Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23606169›Full record

ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2013

KRAS and BRAF mutation analysis in colorectal adenocarcinoma specimens with a low percentage of tumor cells.

Marzena Anna Lewandowska, Wojciech Jóźwicki, Bogdan Żurawski

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Sensitivity and Specificity of Novel Primers for Detection of BRAFV600E Mutation.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2020
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. BRAF gene: From human cancers to developmental syndromes.Saudi journal of biological sciences · 2015
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marzena Anna LewandowskaMolecular Oncology and Genetics Unit, Department of Tumor Pathology and Pathomorphology, Franciszek Lukaszczyk Oncology Center, ul. dr I. Romanowskiej 2, 85-796, Bydgoszcz, Poland. lewandowskam@co.bydgoszcz.pl
Wojciech Jóźwicki
Bogdan Żurawski
Nicolaus Copernicus University · PLUniversity of Bydgoszcz · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveThe rapid development of molecular biology techniques allows for the introduction of real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods with a limit of mutation detection at 1% in a background of wild-type DNA. Analysis of KRAS mutations in codons 12, 13, and 61, together with analysis of BRAF mutations in codon 600, are predictive biomarkers for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) treatment in colorectal cancer. Our aim was to compare PCR methods for KRAS mutations and BRAF mutation analysis using DNA isolated from tissue samples previously evaluated for presence of tumor cells using a quantitative scale and the percentage of tumor cells (PTC) scale. We addressed the question of whether a low number of tumor cells can be qualified for somatic mutation testing.

resultsOur study showed that PTC as low as 10% was good enough to detect KRAS G12D, G13D, and Q61L mutations in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) material. Furthermore, our results indicate that up to 20% of colorectal cancer may carry mutations in the KRAS codon 61 and BRAF codon 600, which suggests the value of these mutation analyses because patients carrying them are unlikely to respond to cetuximab or panitumumab. A low level of KRAS somatic mutation detection has not been studied in depth in the context of clinical outcomes in patients; therefore, we compared new PCR methods, (KRBR-RT 50 Entrogen; ViennaLab StripAssay) and re-evaluated KRAS and BRAF status in patients with relapse after targeted therapy.

conclusionsThe importance of molecular results was confirmed by clinical observation of a patient with relapse who had qualified for targeted therapy with KRAS WT status (but was diagnosed by less sensitive single-stranded conformation polymorphisms method). Interestingly, during anti-EGFR treatment, it came to the selection of cells with KRAS G12C mutation which were present from the beginning in the tumor but at a low level (detected by PCR methods) only and led consequently to the metastasis. Taking into consideration the limit of detection, labor time, and assay cost, the real-time PCR method seems to be very promising especially for FFPE material with the PTC below 15%.

Indexed as

MutationAdenocarcinomaAdultAgedBiopsyCell CountCodonColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleFixativesFormaldehydeHumansLimit of DetectionMaleMiddle AgedParaffin EmbeddingBRAF protein, humanCodonFixativesFormaldehydeKRAS protein, humanProto-Oncogene ProteinsProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)ras Proteins

Identifiers

PMID23606169
PMCPMC3663254
OpenAlexW2136208806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.