ArticleOncotarget2015
RAS testing in metastatic colorectal cancer: excellent reproducibility amongst 17 Dutch pathology centers.
Article in Oncotarget, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- RAS mutation prevalence among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of real-world data.Biomarkers in medicine · 2017Pooled it
- RAS and BRAF mutations in cell-free DNA are predictive for outcome of cetuximab monotherapy in patients with tissue-tested RAS wild-type advanced colorectal cancer.Molecular oncology · 2019Article
- RAS testing for colorectal cancer patients is reliable in European laboratories that pass external quality assessment.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2018Article
- Tyrosine kinase inhibitor sensitive PDGFRΑ mutations in GIST: Two cases and review of the literature.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- RAS screening in colorectal cancer: a comprehensive analysis of the results from the UK NEQAS colorectal cancer external quality assurance schemes (2009-2016).Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2017Article
- Panitumumab use in metastatic colorectal cancer and patterns of RAS testing: results from a Europe-wide physician survey and medical records review.BMC cancer · 2017Review
- Next-Generation Sequencing in Oncology: Genetic Diagnosis, Risk Prediction and Cancer Classification.International journal of molecular sciences · 2017Review
- Article
- Clinicopathologic distribution of KRAS and BRAF mutations in a Chinese population with colorectal cancer precursor lesions.Oncotarget · 2016Article
- Rapid targeted somatic mutation analysis of solid tumors in routine clinical diagnostics.Oncotarget · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2013 the European Medicine Agency (EMA) restricted the indication for anti-EGFR targeted therapy to metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with a wild-type RAS gene, increasing the need for reliable RAS mutation testing. We evaluated the completeness and reproducibility of RAS-testing in the Netherlands. From 17 laboratories, tumor DNA of the first 10 CRC cases tested in 2014 in routine clinical practice was re-tested by a reference laboratory using a custom next generation sequencing panel. In total, 171 CRC cases were re-evaluated for hotspot mutations in KRAS, NRAS and BRAF. Most laboratories had introduced complete RAS-testing (65%) and BRAF-testing (71%) by January 2014. The most employed method for all hotspot regions was Sanger sequencing (range 35.7 - 49.2%). The reference laboratory detected all mutations that had been found in the participating laboratories (n = 92), plus 10 additional mutations. This concerned three RAS and seven BRAF mutations that were missed due to incomplete testing of the participating laboratory. Overall, the concordance of tests performed by both the reference and participating laboratory was 100% (163/163; κ-static 1.0) for RAS and 100% (144/144; κ-static 1.0) for BRAF. Our study shows that RAS and BRAF mutations can be reproducibly assessed using a variety of testing methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.