Monika Jurkowska1, Aleksandra Gos2, Konrad Ptaszyński3, Wanda Michej4, Andrzej Tysarowski2, Renata Zub2, Janusz A Siedlecki2, Piotr Rutkowski5. 1. Genomed Health Care Centre Ponczowa 12, Warsaw 02-971, Poland. 2. Department of Molecular and Translational Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology Roentgena 5, Warsaw 02-781, Poland. 3. Department of Pathology, Center of Postgraduate Medical Education Marymoncka 99/103, Warsaw 01-809, Poland. 4. Department of Pathology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology Roentgena 5, Warsaw 02-781, Poland. 5. Department of Soft Tissue/Bone Sarcoma and Melanoma, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology Roentgena 5, Warsaw 02-781, Poland.
Abstract
AIMS: The study compares detection rates of oncogenic BRAF mutations in a homogenous group of 236 FFPE cutaneous melanoma lymph node metastases, collected in one cancer center. BRAF mutational status was verified by two independent in-house PCR/Sanger sequencing tests, and the Cobas® 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test. RESULTS: The best of two sequencing approaches returned results for 230/236 samples. In 140 (60.9%), the mutation in codon 600 of BRAF was found. 91.4% of all mutated cases (128 samples) represented p.V600E. Both Sanger-based tests gave reproducible results although they differed significantly in the percentage of amplifiable samples: 230/236 to 109/143. Cobas generated results in all 236 cases, mutations changing codon V600 were detected in 144 of them (61.0%), including 5 not amplifiable and 5 negative in the standard sequencing. However, 6 cases positive in sequencing turned out to be negative in Cobas. Both tests provided us with the same BRAF V600 mutational status in 219 out of 230 cases with valid results (95.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The total BRAF V600 mutation detection rate didn't differ significantly between the two methodological approaches (60.9% vs. 61.0%). Sequencing was a reproducible method of V600 mutation detection and more powerful to detect mutations other than p.V600E, while Cobas test proved to be less susceptible to the poor DNA quality or investigator's bias. The study underlined an important role of pathologists in quality assurance of molecular diagnostics.
AIMS: The study compares detection rates of oncogenic BRAF mutations in a homogenous group of 236 FFPE cutaneous melanoma lymph node metastases, collected in one cancer center. BRAF mutational status was verified by two independent in-house PCR/Sanger sequencing tests, and the Cobas® 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test. RESULTS: The best of two sequencing approaches returned results for 230/236 samples. In 140 (60.9%), the mutation in codon 600 of BRAF was found. 91.4% of all mutated cases (128 samples) represented p.V600E. Both Sanger-based tests gave reproducible results although they differed significantly in the percentage of amplifiable samples: 230/236 to 109/143. Cobas generated results in all 236 cases, mutations changing codon V600 were detected in 144 of them (61.0%), including 5 not amplifiable and 5 negative in the standard sequencing. However, 6 cases positive in sequencing turned out to be negative in Cobas. Both tests provided us with the same BRAF V600 mutational status in 219 out of 230 cases with valid results (95.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The total BRAF V600 mutation detection rate didn't differ significantly between the two methodological approaches (60.9% vs. 61.0%). Sequencing was a reproducible method of V600 mutation detection and more powerful to detect mutations other than p.V600E, while Cobas test proved to be less susceptible to the poor DNA quality or investigator's bias. The study underlined an important role of pathologists in quality assurance of molecular diagnostics.
