Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34941166›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2021

Reliability of BRAF mutation detection using plasma sample: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Peng Ye, Peiling Cai, Jing Xie, Jie Zhang

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 45% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Peng YeDepartment of Anatomy and Histology, School of Preclinical Medicine, Chengdu University, Chengdu, P.R. China.
Peiling CaiDepartment of Anatomy and Histology, School of Preclinical Medicine, Chengdu University, Chengdu, P.R. China.
Jing XieDepartment of Pathology and Clinical Laboratory, Sichuan Provincial Fourth People's Hospital, Chengdu, P.R. China.
Jie ZhangAdverse Drug Reaction Monitoring Center, Chengdu, P.R. China.ORCID 0000-0002-3993-2118
Chengdu University · CNEuropean Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction · PTFourth People's Hospital of Sichuan Province · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTesting of B-Raf proto-oncogene (BRAF) mutation in tumor is necessary before targeted therapies are given. When tumor samples are not available, plasma samples are commonly used for the testing of BRAF mutation. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of BRAF mutation testing using plasma sample of cancer patients.

methodsDatabases of Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible studies investigating BRAF mutation in paired tissue and plasma samples of cancer patients. A total of 798 publications were identified after database searching. After removing 229 duplicated publications, 569 studies were screened using the following exclusion criteria: (1) BRAF mutation not measured in plasma or in tumor sample; (2) lacking BRAF-wildtype or BRAF-mutated samples; (3) tissue and plasma samples not paired; (4) lacking tumor or plasma samples; (5) not plasma sample; (6) not cancer; (7) un-interpretable data. Accuracy data and relevant information were extracted from each eligible study by 2 independent researchers and analyzed using statistical software.

resultsAfter pooling the accuracy data from 3943 patients of the 53 eligible studies, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio of BRAF mutation testing using plasma sample were 69%, 98%, and 55.78, respectively. Area under curve of summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.9435. Subgroup analysis indicated that BRAF mutation testing using plasma had overall higher accuracy (diagnostic odds ratio of 89.17) in colorectal cancer, compared to melanoma and thyroid carcinoma. In addition, next-generation sequencing had an overall higher accuracy in detecting BRAF mutation using plasma sample (diagnostic odds ratio of 63.90), compared to digital polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and conventional PCR, while digital PCR showed the highest sensitivity (74%) among the 3 techniques.

conclusionBRAF testing using plasma sample showed an overall high accuracy compared to paired tumor tissue sample, which could be used for cancer genotyping when tissue sample is not available. Large prospective studies are needed to further investigate the accuracy of BRAF mutation testing in plasma sample.

Indexed as

DNA Mutational AnalysisHumansMutationProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityBRAF protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf

Identifiers

PMID34941166
PMCPMC8701458
OpenAlexW4200279519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.