Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31415669›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Prospective evaluation of two screening methods for molecular testing of metastatic melanoma: Diagnostic performance of BRAF V600E immunohistochemistry and of a NRAS-BRAF fully automated real-time PCR-based assay.

Audrey Vallée, Marie Denis-Musquer, Guillaume Herbreteau, Sandrine Théoleyre, Céline Bossard, Marc G Denis

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. BRAFCancer cell international · 2023
    Article
  7. Comparison of Two Rapid Assays for the Detection ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Comparison ofJournal of clinical medicine · 2020
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Audrey ValléeDepartment of Biochemistry, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France.
Marie Denis-MusquerDepartment of Pathology, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France.
Guillaume HerbreteauDepartment of Biochemistry, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France.
Sandrine ThéoleyreDepartment of Biochemistry, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France.
Céline BossardDepartment of Pathology, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France.
Marc G DenisDepartment of Biochemistry, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France.ORCID 0000-0001-5865-3248
Nantes Université · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Screening for theranostic biomarkers is mandatory for the therapeutic management of cutaneous melanoma. BRAF and NRAS genes must be tested in routine clinical practice. The methods used to identify these alterations must be sensitive to detect mutant alleles in a background of wild type alleles, and specific to identify the correct mutation. They should not require too much material, since in some cases the available samples are small biopsies. Finally, they should also be quick enough to allow a rapid therapeutic management of patients. Sixty five consecutive formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) melanoma samples were prospectively tested for BRAF mutations with the VE1 (anti-BRAF V600E) antibody and for both BRAF and NRAS mutations with the Idylla NRAS-BRAF-EGFR S492R Mutation Assay cartridges. Results were compared to our routine laboratory practice, allele specific amplification and/or Sanger sequencing and discordant cases confirmed by digital PCR. Excluding discordant by-design-mutations, system failures and DNA quantity or quality failures, BRAF IHC demonstrated an overall concordance of 89% for BRAF V600E mutation detection, the Idylla system gave a concordance of 100% for BRAF mutation detection and of 92.1% for NRAS mutation detection when compared to our reference. When discrepancies were observed, all routine results were confirmed by digital PCR. Finally, BRAF IHC positive predictive value (PPV) was of 82% and negative predictive value (NPV) of 92%. The Idylla cartridges showed a PPV and NPV of both 100% for BRAF mutation detection and a PPV and NPV of 100% and 87% respectively, for NRAS mutation detection. In conclusion, BRAF V600E immunohistochemistry is efficient for detecting the V600E mutation, but negative cases should be further evaluated by molecular approaches for other BRAF mutations. Since 3 NRAS mutations have not been detected by the Idylla NRAS-BRAF-EGFR S492R Mutation Assay, these cartridges should not be used as a substitute for traditional molecular methods in the conventional patient therapeutic care process without the expertise needed to have a critical view of the produced results.

Indexed as

MelanomaMutation, MissenseReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionAgedAmino Acid SubstitutionDNA Mutational AnalysisFemaleGTP PhosphohydrolasesHumansImmunohistochemistryMaleMembrane ProteinsNeoplasm MetastasisProspective StudiesProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafBRAF protein, humanGTP PhosphohydrolasesMembrane ProteinsNRAS protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf

Identifiers

PMID31415669
PMCPMC6695223
OpenAlexW2966933527

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.