Authors: Alexander M Menzies; Lauren E Haydu; Lydia Visintin; Matteo S Carlino; Julie R Howle; John F Thompson; Richard F Kefford; Richard A Scolyer; Georgina V Long Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: David Capper; Anna Sophie Berghoff; Manuel Magerle; Aysegül Ilhan; Adelheid Wöhrer; Monika Hackl; Josef Pichler; Stefan Pusch; Jochen Meyer; Antje Habel; Peter Petzelbauer; Peter Birner; Andreas von Deimling; Matthias Preusser Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Daniëlle A M Heideman; Irene Lurkin; Marije Doeleman; Egbert F Smit; Henk M Verheul; Gerrit A Meijer; Peter J F Snijders; Erik Thunnissen; Ellen C Zwarthoff Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Jonathan C Dudley; Grzegorz T Gurda; Li-Hui Tseng; Derek A Anderson; Guoli Chen; Janis M Taube; Christopher D Gocke; James R Eshleman; Ming-Tseh Lin Journal: Mol Diagn Ther Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 4.074
Authors: Pablo Carbonell; María C Turpin; Daniel Torres-Moreno; Irene Molina-Martínez; José García-Solano; Miguel Perez-Guillermo; Pablo Conesa-Zamora Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2011-06-25 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Steven Anderson; Kenneth J Bloom; Dino U Vallera; Josef Rueschoff; Cliff Meldrum; Robert Schilling; Barbara Kovach; Ju Ruey-Jiuan Lee; Pam Ochoa; Rachel Langland; Harkanwal Halait; H Jeffrey Lawrence; Michael C Dugan Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Jeffrey A Sosman; Kevin B Kim; Lynn Schuchter; Rene Gonzalez; Anna C Pavlick; Jeffrey S Weber; Grant A McArthur; Thomas E Hutson; Stergios J Moschos; Keith T Flaherty; Peter Hersey; Richard Kefford; Donald Lawrence; Igor Puzanov; Karl D Lewis; Ravi K Amaravadi; Bartosz Chmielowski; H Jeffrey Lawrence; Yu Shyr; Fei Ye; Jiang Li; Keith B Nolop; Richard J Lee; Andrew K Joe; Antoni Ribas Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-02-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Helen Davies; Graham R Bignell; Charles Cox; Philip Stephens; Sarah Edkins; Sheila Clegg; Jon Teague; Hayley Woffendin; Mathew J Garnett; William Bottomley; Neil Davis; Ed Dicks; Rebecca Ewing; Yvonne Floyd; Kristian Gray; Sarah Hall; Rachel Hawes; Jaime Hughes; Vivian Kosmidou; Andrew Menzies; Catherine Mould; Adrian Parker; Claire Stevens; Stephen Watt; Steven Hooper; Rebecca Wilson; Hiran Jayatilake; Barry A Gusterson; Colin Cooper; Janet Shipley; Darren Hargrave; Katherine Pritchard-Jones; Norman Maitland; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Gregory J Riggins; Darell D Bigner; Giuseppe Palmieri; Antonio Cossu; Adrienne Flanagan; Andrew Nicholson; Judy W C Ho; Suet Y Leung; Siu T Yuen; Barbara L Weber; Hilliard F Seigler; Timothy L Darrow; Hugh Paterson; Richard Marais; Christopher J Marshall; Richard Wooster; Michael R Stratton; P Andrew Futreal Journal: Nature Date: 2002-06-09 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Piotr Rutkowski; Aleksandra Gos; Monika Jurkowska; Tomasz Switaj; Wirginiusz Dziewirski; Marcin Zdzienicki; Konrad Ptaszyński; Wanda Michej; Andrzej Tysarowski; Janusz A Siedlecki Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2014-05-08 Impact factor: 2.967
Authors: Liang Cheng; Antonio Lopez-Beltran; Francesco Massari; Gregory T MacLennan; Rodolfo Montironi Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2017-11-17 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Anne Reiman; Hugh Kikuchi; Daniela Scocchia; Peter Smith; Yee Wah Tsang; David Snead; Ian A Cree Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2017-02-22 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Paweł Sobczuk; Katarzyna Kozak; Sylwia Kopeć; Paweł Rogala; Tomasz Świtaj; Hanna Koseła-Paterczyk; Aleksandra Gos; Andrzej Tysarowski; Piotr Rutkowski Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Jesús Arturo Hernández-Sandoval; Melva Gutiérrez-Angulo; María Teresa Magaña-Torres; Carlos Rogelio Alvizo-Rodríguez; Helen Haydee Fernanda Ramírez-Plascencia; Beatriz Armida Flores-López; Jesús Alonso Valenzuela-Pérez; Jorge Peregrina-Sandoval; José Miguel Moreno-Ortiz; Mev Domínguez-Valentín; María de la Luz Ayala-Madrigal Journal: J Investig Med Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 2.895
Authors: Margaret Ottaviano; Emilio Francesco Giunta; Marianna Tortora; Marcello Curvietto; Laura Attademo; Davide Bosso; Cinzia Cardalesi; Mario Rosanova; Pietro De Placido; Erica Pietroluongo; Vittorio Riccio; Brigitta Mucci; Sara Parola; Maria Grazia Vitale; Giovannella Palmieri; Bruno Daniele; Ester Simeone Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-03-27 Impact factor: 5.923