ArticlePathology oncology research : POR2019
IDH Mutation Analysis in Glioma Patients by CADMA Compared with SNaPshot Assay and two Immunohistochemical Methods.
Article in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Glioblastoma in adults with prior extracranial cancer: a Czech retrospective multicentre study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Review
- Clinical Evaluation of IDH Mutation Status in Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Tissue in Gliomas.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Mutations in IDH1/2 genes are a marker of good prognosis for glioma patients, associated with low grade gliomas and secondary glioblastomas. Immunohistochemistry and Sanger sequencing are current standards for IDH1/2 genotyping while many other methods exist. The aim of this study was to validate Competitive amplification of differentially melting amplicons (CADMA) PCR for IDH genotyping by comparison with SNaPshot assay and two immunohistochemical methods. In our study, 87 glioma patients (46 from Olomouc and 41 from Ostrava) were analyzed. IDH1/2 mutations in native bioptical samples were analyzed at DNA level by CADMA and SNaPshot while IDH1 mutations in FFPE samples were analyzed at protein level by two IHC methods. CADMA PCR sensitivity for IDH1 was 96.4% and specificity 100% for 86 concluded samples. SNaPshot assay sensitivity was 92.9% and specificity of 100% for 85 concluded samples. IHC in the laboratory no. 2 reached sensitivity 85.7% and specificity 100% for 86 concluded samples. IHC in the laboratory no. 4 reached sensitivity of 96.4% and specificity of 79.7% in 74 concluded samples. Only one IDH2 mutation was found by SNaPshot while CADMA yielded false negative result. In conclusion, CADMA is a valid method for IDH1 p.(R132H) testing with higher sensitivity than SNaPshot assay. Also, molecular genetic methods of IDH1 testing from native samples were more robust than IHC from FFPE.
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.