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?
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognostic factors of successful on-purpose tumor biopsies in metastatic cancer patients included in the SHIVA prospective clinical trial.Oncotarget · 2017Trial
- A Triptolide Loaded HER2-Targeted Nano-Drug Delivery System Significantly Suppressed the Proliferation of HER2-Positive and BRAF Mutant Colon Cancer.International journal of nanomedicine · 2021Article
- Preoperative, biopsy-based assessment of the tumour microenvironment in patients with primary operable colorectal cancer.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2020Article
- Treatment with checkpoint inhibitors in a metastatic colorectal cancer patient with molecular and immunohistochemical heterogeneity in MSI/dMMR status.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2019Article
- Molecular spectrum ofJournal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.