Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27485514›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2016

A rational two-step approach to KRAS mutation testing in colorectal cancer using high resolution melting analysis and pyrosequencing.

Elisabeth Mack, Kathleen Stabla, Jorge Riera-Knorrenschild, Roland Moll, Andreas Neubauer, Cornelia Brendel

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. [Advances in Diagnosis and Targeted Therapy of KRASG12C Mutant 
Non-small Cell Lung Cancer].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Elisabeth MackKlinik für Hämatologie, Onkologie und Immunologie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg, Standort Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Baldingerstraße, Marburg, Germany.
Kathleen StablaKlinik für Hämatologie, Onkologie und Immunologie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg, Standort Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Baldingerstraße, Marburg, Germany.
Jorge Riera-KnorrenschildKlinik für Hämatologie, Onkologie und Immunologie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg, Standort Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Baldingerstraße, Marburg, Germany.
Roland MollInstitut für Pathologie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg, Standort Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Baldingerstraße, Marburg, Germany.
Andreas NeubauerKlinik für Hämatologie, Onkologie und Immunologie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg, Standort Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Baldingerstraße, Marburg, Germany.
Cornelia BrendelKlinik für Hämatologie, Onkologie und Immunologie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg, Standort Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Baldingerstraße, Marburg, Germany. brendelc@staff.uni-marburg.de.
Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg · DEPhilipps University of Marburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKRAS mutation testing is mandatory in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer prior to treatment with anti-EGFR antibodies as patients whose tumors express mutant KRAS do not benefit from these agents. Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recently approved two in-vitro diagnostics kits for determination of KRAS status, there is generally no consensus on the preferred method and new tests are continuously being developed. Most of these techniques focus on the hotspot mutations at codons 12 and 13 of the KRAS gene.

methodsWe describe a two-step approach to KRAS codon 12/13 mutation testing involving high resolution melting analysis (HRM) followed by pyrosequencing using the Therascreen KRAS Pyro kit (Qiagen) of only those samples that are not clearly identified as KRAS wildtype or mutant by HRM. First, we determined KRAS status in a panel of 61 colorectal cancer samples using both methods to compare technical performance and concordance of results. Subsequently, we evaluated practicability and costs of our concept in an independent set of 120 colorectal cancer samples in a routine diagnostic setting.

resultsHRM and pyrosequencing appeared to be equally sensitive, allowing for clear detection of mutant alleles at a mutant allele frequency ≥12.5 %. Pyrosequencing yielded more exploitable results due to lower input requirements and a lower rate of analysis failures. KRAS codon 12/13 status was called concordantly for 98.2 % (56/57) of all samples that could be successfully analysed by both methods and 100 % (19/19) of samples that were identified mutant by HRM. Reviewing the actual effort and expenses for KRAS mutation testing in our laboratory revealed, that the selective use of pyrosequencing for only those samples that could not be analysed by HRM increased the fraction of valid results from 87.5 % for HRM alone to 99.2 % (119/120) while allowing for a net reduction of operational costs of >75 % compared to pyrosequencing alone.

conclusionsCombination of HRM and pyrosequencing in a two-step diagnostic procedure constitutes a reliable and economic analysis platform for KRAS mutation testing in colorectal cancer in a clinical setting.

Indexed as

Cell Line, TumorCodonColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMaleMutationProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)Sensitivity and SpecificitySequence Analysis, DNACodonKRAS protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)Colorectal cancerHigh resolution melting analysisKRAS mutationPyrosequencing

Identifiers

PMID27485514
PMCPMC4971616
OpenAlexW2498621056

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.