Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25789737›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Detection of BRAF V600 mutations in melanoma: evaluation of concordance between the Cobas® 4800 BRAF V600 mutation test and the methods used in French National Cancer Institute (INCa) platforms in a real-life setting.

Samia Mourah, Marc G Denis, Fabienne Escande Narducci, Jérôme Solassol, Jean-Louis Merlin, Jean-Christophe Sabourin, Jean-Yves Scoazec, L'Houcine Ouafik, Jean-François Emile, Remy Heller and 3 more

Abstract readEvaluation StudyMulticenter 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 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. BRAF Gene and Melanoma: Back to the Future.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Assessment of BRAFVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2018
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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.

Samia MourahDepartment of Pharmacology-Genetics, AP-HP, Saint-Louis Hospital, Paris, France; INSERM UMRS 976 Paris, F-75010, France.
Marc G DenisDepartment of Biochemistry, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France.
Fabienne Escande NarducciDepartment of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry, Lille Regional University Hospital, Lille, France.
Jérôme SolassolDepartment of Biology-Pathology, Montpellier University Hospital, Montpellier, France.
Jean-Louis MerlinDepartment of Tumor Biology, Alexis Vautrin Center, Vandoeuvre les Nancy, France.
Jean-Christophe SabourinDepartment of Pathology-Cytopathology, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France.
Jean-Yves ScoazecLaboratory of Pathology and Cytopathology, Edouard Herriot Hospital, Lyon, France; Department of Biology and Pathology, Gustave Roussy Hospital, Villejuif, France.
L'Houcine OuafikDepartment of Cancer Biology, Marseille Nord University Hospital, Marseille, France.
Jean-François EmileDepartment of Pathology, Ambroise Paré Hospital, Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
Remy HellerDepartment of Microbiology and Molecular Biology, Colmar hospital, Colmar, France.
Claude SouvignetRoche, Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
Loïc BergougnouxRoche, Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
Jean-Philippe MerlioDepartment of Tumor Biology, Bordeaux University Hospital, Bordeaux, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vemurafenib is approved for the treatment of metastatic melanoma in patients with BRAF V600 mutation. In pivotal clinical trials, BRAF testing has always been done with the approved cobas 4800 BRAF test. In routine practice, several methods are available and are used according to the laboratories usual procedures. A national, multicenter, non-interventional study was conducted with prospective and consecutive collection of tumor samples. A parallel evaluation was performed in routine practice between the cobas 4800 BRAF V600 mutation test and home brew methods (HBMs) of 12 national laboratories, labelled and funded by the French National Cancer Institute (INCa). For 420 melanoma samples tested, the cobas method versus HBM showed a high concordance (93.3%; kappa = 0.86) in BRAF V600 genotyping with similar mutation rates (34.0% versus 35.7%, respectively). Overall, 97.4% and 98.6% of samples gave valid results using the cobas and HBM, respectively. Of the 185 samples strictly fulfilling the cobas guidelines, the concordance rate was even higher (95.7%; kappa = 0.91; 95%CI [0.85; 0.97]). Out of the 420 samples tested, 28 (6.7%) showed discordance between HBM and cobas. This prospective study shows a high concordance rate between the cobas 4800 BRAF V600 test and home brew methods in the routine detection of BRAF V600E mutations.

Indexed as

Sequence Analysis, DNAGenotypeHumansLaboratoriesLogistic ModelsMelanomaPolymerase Chain ReactionPolymorphism, Single NucleotideProspective StudiesProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafReagent Kits, DiagnosticSkin NeoplasmsProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID25789737
PMCPMC4366252

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.