RAS检测随时间的演变:影响转移性结直肠癌癌症患者突变率的因素

IF 2.7 Q3 ONCOLOGY
K. Dufraing, C. Keppens, V. Tack, A. Siebers, G. Kafatos, S. Dube, L. Kroeze, M. Ligtenberg, J. V. Krieken, E. Dequeker
{"title":"RAS检测随时间的演变:影响转移性结直肠癌癌症患者突变率的因素","authors":"K. Dufraing, C. Keppens, V. Tack, A. Siebers, G. Kafatos, S. Dube, L. Kroeze, M. Ligtenberg, J. V. Krieken, E. Dequeker","doi":"10.2217/crc-2019-0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: Correct identification of RAS gene variants is key for targeted treatment decisions in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Published RAS mutation rates differ and could be influenced by several factors including testing methods. This study aimed to describe the performance of laboratories to correctly identify RAS variants over time and to understand how RAS testing has evolved in Europe. Materials & methods: Misclassification and test failure rates were calculated and related to the used test methodology for 239 unique laboratories participating in external quality assessment for metastatic colorectal cancer between 2013 and 2018. In addition, 33 laboratories completed a survey aiming to obtain more details on their routine testing strategies, number of samples analyzed and RAS mutation rates between 2013 and 2017. Results: The mutation status was correctly analyzed in 96.1% (N = 5471) RAS and BRAF tests. A total of 4.6% (N = 2860) RAS tests included false-negative results. In 1.6% (N = 5562) RAS and BRAF tests, an analysis failure occurred. Misclassifications and technical failures both decreased between 2013 and 2018. The number of next-generation sequencing users increased from 6.9% (N = 130) in 2013 to 44.6% (N = 112) in 2018. Over time, more codons were included in the methodologies, yet 23.2% (N = 112) did not offer full RAS testing (exon 2, 3, 4) in 2018. Based on the survey the overall RAS mutation rate was estimated as 45.2% (N = 27,325). Conclusion: This is the largest observational study reporting RAS mutation rates to-date. There was no trend of RAS mutation rates over time despite having a clear shift to more sensitive tests and increased quality of testing.","PeriodicalId":43638,"journal":{"name":"Colorectal Cancer","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2217/crc-2019-0013","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evolution of RAS testing over time: factors influencing mutation rates in metastatic colorectal cancer patients\",\"authors\":\"K. Dufraing, C. Keppens, V. Tack, A. Siebers, G. Kafatos, S. Dube, L. Kroeze, M. Ligtenberg, J. V. Krieken, E. Dequeker\",\"doi\":\"10.2217/crc-2019-0013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: Correct identification of RAS gene variants is key for targeted treatment decisions in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Published RAS mutation rates differ and could be influenced by several factors including testing methods. This study aimed to describe the performance of laboratories to correctly identify RAS variants over time and to understand how RAS testing has evolved in Europe. Materials & methods: Misclassification and test failure rates were calculated and related to the used test methodology for 239 unique laboratories participating in external quality assessment for metastatic colorectal cancer between 2013 and 2018. In addition, 33 laboratories completed a survey aiming to obtain more details on their routine testing strategies, number of samples analyzed and RAS mutation rates between 2013 and 2017. Results: The mutation status was correctly analyzed in 96.1% (N = 5471) RAS and BRAF tests. A total of 4.6% (N = 2860) RAS tests included false-negative results. In 1.6% (N = 5562) RAS and BRAF tests, an analysis failure occurred. Misclassifications and technical failures both decreased between 2013 and 2018. The number of next-generation sequencing users increased from 6.9% (N = 130) in 2013 to 44.6% (N = 112) in 2018. Over time, more codons were included in the methodologies, yet 23.2% (N = 112) did not offer full RAS testing (exon 2, 3, 4) in 2018. Based on the survey the overall RAS mutation rate was estimated as 45.2% (N = 27,325). Conclusion: This is the largest observational study