Cargando…

KRAS Mutation Analysis by PCR: A Comparison of Two Methods

BACKGROUND: KRAS mutation assays are important companion diagnostic tests to guide anti-EGFR antibody treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Direct comparison of newer diagnostic methods with existing methods is an important part of validation of any new technique. In this this study, we have co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bolton, Louise, Reiman, Anne, Lucas, Katie, Timms, Judith, Cree, Ian A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4287618/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25568935
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115672
_version_ 1782351823658549248
author Bolton, Louise
Reiman, Anne
Lucas, Katie
Timms, Judith
Cree, Ian A.
author_facet Bolton, Louise
Reiman, Anne
Lucas, Katie
Timms, Judith
Cree, Ian A.
author_sort Bolton, Louise
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: KRAS mutation assays are important companion diagnostic tests to guide anti-EGFR antibody treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Direct comparison of newer diagnostic methods with existing methods is an important part of validation of any new technique. In this this study, we have compared the Therascreen (Qiagen) ARMS assay with Competitive Allele-Specific TaqMan PCR (castPCR, Life Technologies) to determine equivalence for KRAS mutation analysis. METHODS: DNA was extracted by Maxwell (Promega) from 99 colorectal cancers. The ARMS-based Therascreen and a customized castPCR assay were performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. All assays were performed on either an Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast Dx or a ViiA7 real-time PCR machine (both from Life Technologies). The data were collected and discrepant results re-tested with newly extracted DNA from the same blocks in both assay types. RESULTS: Of the 99 tumors included, Therascreen showed 62 tumors to be wild-type (WT) for KRAS, while 37 had KRAS mutations on initial testing. CastPCR showed 61 tumors to be wild-type (WT) for KRAS, while 38 had KRAS mutations. Thirteen tumors showed BRAF mutation in castPCR and in one of these there was also a KRAS mutation. The custom castPCR plate included several other KRAS mutations and BRAF V600E, not included in Therascreen, explaining the higher number of mutations detected by castPCR. Re-testing of discrepant results was required in three tumors, all of which then achieved concordance for KRAS. CastPCR assay Ct values were on average 2 cycles lower than Therascreen. CONCLUSION: There was excellent correlation between the two methods. Although castPCR assay shows lower Ct values than Therascreen, this is unlikely to be clinically significant.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4287618
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42876182015-01-12 KRAS Mutation Analysis by PCR: A Comparison of Two Methods Bolton, Louise Reiman, Anne Lucas, Katie Timms, Judith Cree, Ian A. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: KRAS mutation assays are important companion diagnostic tests to guide anti-EGFR antibody treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Direct comparison of newer diagnostic methods with existing methods is an important part of validation of any new technique. In this this study, we have compared the Therascreen (Qiagen) ARMS assay with Competitive Allele-Specific TaqMan PCR (castPCR, Life Technologies) to determine equivalence for KRAS mutation analysis. METHODS: DNA was extracted by Maxwell (Promega) from 99 colorectal cancers. The ARMS-based Therascreen and a customized castPCR assay were performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. All assays were performed on either an Applied Biosystems 7500 Fast Dx or a ViiA7 real-time PCR machine (both from Life Technologies). The data were collected and discrepant results re-tested with newly extracted DNA from the same blocks in both assay types. RESULTS: Of the 99 tumors included, Therascreen showed 62 tumors to be wild-type (WT) for KRAS, while 37 had KRAS mutations on initial testing. CastPCR showed 61 tumors to be wild-type (WT) for KRAS, while 38 had KRAS mutations. Thirteen tumors showed BRAF mutation in castPCR and in one of these there was also a KRAS mutation. The custom castPCR plate included several other KRAS mutations and BRAF V600E, not included in Therascreen, explaining the higher number of mutations detected by castPCR. Re-testing of discrepant results was required in three tumors, all of which then achieved concordance for KRAS. CastPCR assay Ct values were on average 2 cycles lower than Therascreen. CONCLUSION: There was excellent correlation between the two methods. Although castPCR assay shows lower Ct values than Therascreen, this is unlikely to be clinically significant. Public Library of Science 2015-01-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4287618/ /pubmed/25568935 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115672 Text en © 2015 Bolton et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bolton, Louise
Reiman, Anne
Lucas, Katie
Timms, Judith
Cree, Ian A.
KRAS Mutation Analysis by PCR: A Comparison of Two Methods
title KRAS Mutation Analysis by PCR: A Comparison of Two Methods
title_full KRAS Mutation Analysis by PCR: A Comparison of Two Methods
title_fullStr KRAS Mutation Analysis by PCR: A Comparison of Two Methods
title_full_unstemmed KRAS Mutation Analysis by PCR: A Comparison of Two Methods
title_short KRAS Mutation Analysis by PCR: A Comparison of Two Methods
title_sort kras mutation analysis by pcr: a comparison of two methods
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4287618/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25568935
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115672
work_keys_str_mv AT boltonlouise krasmutationanalysisbypcracomparisonoftwomethods
AT reimananne krasmutationanalysisbypcracomparisonoftwomethods
AT lucaskatie krasmutationanalysisbypcracomparisonoftwomethods
AT timmsjudith krasmutationanalysisbypcracomparisonoftwomethods
AT creeiana krasmutationanalysisbypcracomparisonoftwomethods