Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31087282›Full record

ArticleMolecular diagnosis & therapy2019

A Multiplex Quantitative Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for the Detection of KIAA1549-BRAF Fusion Transcripts in Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Pilocytic Astrocytomas.

David Bret, Valentin Chappuis, Delphine Poncet, François Ducray, Karen Silva, Fabrice Mion, Alexandre Vasiljevic, Carole Ferraro-Peyret, Carmine Mottolese, Pierre Leblond and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular diagnosis & therapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 95% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

16 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

David BretService de Cytologie et d'Anatomie Pathologique, Département de Biopathologie Moléculaire et de Département de Neuropathologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Lyon, France.
Valentin ChappuisService de Cytologie et d'Anatomie Pathologique, Département de Biopathologie Moléculaire et de Département de Neuropathologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Lyon, France.
Delphine PoncetService de Cytologie et d'Anatomie Pathologique, Département de Biopathologie Moléculaire et de Département de Neuropathologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Lyon, France.
François DucrayUniversity of Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France.
Karen SilvaService de Cytologie et d'Anatomie Pathologique, Département de Biopathologie Moléculaire et de Département de Neuropathologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Lyon, France.
Fabrice MionService de Cytologie et d'Anatomie Pathologique, Département de Biopathologie Moléculaire et de Département de Neuropathologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Lyon, France.
Alexandre VasiljevicService de Cytologie et d'Anatomie Pathologique, Département de Biopathologie Moléculaire et de Département de Neuropathologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Lyon, France.
Carole Ferraro-PeyretService de Cytologie et d'Anatomie Pathologique, Département de Biopathologie Moléculaire et de Département de Neuropathologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Lyon, France.
Carmine MottoleseService de Neurochirurgie Lyon, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Lyon, France.
Pierre LeblondService d'Oncologie, Institut d'Hématologie et d'Oncologie Pédiatrique, Lyon, France.
Mathieu GabutTranscriptome Diversity in Stem Cells Laboratory, Cancer Cell Plasticity Department, Cancer Research Centre of Lyon, INSERM U1052, CNRS, UMR 5286, Lyon, France.
Didier FrappazService d'Oncologie, Institut d'Hématologie et d'Oncologie Pédiatrique, Lyon, France.
Nathalie StreichenbergerService de Cytologie et d'Anatomie Pathologique, Département de Biopathologie Moléculaire et de Département de Neuropathologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Lyon, France.
David MeyronetService de Cytologie et d'Anatomie Pathologique, Département de Biopathologie Moléculaire et de Département de Neuropathologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Lyon, France.
Pierre-Paul BringuierService de Cytologie et d'Anatomie Pathologique, Département de Biopathologie Moléculaire et de Département de Neuropathologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Lyon, France.
Marc BarritaultService de Cytologie et d'Anatomie Pathologique, Département de Biopathologie Moléculaire et de Département de Neuropathologie, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Groupement Hospitalier Est, Lyon, France. marc.barritault@chu-lyon.fr.ORCID 0000-0003-3311-4058
Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRHospices Civils de Lyon · FRInstitut d’Hématologie et d’Oncologie Pédiatrique · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveGenomic duplications and fusion involving BRAF and KIAA1549 that create fusion proteins with constitutive B-RAF kinase activity are a hallmark of pilocytic astrocytomas (PAs). The detection of KIAA1549-BRAF fusion transcripts is of paramount importance to classify these tumors and to identify patients who could benefit from BRAF inhibitors. In a clinical setting, the available material for molecular analysis from these pediatric tumors is often limited to formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue. The aim of the present study was to develop a new method to detect the three most frequent KIAA1549-BRAF fusion transcripts, 15-9, 16-11, and 16-9, where numbers refer to the exons fused together, using a FFPE-compatible multiplex quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR).

methodsWe compared performance of the assay to a reference singleplex method on a collection of 46 FFPE PAs.

resultsThe results showed that both methods are comparable. The multiplex method had an overall 97% sensitivity and 100% specificity compared to the singleplex method, and agreement between the two techniques was almost perfect (Cohen's kappa: 0.97). There was no evidence of a significant difference between the qRT-PCR efficiencies of the multiplex technique and of the singleplex assay for all fusion transcripts and for GAPDH, the latter used as a reference gene. The multiplex method consumed four times less complementary DNA (cDNA), cost less, and required half the hands-on technical time.

conclusionThe results show that it could be beneficial to implement the multiplex method in a clinical setting, where samples presenting low quantity of degraded RNA are not unusual.

Indexed as

Multiplex Polymerase Chain ReactionReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionAdolescentAstrocytomaBiopsyCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleGene FrequencyHumansMaleNeoplasm GradingOncogene Proteins, FusionParaffin EmbeddingReproducibility of ResultsBRAF-KIAA1549 fusion protein, humanOncogene Proteins, Fusion

Identifiers

PMID31087282
OpenAlexW2945754583

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.