Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
BMC Cancer ; 13: 472, 2013 Oct 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24119386

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about tumour gene mutation status is essential for the treatment of increasing numbers of cancer patients, and testing quality has a major impact on treatment response and cost. In 2012, 4,629 tests for BRAF p.V600 were performed in France, in patients with melanomas. METHODS: Two batches of unstained melanoma sections were sent, in May and November 2012, to the 46 laboratories supported by the French National Institute of Cancer (INCa). An external quality assessment (EQA) evaluated mutation status, response times and compliance with INCa recommendations. RESULTS: All the French laboratories involved in testing participated in the EQA. Fourteen different methods were used to detect BRAF mutations, most consisting of combinations of in-house techniques. False responses were noted in 25/520 cases (4.8%), 11 of which concerned confusion between p.V600E and p.V600K. Thus, 2.7% of responses would have led to inappropriate treatment. Within six months, mean response times decreased from 22 to 12 days (P<0.001), and the percentage of samples evaluated by a pathologist for tumour cell content increased, from 75.2% to 96.9% (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Despite the use of non-certified methods, the false response rate was low. Nationwide EQA can improve the quality of molecular pathology tests on tumours.


Subject(s)
Genetic Testing/standards , Melanoma/diagnosis , Melanoma/genetics , Mutation , Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf/genetics , Codon , DNA Mutational Analysis/methods , DNA Mutational Analysis/standards , France , Genetic Testing/methods , Humans , Quality Control
2.
J Mol Diagn ; 15(1): 94-100, 2013 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23159108

ABSTRACT

BRAF p.V600 mutation detection recently became necessary to treat metastatic melanoma patients with vemurafenib. This study compares different methods of detection of BRAF mutations. Melanoma samples from 111 patients were analyzed for BRAF mutations, and for 89 of them, results were obtained with the four following methods: Sanger sequencing, real-time PCR, immunohistochemistry, and pyrosequencing. All samples contained at least 60% of tumor cells. Directional Sanger sequencing of PCR products failed to detect 3 of 40 p.V600E-mutated cases (7.5%) (sensitivity, 92.5%; 95% CI, 78.5% to 98.0%). BRAF p.V600E-specific real-time PCR identified 39 of 40 p.V600E-mutated cases (97.6%) (sensitivity, 97.5%; 95% CI, 87.1% to 99.6%) and all 39 wild-type (WT) cases and surprisingly was also positive for 6/6 p.V600K (specificity, 87.8%; 95% CI, 75.8% to 94.3%). However, other mutations, p.V600R (n = 1), p.K601E (n = 2), and p.600_601delinsE (n = 1), were not detected. Immunohistochemistry with VE1, specific for p.V600E, identified all p.V600E and WT cases (sensitivity, 100%; 95% CI, 91.2% to 100%) but was negative for all other BRAF mutations. Pyrosequencing successfully identified all WT and mutated cases. Immunohistochemistry is highly specific for p.V600E, and could be used as a first-line method, as is currently performed for HER2 amplification detection. Pyrosequencing proved to be the most efficient method to detect BRAF mutations in melanomas and could be performed on VE1-negative or uninterpretable cases.


Subject(s)
DNA Mutational Analysis/methods , Immunohistochemistry/methods , Melanoma/genetics , Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf/genetics , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Humans , Indoles/therapeutic use , Melanoma/diagnosis , Melanoma/drug therapy , Mutation , Receptor, ErbB-2/genetics , Sulfonamides/therapeutic use , Vemurafenib
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...