BACKGROUND: Detection of BRAF mutations is an established standard of care to predict small-molecule inhibitor (vemurafenib) response in metastatic melanoma. Molecular assays should be designed to detect not only the most common p.V600E mutation, but also p.V600K and other non-p.V600E mutations. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess if tumor cellularity can function as a quality assurance (QA) measure in molecular diagnostics. Potential causes of discrepancy between the observed and predicted mutant allele percentage were also explored. METHODS: We correlated pathologist-generated estimates of tumor cellularity versus mutant allele percentage via pyrosequencing as a QA measure for BRAF mutation detection in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded melanoma specimens. RESULTS: BRAF mutations were seen in 27/62 (44 %) specimens, with 93 % p.V600E and 7 % non-p.V600E. Correlation between p.V600E mutant percentage and tumor cellularity was poor-moderate (r = -0.02; p = 0.8), primarily because six samples showed a low p.V600E signal despite high tumor cellularity. A QA investigation revealed that our initial pyrosequencing assay showed a false positive, weak p.V600E signal in specimens with a p.V600K mutation. A redesigned assay detected BRAF mutations in 50/131 (38 %) specimens, including 30 % non-p.V600E. This revised assay showed strong correlation between p.V600E BRAF mutant percentage and tumor cellularity (r = 0.76; p ≤ 0.01). Re-evaluation of the previously discordant samples by the revised assay confirmed a high level of p.V600K mutation in five specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologists play important roles in molecular diagnostics, beyond identification of correct cells for testing. Accurate evaluation of tumor cellularity not only ensures sufficient material for required analytic sensitivity, but also provides an independent QA measure of the molecular assays.
BACKGROUND: Detection of BRAF mutations is an established standard of care to predict small-molecule inhibitor (vemurafenib) response in metastatic melanoma. Molecular assays should be designed to detect not only the most common p.V600E mutation, but also p.V600K and other non-p.V600E mutations. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess if tumor cellularity can function as a quality assurance (QA) measure in molecular diagnostics. Potential causes of discrepancy between the observed and predicted mutant allele percentage were also explored. METHODS: We correlated pathologist-generated estimates of tumor cellularity versus mutant allele percentage via pyrosequencing as a QA measure for BRAF mutation detection in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded melanoma specimens. RESULTS:BRAF mutations were seen in 27/62 (44 %) specimens, with 93 % p.V600E and 7 % non-p.V600E. Correlation between p.V600E mutant percentage and tumor cellularity was poor-moderate (r = -0.02; p = 0.8), primarily because six samples showed a low p.V600E signal despite high tumor cellularity. A QA investigation revealed that our initial pyrosequencing assay showed a false positive, weak p.V600E signal in specimens with a p.V600K mutation. A redesigned assay detected BRAF mutations in 50/131 (38 %) specimens, including 30 % non-p.V600E. This revised assay showed strong correlation between p.V600E BRAF mutant percentage and tumor cellularity (r = 0.76; p ≤ 0.01). Re-evaluation of the previously discordant samples by the revised assay confirmed a high level of p.V600K mutation in five specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologists play important roles in molecular diagnostics, beyond identification of correct cells for testing. Accurate evaluation of tumor cellularity not only ensures sufficient material for required analytic sensitivity, but also provides an independent QA measure of the molecular assays.
Authors: Karen M Schwartz; Lisa L Pike-Buchanan; Kasinathan Muralidharan; Joy B Redman; Jean Amos Wilson; Michael Jarvis; M Grace Cura; Victoria M Pratt Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2009-03-26 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: J H J M van Krieken; A Jung; T Kirchner; F Carneiro; R Seruca; F T Bosman; P Quirke; J F Fléjou; T Plato Hansen; G de Hertogh; P Jares; C Langner; G Hoefler; M Ligtenberg; D Tiniakos; S Tejpar; G Bevilacqua; A Ensari Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2008-09-18 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: John A Curtin; Jane Fridlyand; Toshiro Kageshita; Hetal N Patel; Klaus J Busam; Heinz Kutzner; Kwang-Hyun Cho; Setsuya Aiba; Eva-Bettina Bröcker; Philip E LeBoit; Dan Pinkel; Boris C Bastian Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-11-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthew T Olson; Colleen Harrington; Katie Beierl; Guoli Chen; Michele Thiess; Alan O'Neill; Janis M Taube; Martha A Zeiger; Ming-Tseh Lin; James R Eshleman Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Franklin M Mullins; Lisa Dietz; Marla Lay; James L Zehnder; James Ford; Nicolette Chun; Iris Schrijver Journal: Genet Med Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Selma Ugurel; Ranjit K Thirumaran; Sandra Bloethner; Andreas Gast; Antje Sucker; Jan Mueller-Berghaus; Werner Rittgen; Kari Hemminki; Jürgen C Becker; Rajiv Kumar; Dirk Schadendorf Journal: PLoS One Date: 2007-02-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kirsten J Ward; Sian Ellard; Chittaranjan S Yajnik; Timothy M Frayling; Andrew T Hattersley; Prathyusha N S Venigalla; Giriraj R Chandak Journal: Lipids Health Dis Date: 2006-05-02 Impact factor: 3.876
Authors: Arnaud Uguen; Matthieu Talagas; Sebastian Costa; Marc De Braekeleer; Pascale Marcorelles Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Gang Zheng; Harrison Tsai; Li-Hui Tseng; Peter Illei; Christopher D Gocke; James R Eshleman; George Netto; Ming-Tseh Lin Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Pedram Argani; Satish K Tickoo; Andres Matoso; Christine A Pratilas; Rohit Mehra; Maria Tretiakova; Mathilde Sibony; Alan K Meeker; Ming-Tseh Lin; Victor E Reuter; Jonathan I Epstein; Jeffrey Gagan; Doreen N Palsgrove Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2022-02-21 Impact factor: 6.298
Authors: Lisa Haley; Li-Hui Tseng; Gang Zheng; Jonathan Dudley; Derek A Anderson; Nilofer S Azad; Christopher D Gocke; James R Eshleman; Ming-Tseh Lin Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Monika Jurkowska; Aleksandra Gos; Konrad Ptaszyński; Wanda Michej; Andrzej Tysarowski; Renata Zub; Janusz A Siedlecki; Piotr Rutkowski Journal: Int J Clin Exp Pathol Date: 2015-07-01
Authors: Peter W Hamilton; Yinhai Wang; Clinton Boyd; Jacqueline A James; Maurice B Loughrey; Joseph P Hougton; David P Boyle; Paul Kelly; Perry Maxwell; David McCleary; James Diamond; Darragh G McArt; Jonathon Tunstall; Peter Bankhead; Manuel Salto-Tellez Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2015-09-29
Authors: Deborah A Belchis; Li-Hui Tseng; Thomas Gniadek; Lisa Haley; Parvez Lokhandwala; Peter Illei; Christopher D Gocke; Patrick Forde; Julie Brahmer; Frederic B Askin; James R Eshleman; Ming-Tseh Lin Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-07-19
Authors: Peter B Illei; Deborah Belchis; Li-Hui Tseng; Doreen Nguyen; Federico De Marchi; Lisa Haley; Stacy Riel; Katie Beierl; Gang Zheng; Julie R Brahmer; Frederic B Askin; Christopher D Gocke; James R Eshleman; Patrick M Forde; Ming-Tseh Lin Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-05-20
Authors: Gang Zheng; Li-Hui Tseng; Guoli Chen; Lisa Haley; Peter Illei; Christopher D Gocke; James R Eshleman; Ming-Tseh Lin Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2015-10-24 Impact factor: 4.430