4.6 Article

The utility of diagnostic biopsy specimens for predictive molecular testing in colorectal cancer

Journal

HISTOPATHOLOGY
Volume 61, Issue 6, Pages 1117-1124

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2012.04321.x

Keywords

colorectal cancer; HRM; neoadjuvant; PCR; predictive testing

Funding

  1. University of Nottingham
  2. Nottingham University Hospitals Charitable Trusts

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fadhil W, Ibrahem S, Seth R, AbuAli G, Ragunath K, Kaye P & Ilyas M ?(2012) Histopathology?The utility of diagnostic biopsy specimens for predictive molecular testing in colorectal cancer Aims: If stratified medicine is to be applied in the neoadjuvant setting, predictive testing will have to be undertaken on preoperative diagnostic biopsy specimens. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a diagnostic biopsy was adequately representative of the main tumour in colorectal cancer. Methods and results: Thirty cases of paired biopsy and subsequent resection specimens were randomly selected. Samples were screened for mutation in KRAS (codons 12/13, 61, and 146), BRAF (codon 600 and exon 11), PIK3CA (exons 1, 9, and 20), TP53 (exons 58), and microsatellite instability, using the quick multiplex consensus or standard polymerase chain reaction (PCR) protocols followed by high-resolution melting analysis. A total of 570 paired PCR tests were performed for mutation detection, and identical results were obtained in both biopsy and resection specimens in 569 tests (>99% concordance). Four cases (13%) showed microsatellite instability, and, in all four cases, instability was seen at identical mononucleotide markers in both biopsy and matched resection specimens. Conclusions: This is the first study to show that diagnostic biopsy specimens, even though they are a tiny sample of the tumour, are sufficiently representative for use in predictive testing for early driver mutations in colorectal cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available