Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24889502›Full record

ArticleActa neuropathologica communications2014

A new sensitive PCR assay for one-step detection of 12 IDH1/2 mutations in glioma.

Aurélie Catteau, Hélène Girardi, Florence Monville, Cécile Poggionovo, Sabrina Carpentier, Véronique Frayssinet, Jesse Voss, Robert Jenkins, Blandine Boisselier, Karima Mokhtari and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Acta neuropathologica communications, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Molecular Biomarker Testing for the Diagnosis of Diffuse Gliomas.Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine · 2022
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Driver mutations in ADGRL3 are involved in the evolution of ependymoma.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

13 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Aurélie Catteau
Hélène Girardi
Florence Monville
Cécile Poggionovo
Sabrina Carpentier
Véronique Frayssinet
Jesse Voss
Robert Jenkins
Blandine Boisselier
Karima Mokhtari
Marc Sanson
Hélène Peyro-Saint-PaulQIAGEN Marseille, Av, de Luminy, Marseille, France. helene.peyro-saint-paul@qiagen.com.
Caterina Giannini
Qiagen (France) · FRPitié-Salpêtrière Hospital · FRWinnMed · USMayo Clinic · USSorbonne Université · FR

Funding

Targeted MV-CEA as a Potent Antitumor Agent against GBMP50CA108961 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI O'NEILL, BRIAN PATRICK · 2004 to 2015
$22.5M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA108961
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMutations in isocitrate dehydrogenase genes IDH1 or IDH2 are frequent in glioma, and IDH mutation status is a strong diagnostic and prognostic marker. Current IDH mutation screening is performed with an immunohistochemistry (IHC) assay specific for IDH1 R132H, the most common mutation. Sequencing is recommended as a second-step test for IHC-negative or -equivocal cases. We developed and validated a new real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay for single-step detection of IDH1 R132H and 11 rare IDH1/2 mutations in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) glioma samples. Performance of the IDH1/2 PCR assay was compared to IHC and Sanger sequencing.

resultsThe IDH1/2 PCR assay combines PCR clamping for detection of 7 IDH1 and 5 IDH2 mutations, and Amplification Refractory Mutation System technology for specific identification of the 3 most common mutations (IDH1 R132H, IDH1 R132C, IDH2 R172K). Analytical sensitivity of the PCR assay for mutation detection was <5% for 11/12 mutations (mean: 3.3%), and sensitivity for mutation identification was very high (0.8% for IDH1 R132H; 1.2% for IDH1 R132C; 0.6% for IDH2 R172K). Assay performance was further validated on 171 clinical glioma FFPE samples; of these, 147 samples met the selection criteria and 146 DNA samples were successfully extracted. IDH1/2 status was successfully obtained in 91% of cases. All but one positive IDH1 R132H-IHC cases were concordantly detected by PCR and 3 were not detected by sequencing. Among the IHC-negative cases (n = 72), PCR detected 12 additional rare mutations (10 IDH1, 2 IDH2). All mutations detected by sequencing (n = 67) were concordantly detected by PCR and 5/66 sequencing-negative cases were PCR-positive (overall concordance: 96%). Analysis of synthetic samples representative of the 11 rare IDH1/2 mutations detected by the assay produced 100% correct results.

conclusionsThe new IDH1/2 PCR assay has a high technical success rate and is more sensitive than Sanger sequencing. Positive concordance was 98% with IHC for IDH1 R132H detection and 100% with sequencing. The PCR assay can reliably be performed on FFPE samples and has a faster turnaround time than current IDH mutation detection algorithms. The assay should facilitate implementation of a comprehensive IDH1/2 testing protocol in routine clinical practice.

Indexed as

Polymerase Chain ReactionAdolescentBrain NeoplasmsChildDatasets as TopicFemaleGliomaHumansIsocitrate DehydrogenaseMaleMutationReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityYoung AdultIDH1 protein, humanIDH2 protein, humanIsocitrate Dehydrogenase

Identifiers

PMID24889502
PMCPMC4229941
OpenAlexW2144376669

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.