs F | 15.3 vs 17.3 | 13/51 vs 12/53 | 0.92 | 1.05 | 0.37–2.97 | 0.91 |
| Side | L vs R | 17.5 vs 16.0 | 21/50 vs 29/64 | 0.63 | 1.57 | 0.48–5.12 | 0.44 |
| Metastatic involvment | 1 site vs >1 | 30.6 vs 11.0 | 33/70 vs 17/44 | 0.0006 | 4.16 | 1.25–13.7 | 0.001 |
| Response to firs-line CT | DC vs no DC | 28.3 vs 9.6 | 22/71 vs 28/43 | 0.002 | 2.11 | 1.78–4.26 | 0.03 |
| KRAS evolution | Mut in PT → Mut in MT vs Mut in PT → WT in MT |
9.6 vs NR | 20/53 vs 4/10 | <0.0001 | 0.22 | 0.08–0.61 | 0.0001 |
| WT in PT → WT in MT vs WT in PT → Mut in MT |
27.5 vs 12.1 | 15/27 vs 11/24 | 0.0001 | 2.70 | 1.11–6.56 | 0.002 |
CI, Confidence Interval; DC, Disease Control; F, Female; HR, Hazard Ratio; L, Left; M, Male; MT, Metastatic Tumors; PT, Primary Tumors; mut, KRAS mutated; NR, Not Reached; R, Right; WT, Wild-Type.