BACKGROUND & AIMS: Somatic mutations provide uniquely specific markers for the early detection of neoplasia that can be detected in DNA purified from plasma or stool of patients with colorectal cancer. The primary purpose of the present investigation was to determine the parameters that were critical for detecting mutations using a quantitative assay. A secondary purpose was to compare the results of plasma and stool DNA testing using the same technology. METHODS: We examined DNA purified from the stool of 25 patients with colorectal cancers before surgery. In 16 of these cases, plasma samples also were available. Mutations in stool or plasma were assessed with an improved version of the BEAMing technology. RESULTS: Of the 25 stool DNA samples analyzed, 23 (92%) contained mutations that were present in the corresponding tumors from the same patients. In contrast, only 8 of the 16 (50%) plasma DNA samples analyzed had detectable levels of mutated DNA. We found that the DNA fragments containing mutations in both stool and plasma DNA typically were smaller than 150 bases in size. The sensitivity of the new method was superior to a widely used technique for detecting mutations, using single base extension and sequencing, when assessed on the same samples (92% vs 60%; P = .008, exact McNemar test). CONCLUSIONS: When assessed with sufficiently sensitive methods, mutant DNA fragments are detectable in the stool of more than 90% of colorectal cancer patients. DNA purified from stool provides a better template for mutation testing than plasma.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Somatic mutations provide uniquely specific markers for the early detection of neoplasia that can be detected in DNA purified from plasma or stool of patients with colorectal cancer. The primary purpose of the present investigation was to determine the parameters that were critical for detecting mutations using a quantitative assay. A secondary purpose was to compare the results of plasma and stool DNA testing using the same technology. METHODS: We examined DNA purified from the stool of 25 patients with colorectal cancers before surgery. In 16 of these cases, plasma samples also were available. Mutations in stool or plasma were assessed with an improved version of the BEAMing technology. RESULTS: Of the 25 stool DNA samples analyzed, 23 (92%) contained mutations that were present in the corresponding tumors from the same patients. In contrast, only 8 of the 16 (50%) plasma DNA samples analyzed had detectable levels of mutated DNA. We found that the DNA fragments containing mutations in both stool and plasma DNA typically were smaller than 150 bases in size. The sensitivity of the new method was superior to a widely used technique for detecting mutations, using single base extension and sequencing, when assessed on the same samples (92% vs 60%; P = .008, exact McNemar test). CONCLUSIONS: When assessed with sufficiently sensitive methods, mutant DNA fragments are detectable in the stool of more than 90% of colorectal cancerpatients. DNA purified from stool provides a better template for mutation testing than plasma.
Authors: Devin Dressman; Hai Yan; Giovanni Traverso; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-07-11 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Duncan Whitney; Joel Skoletsky; Kent Moore; Kevin Boynton; Lisa Kann; Randall Brand; Sapna Syngal; Michael Lawson; Anthony Shuber Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Lisa Kann; James Han; David Ahlquist; Theodore Levin; Douglas Rex; Duncan Whitney; Sanford Markowitz; Anthony Shuber Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2006-11-02 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Carlo Rago; David L Huso; Frank Diehl; Baktiar Karim; Guosheng Liu; Nickolas Papadopoulos; Yardena Samuels; Victor E Velculescu; Bert Vogelstein; Kenneth W Kinzler; Luis A Diaz Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2007-10-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: David A Ahlquist; Hongzhi Zou; Michael Domanico; Douglas W Mahoney; Tracy C Yab; William R Taylor; Malinda L Butz; Stephen N Thibodeau; Linda Rabeneck; Lawrence F Paszat; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Niels Chr Bjerregaard; Søren Laurberg; Henrik Toft Sørensen; Barry M Berger; Graham P Lidgard Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2011-11-04 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: David A Ahlquist; William R Taylor; Douglas W Mahoney; Hongzhi Zou; Michael Domanico; Stephen N Thibodeau; Lisa A Boardman; Barry M Berger; Graham P Lidgard Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: P Mokarram; M Rismanchi; M Alizadeh Naeeni; S Mirab Samiee; M Paryan; A Alipour; Z Honardar; S Kavousipour; F Naghibalhossaini; Z Mostafavi-Pour; A Monabati; S V Hosseni; S A Shamsdin Journal: Mol Biol Rep Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 2.316
Authors: Isaac Kinde; Jian Wu; Nick Papadopoulos; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-05-17 Impact factor: 11.205