Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19888477›Full record

ArticlePloS one2009

Targeted KRAS mutation assessment on patient tumor histologic material in real time diagnostics.

Vassiliki Kotoula, Elpida Charalambous, Bart Biesmans, Andigoni Malousi, Eleni Vrettou, George Fountzilas, George Karkavelas

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03951233 (Genotyping K-RAS and EGFR in Greek Non-small-cell Lung Cancer Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03951233 completednot on this map

Genotyping K-RAS and EGFR in Greek Non-small-cell Lung Cancer Patients: Incidence, Significance and Treatment Implications

TypeobservationalSponsorHellenic Cooperative Oncology GroupRan2000 to 2014Enrolled424ConditionsNon Small Cell Lung Cancer
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. GenotypingCancer genomics & proteomics
    Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. GLI1: A Therapeutic Target for Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Vassiliki KotoulaDepartment of Pathology, Papageorgiou Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, School of Medicine, Thessaloniki, Greece. vkotoula@auth.gr
Elpida Charalambous
Bart Biesmans
Andigoni Malousi
Eleni Vrettou
George Fountzilas
George Karkavelas

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTesting for tumor specific mutations on routine formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues may predict response to treatment in Medical Oncology and has already entered diagnostics, with KRAS mutation assessment as a paradigm. The highly sensitive real time PCR (Q-PCR) methods developed for this purpose are usually standardized under optimal template conditions. In routine diagnostics, however, suboptimal templates pose the challenge. Herein, we addressed the applicability of sequencing and two Q-PCR methods on prospectively assessed diagnostic cases for KRAS mutations. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsTumor FFPE-DNA from 135 diagnostic and 75 low-quality control samples was obtained upon macrodissection, tested for fragmentation and assessed for KRAS mutations with dideoxy-sequencing and with two Q-PCR methods (Taqman-minor-groove-binder [TMGB] probes and DxS-KRAS-IVD). Samples with relatively well preserved DNA could be accurately analyzed with sequencing, while Q-PCR methods yielded informative results even in cases with very fragmented DNA (p<0.0001) with 100% sensitivity and specificity vs each other. However, Q-PCR efficiency (Ct values) also depended on DNA-fragmentation (p<0.0001). Q-PCR methods were sensitive to detect<or=1% mutant cells, provided that samples yielded cycle thresholds (Ct)<29, but this condition was met in only 38.5% of diagnostic samples. In comparison, FFPE samples (>99%) could accurately be analyzed at a sensitivity level of 10% (external validation of TMGB results). DNA quality and tumor cell content were the main reasons for discrepant sequencing/Q-PCR results (1.5%). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Diagnostic targeted mutation assessment on FFPE-DNA is very efficient with Q-PCR methods in comparison to dideoxy-sequencing. However, DNA fragmentation/amplification capacity and tumor DNA content must be considered for the interpretation of Q-PCR results in order to provide accurate information for clinical decision making.

Indexed as

Genes, rasMutationDecision Support TechniquesDNA, NeoplasmExonsGenotypeHumansNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasmsProspective StudiesQuality Controlras ProteinsReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionSequence Analysis, DNASoftwareDNA, Neoplasmras Proteins

Identifiers

PMID19888477
PMCPMC2768905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.