ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2018
RAS testing for colorectal cancer patients is reliable in European laboratories that pass external quality assessment.
Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Frequency of Participation in External Quality Assessment Programs Focused on Rare Diseases: Belgian Guidelines for Human Genetics Centers.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Update of the recommendations for the determination of biomarkers in colorectal carcinoma: National Consensus of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology and the Spanish Society of Pathology.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2020Article
- European follow-up of incorrect biomarker results for colorectal cancer demonstrates the importance of quality improvement projects.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2019Article
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 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wild-type status of KRAS and the NRAS gene (exon 2, 3, and 4) in the tumor should be determined before treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with EGFR-targeting agents. There is a large variation in test methods to determine RAS status, and more sensitive detection methods were recently introduced. Data from quality assessment programs indicate substantial error rates. This study assessed the completeness and correctness of RAS testing in European laboratories that successfully passed external quality assessment (EQA). Participants were requested to send material of their most recent ten patients with mCRC who had been tested for RAS status. Isolated DNA, a hematoxylin and eosin stained tissue slide with a marked area for macrodissection and accompanying patient reports were requested. Samples were reevaluated in a reference laboratory by using a next-generation sequencing approach. In total, 31 laboratories sent in the requested material (n = 309). Despite regulations for anti-EGFR therapy, one institute did not perform full RAS testing. Reanalysis was possible for 274 samples with sufficient DNA available. In the hotspot codons of KRAS and NRAS, seven discordant results were obtained in total, five of them leading to a different prediction of anti-EGFR therapy efficacy (2%; n = 274). Results show that oncologists can rely on the quality of laboratories with good performance in EQA. Oncologists need to be aware that the testing laboratory participates successfully in EQA programs. Some EQA providers list the good performing laboratories on their website.
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.