Coexistence of KRAS mutation with mutant but not wild-type EGFR predicts response to tyrosine-kinase inhibitors in human lung cancer.
Coexistence of KRAS mutation with mutant but not wild-type EGFR predicts response to tyrosine-kinase inhibitors in human lung cancer.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1038/bjc.2014.401
复制
发表时间：
2014-11-25
影响因子：
8.8
通讯作者：
Dutt, A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Choughule, A.;Sharma, R.;Trivedi, V.;Thavamani, A.;Noronha, V.;Joshi, A.;Desai, S.;Chandrani, P.;Sundaram, P.;Utture, S.;Jambhekar, N.;Gupta, S.;Aich, J.;Prabhash, K.;Dutt, A.
我们要感谢 Lynch 和 Boyle 博士（2014 年）对我们的荟萃分析“久坐行为与结肠癌和直肠癌的关联：观察性研究的荟萃分析”（Cong 等人，2014 年）提出的宝贵意见和建议。这项荟萃分析为有关久坐行为与结肠癌和直肠癌风险之间关系的文献做出了及时而新颖的贡献。尽管可能存在一些缺陷，但它们并没有对我们的结果产生实质性影响。现在，我们对林奇和博伊尔提到的主要意见进行答复。事实上，久坐行为与职业久坐和缺乏中等至剧烈强度的体力活动明显不同。但在纳入的原始研究中，这些暴露很难严格区分。在我们最初的手稿中，我们只关注自我报告的久坐行为。根据一位审稿人的建议，为了避免错过更多相关研究，我们在修订稿中考虑了通过基于职位的反应来衡量的久坐行为。现在，我们按久坐行为的评估类型进行了亚组分析，结果表明，两种久坐行为的评估类型没有显着差异。对于结肠癌，通过基于职称的反应测量的久坐行为的汇总 OR 为 1.39（95% CI，1.20–1.60，I2= 63.7%），而自我报告的久坐行为的汇总 OR 为 1.27（95% CI，1.18–1.36，I2= 26.7%）。它们之间的差异不显着（交互作用的 P= 0.289）。对于直肠癌，通过基于职位的反应测量的久坐行为的汇总 OR 为 1.11（95% CI，1.03-1.20，I2= 4.2%），而自我报告的久坐行为的汇总 OR 为 1.01（95% CI，0.92-1.11，I2= 19.7%）。它们之间的差异也微不足道（交互作用 P = 0.156）。
We would like to thank Dr. Lynch and Boyle (2014) for their valuable comments and suggestions on our meta-analysis ‘Association of sedentary behaviour with colon and rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of observational studies’(Cong et al, 2014). This meta-analysis made a timely and novel contribution to the literature about associations of sedentary behaviour on colon and rectal cancer risk. Although some imperfection may exist, they did not materially influence our result. Now, we are replying to the main comments mentioned by Lynch and Boyle. Indeed, sedentary behaviour is distinctly different from occupational sedentariness and the lack of moderate-to vigorous-intensity physical activity. But in the included original studies, these exposures are difficult to be strictly differentiated. In our initial manuscript, we only focused on self-reported sedentary behaviours. On the basis of the suggestion of one of the reviewers, in order to avoid missing more relevant studies, we took into account the sedentary behaviour that is measured by job title-based response in the revised manuscript. Now, we did a subgroup analysis by types of assessment of sedentary behaviour, and the result showed that there was no substantial difference in the two types of measure of sedentary behaviour. For colon cancer, the pooled OR of sedentary behaviour measured by job title-based response was 1.39 (95% CI, 1.20–1.60, I2= 63.7%), whereas the pooled OR of self-reported sedentary behaviour was 1.27 (95% CI, 1.18–1.36, I2= 26.7%).The difference between them was insignificant (P for interaction= 0.289). For rectal cancer, the pooled OR of sedentary behaviour measured by job titlebased response was 1.11 (95% CI, 1.03–1.20, I2= 4.2%), whereas the pooled OR of self-reported sedentary behaviour was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.92–1.11, I2= 19.7%). The difference between them was insignificant too (P for interaction= 0.156).
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
158.5
作者：
Lynch, TJ;Bell, DW;Haber, DA
通讯作者：
Haber, DA
影响因子：
45.3
作者：
Roberts, Patrick J.;Stinchcombe, Thomas E.;Socinski, Mark A.
通讯作者：
Socinski, Mark A.
影响因子：
5.3
作者：
Mao, Chen;Qiu, Li-Xin;Chen, Qing
通讯作者：
Chen, Qing
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Chougule A;Prabhash K;Noronha V;Joshi A;Thavamani A;Chandrani P;Upadhyay P;Utture S;Desai S;Jambhekar N;Dutt A
通讯作者：
Dutt A
影响因子：
158.5
作者：
Mok, Tony S.;Wu, Yi-Long;Fukuoka, Masahiro
通讯作者：
Fukuoka, Masahiro