Background: KRAS mutations are common oncogenic drivers in metastatic lung cancer (mLC) and may have prognostic and therapeutic implications. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis offers a minimally invasive approach for detecting tumor-specific alterations and monitoring tumor dynamics. This pilot study investigated the concordance between tissue and plasma KRAS mutational status and evaluated its clinical significance. Methods: Forty patients with mLC (25 males, 15 females; mean age 70.8 years) were included. KRAS mutations were analyzed in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue using next-generation sequencing and in baseline plasma ctDNA using the Biocartis Idylla™ system. Concordance was assessed using Cohen’s kappa statistics. Associations with clinicopathological characteristics and survival outcomes (overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and time to progression (TTP)) were examined. Longitudinal ctDNA monitoring was performed in a subset of patients. Results: KRAS mutations were detected in 14/36 (38.89%) of tumor tissues and 12/40 (30.00%) of plasma samples, predominantly involving codon 12, with G12C as the most frequent variant. Tissue–plasma concordance was assessed in the 36 patients with matched samples and was substantial (κ = 0.64), while mutation subtype showed almost perfect agreement among concordant cases (percentage of agreement: 88.9%, k = 0.80, p = 0.002, 95% CI: 0.4400–1.0000). No significant associations were observed with clinicopathological variables. Longitudinal analysis revealed dynamic ctDNA changes, with molecular progression occasionally preceding clinical progression. Patients with KRAS-mutated ctDNA had shorter PFS and OS compared to those with wild-type ctDNA (median PFS: 134 vs. 146 days; median OS: 163 vs. 193 days). Conclusions: Plasma ctDNA detection of KRAS mutations identifies a poor-prognosis subgroup of mLC patients and provides dynamic insights into tumor evolution. Serial ctDNA monitoring may anticipate disease progression and support real-time assessment of treatment response, highlighting its potential role in translational research and precision oncology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Buzzi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: