Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29333594›Full record

ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2018

RAS testing for colorectal cancer patients is reliable in European laboratories that pass external quality assessment.

V Tack, M J L Ligtenberg, A G Siebers, P D M Rombout, P D Dabir, R D A Weren, J H J M van Krieken, E M C Dequeker

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 · 2020
    Article
  3. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

V TackDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35 blok d, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
M J L LigtenbergDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
A G SiebersDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
P D M RomboutDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
P D DabirDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
R D A WerenDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
J H J M van KriekenDepartment of Pathology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
E M C DequekerDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35 blok d, 3000, Leuven, Belgium. els.dequeker@kuleuven.be.
Radboud University Medical Center · NLKU Leuven · BERadboud University Nijmegen · NLRegional Hospital Randers · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Quality Assurance, Health CareColorectal NeoplasmsGenetic TestingGTP PhosphohydrolasesHumansMedical OncologyMembrane ProteinsProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)GTP PhosphohydrolasesKRAS protein, humanMembrane ProteinsNRAS protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)Biological markersColorectal neoplasmsMolecular pathologyQuality assuranceReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID29333594
OpenAlexW2782644058

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.