4.4 Article

KRAS Genotyping of Paraffin-Embedded Colorectal Cancer Tissue in Routine Diagnostics - Comparison of Methods and Impact of Histology

Journal

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages 35-42

Publisher

AMER SOC INVESTIGATIVE PATHOLOGY, INC
DOI: 10.2353/jmoldx.2010.090079

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

KRAS mutation testing before anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer has become mandatory in Europe. However, considerable uncertainty exists as to which methods for detection can be applied in a reproducible and economically sound manner in the routine diagnostic setting. To answer this question, we examined 263 consecutive routine paraffin slide specimens. Genomic DNA was extracted from microdissected tumor tissue. The DNA wits analyzed prospectively by Sanger sequencing and array analysis as well as retrospectively by melting curve analysis and pyrosequencing; the results were correlated to tissue characteristics. The methods were then compared regarding the reported results, costs, and working times. Approximately 40% of specimens contained KRAS mutations, and the different methods reported concordant results (kappa values >0.9). Specimens harboring fewer than 10% tumor cells; showed lower mutation rates regardless of the method used, and histoanatomical variables had no influence on the frequency of the mutations. Costs per assay were higher for array analysis and melting curve analysis when compared with the direct sequencing methods. However, for sequencing methods equipment costs were much higher. In conclusion, Sanger sequencing, array analysis, melting curve analysis, and pyrosequencing were equally effective for routine diagnostic KRAS mutation analysis; however, interpretation of mutation results in conjunction with histomorphologic tissue review and on slide tumor tissue dissection is required for accurate diagnosis. (J Mol Diagn 2010, 12:35-42; DOI; 10.2353/jmoldx.2010.090079)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available