ArticleTranslational cancer research2019
A comparison of MASS-PCR and ARMS-PCR for the detection of lung cancer gene mutation.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTargeted therapy has been proven to be effective in lung cancer patients with specific driver gene mutations. At present, Sanger sequencing is still the gold standard in clinical practice to detect mutation, and amplification refractory mutation system PCR (ARMS-PCR) has become widely used due to its higher sensitivity and less limitation compared with Sanger sequencing. Mutation-selected amplification specific system PCR (MASS-PCR) is a novel gene detection technique with high specificity and sensitivity. This study aimed to compare the accuracy and sensitivity of ARMS-PCR and MASS-PCR and purposed to make an alternative choice in gene mutation detection in lung cancer.
methodA total of 293 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues were collected from 293 patients with lung cancer from 2017 to 2018. The sample mutation statuses were evaluated by ARMS-PCR and MASS-PCR. Sanger sequencing was also conducted to confirm the results further. The consistency of ARMS-PCR and MASS-PCR were analyzed, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was drawn to assess the sensitivity and specificity of MASS-PCR.
resultsThe consistency rate between the MASS-PCR and Sanger sequencing (kappa value =0.929) was higher than that between the MASS-PCR and ARMS-PCR (kappa value =0.821). There were 20 samples had inconsistent results among the three assays. For these samples, 11 positive samples were verified by the MASS-PCR and Sanger sequencing. Besides, 3 negative samples in Sanger sequencing were detected to be positive in MASS-PCR and ARMS-PCR. The ROC area under the curve (AUC) of assay panels was 0.930 referring to ARMS-PCR, and 0.967 as Sanger sequencing was referred to.
conclusionsOur study demonstrated a higher accuracy and sensitivity of MASS-PCR than ARMS-PCR. Therefore, MASS-PCR could be used in clinical practice to detect gene mutations in lung cancer patients.
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.