Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29027537›Full record

ArticleModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2018

Optimal detection of clinically relevant mutations in colorectal carcinoma: sample pooling overcomes intra-tumoral heterogeneity.

Andrew C Nelson, Jamie Boone, David Cartwright, Bharat Thyagarajan, Robyn Kincaid, Aaron P Lambert, Kylene Karnuth, Christine Henzler, Sophia Yohe

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Results of redo pulmonary metastasectomy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2021
    Review
  4. Radiomics Features ofCancers · 2021
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Heterogeneity in Colorectal Cancer: A Challenge for Personalized Medicine?International journal of molecular sciences · 2018
    Review
  10. 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

9 authors.

Andrew C NelsonDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Jamie BooneDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
David CartwrightDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Bharat ThyagarajanDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Robyn KincaidMolecular Diagnostics Laboratory, M Health, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Aaron P LambertMolecular Diagnostics Laboratory, M Health, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Kylene KarnuthMolecular Diagnostics Laboratory, M Health, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Christine HenzlerDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Sophia YoheDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2235-9930

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intra-tumoral genomic heterogeneity is a well-established biologic property of human malignancies with emerging roles in cancer progression and therapy resistance. However, its impact on the clinical utility of genomic testing in patient management remains unclear. Furthermore, best practices to account for heterogeneity in the provision of highly accurate, clinically valid molecular testing have yet to be firmly established. Genomic biomarkers for the management of colorectal carcinoma are both well-established (ie, KRAS, NRAS) and emerging (BRAF, PIK3CA, and others) in respect to therapy selection and clinical trial eligibility. Critically, standard colorectal carcinoma management requires the exclusion of KRAS and NRAS mutations; thus optimal procedures to control for potential intra-tumoral heterogeneity are clinically important. Here, we assessed heterogeneity among three intra-tumoral sites within 99 colorectal carcinomas cases on a CLIA-validated oncology next generation sequencing assay and examined whether a pooling strategy overcame any discordant results. Overall, 11% of cases demonstrated discordant mutation results between sites; 2% of cases were discrepant for mutations within RAS genes while the remainder was discrepant in PIK3CA. Half of the discrepant cases were associated with borderline tumor cellularity assessment. Further, a sample pooling strategy across all three sites successfully detected the relevant mutation in all but one case. Our results indicate that intra-tumoral genomic heterogeneity of clinically relevant genes within colorectal carcinoma is a relatively infrequent occurrence and that a simple strategy to pool DNA from several tumor sites with adequate cellularity minimizes the risk of false negative results even further to ensure optimal patient management.

Indexed as

MutationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overClass I Phosphatidylinositol 3-KinasesColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleGTP PhosphohydrolasesHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMaleMembrane ProteinsMiddle AgedProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)Class I Phosphatidylinositol 3-KinasesGTP PhosphohydrolasesKRAS protein, humanMembrane ProteinsNRAS protein, humanPIK3CA protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.