BACKGROUND: KRAS mutation is widely accepted as a strong, negative predictive marker for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies, including cetuximab and panitumumab. Previous reports demonstrated approximately 100 % concordance of KRAS status between primary colorectal cancer and liver metastases; however, mismatched KRAS status still occurs. METHODS: KRAS status was evaluated in 105 pairs of formalin-fixed primary colorectal cancer and corresponding liver metastases specimens by direct sequencing. DNA quality of patients displaying mismatched KRAS status between primary tumors and metastases was assessed using a Bioanalyzer. RESULTS: KRAS status was successfully analyzed in 90/105 patients (85.7 %). The concordance rate between primary tumors and metastases was 88.2 % in synchronous metastases (n = 76) and 100 % in metachronous metastases (n = 14). Discordance in KRAS status was observed in nine patients. Independent method validation revealed only five samples showed the same KRAS status between the two methods. DNA quality assessment by a Bioanalyzer revealed that the median length of DNA samples in the peak concentration of the mismatched group was significantly shorter than those in the control group (153.5 vs 276.5 bp, P = 0.0059). In addition, the median value of the percentage of degraded DNA (0-200 bp) in each sample in the mismatched group was significantly higher than the control group (35.5 vs 22 %, P = 0.020). These data suggest that the discordant results for these nine patients (18 samples) were due to low quality DNA, which may obscure polymerase chain reaction analysis, affecting sequencing reliability. CONCLUSION: Quality control and assurance of KRAS genotyping is critical, and standardization of the methodology is warranted.
BACKGROUND:KRAS mutation is widely accepted as a strong, negative predictive marker for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies, including cetuximab and panitumumab. Previous reports demonstrated approximately 100 % concordance of KRAS status between primary colorectal cancer and liver metastases; however, mismatched KRAS status still occurs. METHODS:KRAS status was evaluated in 105 pairs of formalin-fixed primary colorectal cancer and corresponding liver metastases specimens by direct sequencing. DNA quality of patients displaying mismatched KRAS status between primary tumors and metastases was assessed using a Bioanalyzer. RESULTS:KRAS status was successfully analyzed in 90/105 patients (85.7 %). The concordance rate between primary tumors and metastases was 88.2 % in synchronous metastases (n = 76) and 100 % in metachronous metastases (n = 14). Discordance in KRAS status was observed in nine patients. Independent method validation revealed only five samples showed the same KRAS status between the two methods. DNA quality assessment by a Bioanalyzer revealed that the median length of DNA samples in the peak concentration of the mismatched group was significantly shorter than those in the control group (153.5 vs 276.5 bp, P = 0.0059). In addition, the median value of the percentage of degraded DNA (0-200 bp) in each sample in the mismatched group was significantly higher than the control group (35.5 vs 22 %, P = 0.020). These data suggest that the discordant results for these nine patients (18 samples) were due to low quality DNA, which may obscure polymerase chain reaction analysis, affecting sequencing reliability. CONCLUSION: Quality control and assurance of KRAS genotyping is critical, and standardization of the methodology is warranted.
Authors: Elisabeth Dequeker; Marjolijn J L Ligtenberg; Sara Vander Borght; Johan H J M van Krieken Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Stephan E Baldus; Karl-L Schaefer; Rainer Engers; Dinah Hartleb; Nikolas H Stoecklein; Helmut E Gabbert Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-01-26 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: N Knijn; L J M Mekenkamp; M Klomp; M E Vink-Börger; J Tol; S Teerenstra; J W R Meijer; M Tebar; S Riemersma; J H J M van Krieken; C J A Punt; I D Nagtegaal Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-03-01 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Mariana Petaccia de Macedo; Fernanda M Melo; Heber Salvador C Ribeiro; Marcio C Marques; Luciane T Kagohara; Maria Dirlei Begnami; Julio C Neto; Júlia S Ribeiro; Fernando A Soares; Dirce M Carraro; Isabela W Cunha Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: M B Mogensen; M Rossing; O Østrup; P N Larsen; P J Heiberg Engel; L N Jørgensen; E V Hogdall; J Eriksen; P Ibsen; P Jess; M Grauslund; H J Nielsen; F C Nielsen; B Vainer; K Osterlind Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-07-20 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Sing Y Moorcraft; Thomas Jones; Brian A Walker; George Ladas; Eleftheria Kalaitzaki; Lina Yuan; Ruwaida Begum; Zakaria Eltahir; Andrew Wotherspoon; Angeles Montero-Fernandez; Larissa S Teixeira Mendes; David Gonzalez de Castro; Sanna Hulkki Wilson; Paula Proszek; Ye M To; Eliza Hawkes; Amitesh Roy; David Cunningham; Sheela Rao; David Watkins; Naureen Starling; Anne M Bowcock; Ian Chau Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-04-11