Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27681846›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical pathology2017

How close are we to standardised extended RAS gene mutation testing? The UK NEQAS evaluation.

Susan D Richman, Jennifer Fairley, Rachel Butler, Zandra C Deans

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. JCO precision oncology · 2021
    Article
  2. Article
  3. The ins and outs of molecular pathology reporting.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2017
    Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Susan D RichmanDepartment of Pathology and Tumour Biology, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James University Hospital, Leeds, UK.
Jennifer FairleyUK NEQAS for Molecular Genetics, Department of Laboratory Medicine, The Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, UK.
Rachel ButlerCardiff and Vale UHB-Medical Genetics University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, Wales, UK.
Zandra C DeansUK NEQAS for Molecular Genetics, Department of Laboratory Medicine, The Royal Infirmary, Edinburgh, UK.
Edinburgh Royal Infirmary · GBSt James's University Hospital · GBUniversity Hospital of Wales · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsSince 2008, KRAS mutation status in exon 2 has been used to predict response to anti-EGFR therapies. Recent evidence has demonstrated that NRAS status is also predictive of response. Several retrospective 'extended RAS' analyses have been performed on clinical trial material. Despite this, are we really moving towards such extended screening practice in reality?

methodsData were analysed from four consecutive UK National External Quality Assessment Service for Molecular Genetics Colorectal cancer External Quality Assessment schemes (during the period 2014-2016), with up to 110 laboratories (worldwide) participating in each scheme. Testing of four or five tumour samples is required per scheme. Laboratories provided information on which codons were routinely screened, and provided genotyping and interpretation results for each sample.

resultsAt least 85% of laboratories routinely tested KRAS codons 12, 13 and 61. Over the four schemes, an increasing number of laboratories routinely tested KRAS codons 59, 117 and 146. Furthermore, more laboratories were introducing next generation sequencing technologies. The pattern of 'extended testing' was reassuringly similar for NRAS, although fewer laboratories currently test for mutations in this gene. Alarmingly, still only 36.1% and 24.1% of participating laboratories met the ACP Molecular Pathology and Diagnostics Group and American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, respectively, for extended RAS testing in the latest assessment.

conclusionsDespite recommendations in the UK and USA on extended RAS testing, there has clearly been, based on these results, a delay in implementation. Inadequate testing results in patients being subjected to harmful treatment regimens, which would not be the case, were routine practice altered, in line with evidence-based guidelines.

Indexed as

MutationDNA Mutational AnalysisEvidence-Based PracticeGenes, rasGenetic TestingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansTime FactorsUnited KingdomCOLORECTAL CANCEREQAMOLECULAR PATHOLOGY

Identifiers

PMID27681846
PMCPMC5256378
OpenAlexW2517599493

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.