Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23671647›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

A novel fully automated molecular diagnostic system (AMDS) for colorectal cancer mutation detection.

Shiro Kitano, Jamie Myers, Junko Nakamura, Akio Yamane, Mami Yamashita, Masato Nakayama, Yusuke Tsukahara, Hiroshi Ushida, Wanqing Liu, Mark J Ratain and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Molecular oncology testing in resource-limited settings.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2014
    Review
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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Shiro KitanoTechnical Research Institute, Toppan Printing Co., Ltd., Chiba, Japan. shiro.kitano@toppan.co.jp
Jamie Myers
Junko Nakamura
Akio Yamane
Mami Yamashita
Masato Nakayama
Yusuke Tsukahara
Hiroshi Ushida
Wanqing Liu
Mark J Ratain
Masahiko Amano
Toppan (Japan) · JPUniversity of Chicago · USGenesis Research Institute · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA mutations are frequently observed in colorectal cancer (CRC). In particular, KRAS mutations are strong predictors for clinical outcomes of EGFR-targeted treatments such as cetuximab and panitumumab in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). For mutation analysis, the current methods are time-consuming, and not readily available to all oncologists and pathologists. We have developed a novel, simple, sensitive and fully automated molecular diagnostic system (AMDS) for point of care testing (POCT). Here we report the results of a comparison study between AMDS and direct sequencing (DS) in the detection of KRAS, BRAF and PI3KCA somatic mutations. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDING: DNA was extracted from a slice of either frozen (n = 89) or formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) CRC tissue (n = 70), and then used for mutation analysis by AMDS and DS. All mutations (n = 41 among frozen and 27 among FFPE samples) detected by DS were also successfully (100%) detected by the AMDS. However, 8 frozen and 6 FFPE samples detected as wild-type in the DS analysis were shown as mutants in the AMDS analysis. By cloning-sequencing assays, these discordant samples were confirmed as true mutants. One sample had simultaneous "hot spot" mutations of KRAS and PIK3CA, and cloning assay comfirmed that E542K and E545K were not on the same allele. Genotyping call rates for DS were 100.0% (89/89) and 74.3% (52/70) in frozen and FFPE samples, respectively, for the first attempt; whereas that of AMDS was 100.0% for both sample sets. For automated DNA extraction and mutation detection by AMDS, frozen tissues (n = 41) were successfully detected all mutations within 70 minutes. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: AMDS has superior sensitivity and accuracy over DS, and is much easier to execute than conventional labor intensive manual mutation analysis. AMDS has great potential for POCT equipment for mutation analysis.

Indexed as

MutationClass I Phosphatidylinositol 3-KinasesColorectal NeoplasmsDNA Mutational AnalysisFormaldehydeFrozen SectionsHumansParaffin EmbeddingPathology, MolecularPhosphatidylinositol 3-KinasesPolymerase Chain ReactionProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafras ProteinsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityTissue FixationBRAF protein, humanClass I Phosphatidylinositol 3-KinasesFormaldehydePhosphatidylinositol 3-KinasesPIK3CA protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafras Proteins

Identifiers

PMID23671647
PMCPMC3650034
OpenAlexW1974120626

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.