reporting RAS mutation rates to-date. There was no trend of RAS mutation rates over time despite having a clear shift to more sensitive tests and increased quality of testing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43638,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Colorectal Cancer\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2217/crc-2019-0013\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Colorectal Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2217/crc-2019-0013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Colorectal Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2217/crc-2019-0013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

目的:正确识别RAS基因变异是癌症转移患者靶向治疗决策的关键。已发表的RAS突变率各不相同,可能受到包括检测方法在内的几个因素的影响。这项研究旨在描述实验室在一段时间内正确识别RAS变体的表现,并了解RAS测试在欧洲是如何发展的。材料与方法:计算2013年至2018年期间参与转移性癌症外部质量评估的239个独特实验室的错误分类和测试失败率,并与所使用的测试方法相关。此外,33个实验室完成了一项调查,旨在获得2013年至2017年间常规检测策略、分析样本数量和RAS突变率的更多细节。结果:在96.1%(N=5471)的RAS和BRAF试验中,突变状态得到了正确分析。共有4.6%(N=2860)的RAS测试包含假阴性结果。在1.6%(N=5562)的RAS和BRAF测试中,出现了分析失败。2013年至2018年间,错误分类和技术故障都有所减少。下一代测序用户数量从2013年的6.9%(N=130)增加到2018年的44.6%(N=112)。随着时间的推移,方法中包含了更多的密码子,但在2018年,23.2%(N=112)的密码子没有提供完整的RAS检测(外显子2、3、4)。根据调查,RAS的总体突变率估计为45.2%(N=27325)。结论:这是迄今为止报告RAS突变率的最大的观察性研究。尽管RAS突变率明显转向了更敏感的检测并提高了检测质量,但随着时间的推移,RAS突变率没有趋势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evolution of RAS testing over time: factors influencing mutation rates in metastatic colorectal cancer patients
Aim: Correct identification of RAS gene variants is key for targeted treatment decisions in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Published RAS mutation rates differ and could be influenced by several factors including testing methods. This study aimed to describe the performance of laboratories to correctly identify RAS variants over time and to understand how RAS testing has evolved in Europe. Materials & methods: Misclassification and test failure rates were calculated and related to the used test methodology for 239 unique laboratories participating in external quality assessment for metastatic colorectal cancer between 2013 and 2018. In addition, 33 laboratories completed a survey aiming to obtain more details on their routine testing strategies, number of samples analyzed and RAS mutation rates between 2013 and 2017. Results: The mutation status was correctly analyzed in 96.1% (N = 5471) RAS and BRAF tests. A total of 4.6% (N = 2860) RAS tests included false-negative results. In 1.6% (N = 5562) RAS and BRAF tests, an analysis failure occurred. Misclassifications and technical failures both decreased between 2013 and 2018. The number of next-generation sequencing users increased from 6.9% (N = 130) in 2013 to 44.6% (N = 112) in 2018. Over time, more codons were included in the methodologies, yet 23.2% (N = 112) did not offer full RAS testing (exon 2, 3, 4) in 2018. Based on the survey the overall RAS mutation rate was estimated as 45.2% (N = 27,325). Conclusion: This is the largest observational study reporting RAS mutation rates to-date. There was no trend of RAS mutation rates over time despite having a clear shift to more sensitive tests and increased quality of testing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Colorectal Cancer
Colorectal Cancer ONCOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Colorectal cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, particularly in the developed world. Risk factors for colorectal cancer are on the rise in many countries; populations are aging, and obesity and diabetes are increasing. National screening programs are helping to detect cancer while it is still curable; however, colorectal cancer remains the third leading cause of cancer deaths in the USA and options are still limited for those with more advanced disease. Consequently, colorectal cancer is a major research priority for government, pharmaceutical companies and non-profit organizations. Research into diagnosis and optimum treatment of the disease is progressing rapidly, with new advances reported every day. Colorectal Cancer presents reviews, analysis and commentary. on all aspects of colorectal cancer.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信