The english version of the website is under development. Wherever text appears in Greek, it means it has not been translated yet.

Δημοσίευση

Targeted KRAS mutation assessment on patient tumor histologic material in real time diagnostics.

TitleTargeted KRAS mutation assessment on patient tumor histologic material in real time diagnostics.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2009
AuthorsKotoula, V., Charalambous E., Biesmans B., Malousi A., Vrettou E., Fountzilas G., & Karkavelas G.
JournalPLoS One
Volume4
Issue11
Paginatione7746
Date Published2009
ISSN1932-6203
KeywordsDecision Support Techniques, DNA, Neoplasm, Exons, Genes, ras, Genotype, Humans, Mutation, Neoplasm Metastasis, Neoplasms, Prospective Studies, Quality Control, ras Proteins, Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Software
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Testing for tumor specific mutations on routine formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues may predict response to treatment in Medical Oncology and has already entered diagnostics, with KRAS mutation assessment as a paradigm. The highly sensitive real time PCR (Q-PCR) methods developed for this purpose are usually standardized under optimal template conditions. In routine diagnostics, however, suboptimal templates pose the challenge. Herein, we addressed the applicability of sequencing and two Q-PCR methods on prospectively assessed diagnostic cases for KRAS mutations.METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Tumor FFPE-DNA from 135 diagnostic and 75 low-quality control samples was obtained upon macrodissection, tested for fragmentation and assessed for KRAS mutations with dideoxy-sequencing and with two Q-PCR methods (Taqman-minor-groove-binder [TMGB] probes and DxS-KRAS-IVD). Samples with relatively well preserved DNA could be accurately analyzed with sequencing, while Q-PCR methods yielded informative results even in cases with very fragmented DNA (p<0.0001) with 100% sensitivity and specificity vs each other. However, Q-PCR efficiency (Ct values) also depended on DNA-fragmentation (p<0.0001). Q-PCR methods were sensitive to detect99%) could accurately be analyzed at a sensitivity level of 10% (external validation of TMGB results). DNA quality and tumor cell content were the main reasons for discrepant sequencing/Q-PCR results (1.5%).CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Diagnostic targeted mutation assessment on FFPE-DNA is very efficient with Q-PCR methods in comparison to dideoxy-sequencing. However, DNA fragmentation/amplification capacity and tumor DNA content must be considered for the interpretation of Q-PCR results in order to provide accurate information for clinical decision making.

DOI10.1371/journal.pone.0007746
Alternate JournalPLoS ONE
PubMed ID19888477
PubMed Central IDPMC2768905

Contact

Secretariat of the School of Medicine
 

Connect

School of Medicine's presence in social networks
Follow Us or Connect with us.