Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26325103›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2015

KRAS, NRAS, BRAF mutation comparison of endoscopic and surgically removed primary CRC paired samples: is endoscopy biopsy material adequate for molecular evaluation?

Z Saridaki, X Saegart, V De Vriendt, D Hatzidaki, S Palmans, L De Smedt, G De Hertogh, S Tejpar

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Molecular spectrum ofJournal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2016
    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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Z SaridakiLaboratory of Tumor Cell Biology, School of Medicine, University of Crete, Voutes 71110, Heraklion, Greece.
X SaegartCenter for Translational Cell and Tissue Research KU Leuven, Minderbroederstraat 12 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
V De VriendtDepartment of Oncology, Laboratory of Molecular Digestive Oncology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
D HatzidakiLaboratory of Tumor Cell Biology, School of Medicine, University of Crete, Voutes 71110, Heraklion, Greece.
S PalmansCenter for Translational Cell and Tissue Research KU Leuven, Minderbroederstraat 12 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
L De SmedtCenter for Translational Cell and Tissue Research KU Leuven, Minderbroederstraat 12 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
G De HertoghDepartment of Imaging and Pathology, Translational Cell and Tissue Research, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
S TejparDepartment of Oncology, Laboratory of Molecular Digestive Oncology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
KU Leuven · BEUniversity of Crete · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn everyday clinical practice dilemma in the 20-30% of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) patients that have not been operated on their primary tumour, is, under which specific histopathology and molecular circumstances, an endoscopic biopsy could be considered adequate to provide a representative RAS/BRAF molecular status to guide treatment.

methodsA consecutive series of 193 paired biopsy and primary CRC tumour samples between August 2008 and 2010 available in the Department of Pathology archives, University Hospitals, KU Leuven were retrieved. For a pair to be included, in the endoscopic biopsy, 20% of invasive adenocarcinoma cells should be present and enough slides to yield an extracted DNA concentration of ⩾5 ng μl(-1), and no <2 ng μl(-1) should be available for cutting. Exons 2-4 KRAS/NRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA molecular evaluation was performed with RT-PCR and Sequenom.

resultsFrom 165 deemed adequate by the pathologist pairs, 85 (51.5%) were concordantly mutated in at least one of the tested genes, 70 (42.5%) were wt and 10 (6%) were discordant, harbouring a mutation in the primary and not in the endoscopic biopsy. In the re-evaluation, when more slides were cut per discordant pair, mutational status changed in two of the six discordantly KRAS-mutated pairs. A strong strength of agreement for both runs was observed (Cohen's kappa, k=0.877, P<0.001 and k=0.901, P<0.001, respectively) between the surgically acquired and the endoscopic biopsy specimens' evaluation.

conclusionsBased on our results, an endoscopic biopsy could provide an accurate mutational profile and become a justified alternative to a surgically removed primary tumour specimen, as long as specific histopathology criteria are met.

Indexed as

Genes, rasMutationAdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiopsyClass I Phosphatidylinositol 3-KinasesColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsDNA Mutational AnalysisFemaleGene Expression ProfilingGTP PhosphohydrolasesHumansMaleBRAF protein, humanClass I Phosphatidylinositol 3-KinasesGTP PhosphohydrolasesMembrane ProteinsNRAS protein, humanPhosphatidylinositol 3-KinasesPIK3CA protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf

Identifiers

PMID26325103
PMCPMC4578093
OpenAlexW1916267093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.