Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25568935›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

KRAS mutation analysis by PCR: a comparison of two methods.

Louise Bolton, Anne Reiman, Katie Lucas, Judith Timms, Ian A Cree

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. The ideal reporting ofPathologica · 2023
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Diagnostic RAS mutation analysis by polymerase chain reaction (PCR).Biomolecular detection and quantification · 2016
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma with co-existence of KRAS/PIK3CA mutations.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2015
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Louise BoltonDepartment of Pathology, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.
Anne ReimanDepartment of Pathology and Warwick Medical School, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Katie LucasDepartment of Pathology and Warwick Medical School, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Judith TimmsDepartment of Pathology and Warwick Medical School, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Ian A CreeDepartment of Pathology and Warwick Medical School, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire, Coventry, United Kingdom.
University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust · GBQueen Alexandra Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKRAS mutation assays are important companion diagnostic tests to guide anti-EGFR antibody treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Direct comparison of newer diagnostic methods with existing methods is an important part of validation of any new technique. In this this study, we have compared the Therascreen (Qiagen) ARMS assay with Competitive Allele-Specific TaqMan PCR (castPCR, Life Technologies) to determine equivalence for KRAS mutation analysis.

methodsDNA was extracted by Maxwell (Promega) from 99 colorectal cancers. The ARMS-based Therascreen and a customized castPCR assay were performed according to the manufacturer's instructions. All assays were performed on either an Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast Dx or a ViiA7 real-time PCR machine (both from Life Technologies). The data were collected and discrepant results re-tested with newly extracted DNA from the same blocks in both assay types.

resultsOf the 99 tumors included, Therascreen showed 62 tumors to be wild-type (WT) for KRAS, while 37 had KRAS mutations on initial testing. CastPCR showed 61 tumors to be wild-type (WT) for KRAS, while 38 had KRAS mutations. Thirteen tumors showed BRAF mutation in castPCR and in one of these there was also a KRAS mutation. The custom castPCR plate included several other KRAS mutations and BRAF V600E, not included in Therascreen, explaining the higher number of mutations detected by castPCR. Re-testing of discrepant results was required in three tumors, all of which then achieved concordance for KRAS. CastPCR assay Ct values were on average 2 cycles lower than Therascreen.

conclusionThere was excellent correlation between the two methods. Although castPCR assay shows lower Ct values than Therascreen, this is unlikely to be clinically significant.

Indexed as

Real-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionAllelesColorectal NeoplasmsDNADNA Mutational AnalysisHumansMutationProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafras ProteinsReagent Kits, DiagnosticBRAF protein, humanDNAProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafras ProteinsReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID25568935
PMCPMC4287618
OpenAlexW2012338177

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.