Format

Send to

Choose Destination
BMC Cancer. 2016 Aug 2;16:585. doi: 10.1186/s12885-016-2589-2.

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

Author information

1
Klinik für Hämatologie, Onkologie und Immunologie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg, Standort Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Baldingerstraße, Marburg, Germany.
2
Institut für Pathologie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg, Standort Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Baldingerstraße, Marburg, Germany.
3
Klinik für Hämatologie, Onkologie und Immunologie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg, Standort Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Baldingerstraße, Marburg, Germany. brendelc@staff.uni-marburg.de.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

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.

METHODS:

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.

RESULTS:

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.

CONCLUSIONS:

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.

KEYWORDS:

Colorectal cancer; High resolution melting analysis; KRAS mutation; Pyrosequencing

PMID:
27485514
PMCID:
PMC4971616
DOI:
10.1186/s12885-016-2589-2
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center