ArticleESMO open2017
Key differences between 13 KRAS mutation detection technologies and their relevance for clinical practice.
Article in ESMO open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Predicting response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy with liquid biopsies and multiparametric MRI in patients with breast cancer.NPJ breast cancer · 2024Article
- Expert opinion on NSCLC small specimen biomarker testing - Part 1: Tissue collection and management.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2022Review
- Concomitant KRAS mutations attenuate sensitivity of non-small cell lung cancer cells to KRAS G12C inhibition.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Clinical Evaluation of IntelliPlex™ KRAS G12/13 Mutation Kit for Detection of KRAS Mutations in Codon 12 and 13: A Novel Multiplex Approach.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2019Article
- Droplet digital PCR revealed high concordance between primary tumors and lymph node metastases in multiplex screening of KRAS mutations in colorectal cancer.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2019Article
- How I treat cancer special issue.ESMO open · 2019Article
- Concerns with conclusions in the article by SherwoodESMO open · 2018Article
- Response: Concerns with conclusions in the article by SherwoodESMO open · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issuedCorrection:2018
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study assessed
methodsFive distinct
resultsOverall 406/728 data points across all 13 technologies were identified correctly. Successful genotyping of admixtures ranged from 0% (Sanger sequencing) to 100% (NGS). 5/6 NGS platforms reported similar allelic frequency for each sample. One NGS assay detected mutations down to a frequency of 0.5% and correctly identified all 56 samples (Oncomine Focus Assay, Thermo Fisher Scientific). One qPCR (Idylla, Biocartis) and MALDI-TOF (UltraSEEK, Agena Bioscience) assay identified 96% (all 100 copies and 23/25 at 50 copies input) and 92% (23/25 at 100 copies and 23/25 at 50 copies input) of samples, respectively. The digital PCR assay ( DISCUSSION: This comprehensive parallel assessment used high molecular weight cell line DNA as a model system to address key questions for a laboratory when implementing routine
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.