Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21122130›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2010

KRAS analysis in colorectal carcinoma: analytical aspects of Pyrosequencing and allele-specific PCR in clinical practice.

Magnus Sundström, Karolina Edlund, Monica Lindell, Bengt Glimelius, Helgi Birgisson, Patrick Micke, Johan Botling

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Molecular Biomarkers for the Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer.American journal of clinical pathology · 2017
    Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. [Advances in Diagnosis and Targeted Therapy of KRASG12C Mutant 
Non-small Cell Lung Cancer].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Frontiers in oncology · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Relationships amongWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2019
    Article
  15. Not all mutations ofInternational journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Molecular Testing for Gastrointestinal Cancer.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2017
    Review
  19. Review
  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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Magnus SundströmMolecular Pathology Unit, Department of Genetics and Pathology, Uppsala University, SE-751 85 Uppsala, Sweden.
Karolina Edlund
Monica Lindell
Bengt Glimelius
Helgi Birgisson
Patrick Micke
Johan Botling
Uppsala University · SEUppsala University Hospital · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEpidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor therapy is now approved for treatment of metastatic colorectal carcinomas (CRC) in patients with tumors lacking KRAS mutations. Several procedures to detect KRAS mutations have been developed. However, the analytical sensitivity and specificity of these assays on routine clinical samples are not yet fully characterised.

methodsThe practical aspects and clinical applicability of a KRAS-assay based on Pyrosequencing were evaluated in a series of 314 consecutive CRC cases submitted for diagnostic KRAS analysis. The performance of Pyrosequencing compared to allele-specific, real-time PCR was then explored by a direct comparison of CE-IVD-marked versions of Pyrosequencing and TheraScreen (DxS) KRAS assays for a consecutive subset (n = 100) of the 314 clinical CRC samples.

resultsUsing Pyrosequencing, 39% of the 314 CRC samples were found KRAS-mutated and several of the mutations (8%) were located in codon 61. To explore the analytical sensitivity of the Pyrosequencing assay, mutated patient DNA was serially diluted with wild-type patient DNA. Dilutions corresponding to 1.25-2.5% tumor cells still revealed detectable mutation signals. In clinical practice, our algorithm for KRAS analysis includes a reanalysis of samples with low tumor cell content (< 10%, n = 56) using an independent assay (allele-specific PCR, DxS). All mutations identified by Pyrosequencing were then confirmed and, in addition, one more mutated sample was identified in this subset of 56 samples. Finally, a direct comparison of the two technologies was done by re-analysis of a subset (n = 100) of the clinical samples using CE-IVD-marked versions of Pyrosequencing and TheraScreen KRAS assays in a single blinded fashion. The number of samples for which the KRAS codon 12/13 mutation status could be defined using the Pyrosequencing or the TheraScreen assay was 94 and 91, respectively, and both assays detected the same number of codon 12 and 13 mutations.

conclusionsKRAS mutation detection using Pyrosequencing was evaluated on a consecutive set of clinical CRC samples. Pyrosequencing provided sufficient analytical sensitivity and specificity to assess the mutation status in routine formalin-fixed CRC samples, even in tissues with a low tumor cell content.

Indexed as

DNA Mutational AnalysisMutationPolymerase Chain ReactionAdenocarcinomaCodonColorectal NeoplasmsFixativesFormaldehydeGenetic TestingHumansPredictive Value of TestsProto-Oncogene ProteinsProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)ras ProteinsSensitivity and SpecificityTissue FixationCodonFixativesFormaldehydeKRAS protein, humanProto-Oncogene ProteinsProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)ras Proteins

Identifiers

PMID21122130
PMCPMC3002357
OpenAlexW1987540717

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.