↓ Skip to main content

A rational two-step approach to KRAS mutation testing in colorectal cancer using high resolution melting analysis and pyrosequencing

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A rational two-step approach to KRAS mutation testing in colorectal cancer using high resolution melting analysis and pyrosequencing
Published in
BMC Cancer, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12885-016-2589-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elisabeth Mack, Kathleen Stabla, Jorge Riera-Knorrenschild, Roland Moll, Andreas Neubauer, Cornelia Brendel

Abstract

KRAS mutation testing is mandatory in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer prior to treatment with anti-EGFR antibodies as patients whose tumors express mutant KRAS do not benefit from these agents. Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recently approved two in-vitro diagnostics kits for determination of KRAS status, there is generally no consensus on the preferred method and new tests are continuously being developed. Most of these techniques focus on the hotspot mutations at codons 12 and 13 of the KRAS gene. We describe a two-step approach to KRAS codon 12/13 mutation testing involving high resolution melting analysis (HRM) followed by pyrosequencing using the Therascreen KRAS Pyro kit (Qiagen) of only those samples that are not clearly identified as KRAS wildtype or mutant by HRM. First, we determined KRAS status in a panel of 61 colorectal cancer samples using both methods to compare technical performance and concordance of results. Subsequently, we evaluated practicability and costs of our concept in an independent set of 120 colorectal cancer samples in a routine diagnostic setting. HRM and pyrosequencing appeared to be equally sensitive, allowing for clear detection of mutant alleles at a mutant allele frequency ≥12.5 %. Pyrosequencing yielded more exploitable results due to lower input requirements and a lower rate of analysis failures. KRAS codon 12/13 status was called concordantly for 98.2 % (56/57) of all samples that could be successfully analysed by both methods and 100 % (19/19) of samples that were identified mutant by HRM. Reviewing the actual effort and expenses for KRAS mutation testing in our laboratory revealed, that the selective use of pyrosequencing for only those samples that could not be analysed by HRM increased the fraction of valid results from 87.5 % for HRM alone to 99.2 % (119/120) while allowing for a net reduction of operational costs of >75 % compared to pyrosequencing alone. Combination of HRM and pyrosequencing in a two-step diagnostic procedure constitutes a reliable and economic analysis platform for KRAS mutation testing in colorectal cancer in a clinical setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 18%
Student > Master 3 18%
Lecturer 1 6%
Professor 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 6 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 12%
Psychology 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 August 2016.
All research outputs
#13,476,177
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,979
of 8,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,942
of 366,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#74
of 274 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,326 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 366,909 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 274 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.