KRAS mutation analysis by PCR : a comparison of two methods

Article English OPEN
Bolton, Louise ; Reiman, Anne ; Lucas, Katie ; Timms, Judith ; Cree, Ian A. (2015)

Background:\ud 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.\ud \ud Methods:\ud 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.\ud \ud Results:\ud 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.\ud \ud Conclusion:\ud There was excellent correlation between the two methods. Although castPCR assay shows lower Ct values than Therascreen, this is unlikely to be clinically significant.
  • References (38)
    38 references, page 1 of 4

    1. Vogelstein B, Fearon ER, Hamilton SR, Kern SE, Preisinger AC, et al. (1988) Genetic alterations during colorectal-tumor development. N Engl J Med 319: 525-532. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198809013190901 PMID: 2841597

    2. Arends MJ (2013) Pathways of colorectal carcinogenesis. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 21: 97-102. PMID: 23417071

    3. Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B (1996) Lessons from hereditary colorectal cancer. Cell 87: 159-170. doi: 10. 1016/S0092-8674(00)81333-1 PMID: 8861899

    4. Pritchard CC, Grady WM (2011) Colorectal cancer molecular biology moves into clinical practice. Gut 60: 116-129. doi: 10.1136/gut.2009.206250 PMID: 20921207

    5. Diehl F, Schmidt K, Durkee KH, Moore KJ, Goodman SN, et al. (2008) Analysis of mutations in DNA isolated from plasma and stool of colorectal cancer patients. Gastroenterology 135: 489-498. doi: 10. 1053/j.gastro.2008.05.039 PMID: 18602395

    6. Ahlquist DA, Zou H, Domanico M, Mahoney DW, Yab TC, et al. (2012) Next-generation stool DNA test accurately detects colorectal cancer and large adenomas. Gastroenterology 142: 248-256; quiz e225-246. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.10.031 PMID: 22062357

    7. Mead R, Duku M, Bhandari P, Cree IA (2011) Circulating tumour markers can define patients with normal colons, benign polyps, and cancers. Br J Cancer 105: 239-245. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.230 PMID: 21712823

    8. Crowley E, Di Nicolantonio F, Loupakis F, Bardelli A (2013) Liquid biopsy: monitoring cancer-genetics in the blood. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 10: 472-484. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2013.110 PMID: 23836314

    9. Evaluation of Genomic Applications in P, Prevention Working G (2013) Recommendations from the EGAPP Working Group: can testing of tumor tissue for mutations in EGFR pathway downstream effector genes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer improve health outcomes by guiding decisions regarding anti-EGFR therapy? Genet Med 15: 517-527. doi: 10.1038/gim.2012.184 PMID: 23429431

    10. Garcia-Alfonso P, Salazar R, Garcia-Foncillas J, Musulen E, Garcia-Carbonero R, et al. (2012) Guidelines for biomarker testing in colorectal carcinoma (CRC): a national consensus of the Spanish Society of Pathology (SEAP) and the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM). Clin Transl Oncol 14: 726-739. doi: 10.1007/s12094-012-0856-5 PMID: 22855150

  • Related Research Results (3)
  • Similar Research Results (4)
  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark