ArticleJournal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR2010
A comparison of ARMS and DNA sequencing for mutation analysis in clinical biopsy samples.
Article in Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
78 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 152 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Phase II, open-label, randomized trial of the MEK1/2 inhibitor selumetinib as monotherapy versus temozolomide in patients with advanced melanoma.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2012Trial
- ARMS-qPCR-Based Detection of BRAF and TERT Promoter Mutations: A Cost-Effective Strategy for Molecular Diagnosis of Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma.International journal of endocrinology · 2026Article
- Recombinase polymerase amplification for single nucleotide polymorphism-specific detection of βAnalytical biochemistry · 2025Article
- High Incidence of False Positives inDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of EGFR mutations in circulating tumor DNA and primary tumor tissues from lung cancer patients using BEAMing PCR.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The prevalence and clinical significance of EGFR mutations in non-small cell lung cancer patients in Egypt: a screening study.Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2024Article
- US of thyroid nodules: can AI-assisted diagnostic system compete with fine needle aspiration?European radiology · 2024Article
- Expression ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Successful treatment of lung adenocarcinoma complicated with a rare compoundFrontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- The Prognostic Implication of the BRAF V600E Mutation in Papillary Thyroid Cancer in a Chinese Population.International journal of endocrinology · 2022Article
- Clinical evaluation of RB1 genetic testing reveals novel mutations in Vietnamese patients with retinoblastoma.Molecular and clinical oncology · 2021Article
- Diagnostic Efficacy of Ultrasound, Cytology, and BRAFFrontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Analysis of Multigene Mutations in Lung Adenocarcinoma in Zunyi.BioMed research international · 2021Article
- Comparison of next-generation sequencing and immunohistochemistry analysis for targeted therapy-related genomic status in lung cancer patients.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Article
- BRAFCancer medicine · 2019Article
- Relationship between BRAF V600E and clinical features in papillary thyroid carcinoma.Endocrine connections · 2019Article
- Comparative Analysis of Two Methods for the Detection ofCancers · 2019Article
- Article
18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe have compared mutation analysis by DNA sequencing and Amplification Refractory Mutation System™ (ARMS™) for their ability to detect mutations in clinical biopsy specimens.
methodsWe have evaluated five real-time ARMS assays: BRAF 1799T>A, [this includes V600E and V600K] and NRAS 182A>G [Q61R] and 181C>A [Q61K] in melanoma, EGFR 2573T>G [L858R], 2235-2249del15 [E746-A750del] in non-small-cell lung cancer, and compared the results to DNA sequencing of the mutation 'hot-spots' in these genes in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour (FF-PET) DNA.
resultsThe ARMS assays maximised the number of samples that could be analysed when both the quality and quantity of DNA was low, and improved both the sensitivity and speed of analysis compared with sequencing. ARMS was more robust with fewer reaction failures compared with sequencing and was more sensitive as it was able to detect functional mutations that were not detected by DNA sequencing. DNA sequencing was able to detect a small number of lower frequency recurrent mutations across the exons screened that were not interrogated using the specific ARMS assays in these studies.
conclusionsARMS was more sensitive and robust at detecting defined somatic mutations than DNA sequencing on clinical samples where the predominant sample type was FF-PET.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.