ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2022
KRAS and NRAS mutational analysis in plasma ctDNA from patients with metastatic colorectal cancer by real-time PCR and digital PCR.
Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Anti-EGFR Rechallenge in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer and the Role of ctDNA: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2024Pooled it
- Retrospective stratified analysis of resistance mechanisms to anti-EGFR therapy in mCRC using tumor tissue samples.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Coupling enzymatic digestion with nanopore sensing for low-abundance EGFR-L858R mutation detection.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Review
- Near-Infrared Light Regulation of Capture and Release of ctDNA Platforms Based on the DNA Assembly System.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
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 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMutations in the KRAS and NRAS (RAS) genes are negative predictors of response to anti-EGFR therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The detection of mutations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as a less invasive strategy to assess the molecular profile of mCRC patients. We aimed to perform RAS mutational analysis in ctDNA from mCRC patients using BEAMing Digital PCR (OncoBEAM) and Idylla ctDNA qPCR and evaluate the concordance rate with RAS mutational status in tumor tissue and between these two methodologies with different limits of detection.
methodsBlood samples were collected from 47 mCRC patients previously tested for RAS mutations in tumor tissue. DNA was extracted from plasma using the QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit, and RAS mutation analysis was conducted using OncoBEAM RAS CRC and Idylla ctRAS assays.
resultsThe overall agreement between tumor tissue and ctDNA analyses was 83% and 78.7% using the OncoBEAM and Idylla assays, respectively, with the concordance being 96.2% and 88.5% in naive treatment patients. The overall agreement between OncoBEAM and Idylla ctDNA analyses was 91.7%.
conclusionsAnalysis of ctDNA is a viable strategy for clinical management of mCRC patients. Although the OncoBEAM assay sensitivity is somewhat higher, the fully automated Idylla platform also has good performance, while being cheaper and much less labor-intensive, for the detection of RAS mutations in plasma, either at diagnosis or after progression when considering anti-EGFR treatment rechallenge.
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.