- KRAS Mutation Test in Korean Patients with Colorectal Carcinomas: A Methodological Comparison between Sanger Sequencing and a Real-Time PCR-Based Assay
-
Sung Hak Lee, Arthur Minwoo Chung, Ahwon Lee, Woo Jin Oh, Yeong Jin Choi, Youn-Soo Lee, Eun Sun Jung
-
J Pathol Transl Med. 2017;51(1):24-31. Published online December 25, 2016
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4132/jptm.2016.10.03
-
-
9,242
View
-
151
Download
-
5
Web of Science
-
5
Crossref
-
 Abstract
 PDF Supplementary Material
- Background
Mutations in the KRAS gene have been identified in approximately 50% of colorectal cancers (CRCs). KRAS mutations are well established biomarkers in anti–epidermal growth factor receptor therapy. Therefore, assessment of KRAS mutations is needed in CRC patients to ensure appropriate treatment.
Methods
We compared the analytical performance of the cobas test to Sanger sequencing in 264 CRC cases. In addition, discordant specimens were evaluated by 454 pyrosequencing.
Results
KRAS mutations for codons 12/13 were detected in 43.2% of cases (114/264) by Sanger sequencing. Of 257 evaluable specimens for comparison, KRAS mutations were detected in 112 cases (43.6%) by Sanger sequencing and 118 cases (45.9%) by the cobas test. Concordance between the cobas test and Sanger sequencing for each lot was 93.8% positive percent agreement (PPA) and 91.0% negative percent agreement (NPA) for codons 12/13. Results from the cobas test and Sanger sequencing were discordant for 20 cases (7.8%). Twenty discrepant cases were subsequently subjected to 454 pyrosequencing. After comprehensive analysis of the results from combined Sanger sequencing–454 pyrosequencing and the cobas test, PPA was 97.5% and NPA was 100%.
Conclusions
The cobas test is an accurate and sensitive test for detecting KRAS-activating mutations and has analytical power equivalent to Sanger sequencing. Prescreening using the cobas test with subsequent application of Sanger sequencing is the best strategy for routine detection of KRAS mutations in CRC.
-
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by  - Single-center study on clinicopathological and typical molecular pathologic features of metastatic brain tumor
Su Hwa Kim, Young Suk Lee, Sung Hak Lee, Yeoun Eun Sung, Ahwon Lee, Jun Kang, Jae-Sung Park, Sin Soo Jeun, Youn Soo Lee
Journal of Pathology and Translational Medicine.2023; 57(4): 217. CrossRef - Assessment of KRAS and NRAS status in metastatic colorectal cancer: Experience of the National Institute of Oncology in Rabat Morocco
Chaimaa Mounjid, Hajar El Agouri, Youssef Mahdi, Abdelilah Laraqui, En-nacer Chtati, Soumaya Ech-charif, Mouna Khmou, Youssef Bakri, Amine Souadka, Basma El Khannoussi
Annals of Cancer Research and Therapy.2022; 30(2): 80. CrossRef - The current understanding on the impact of KRAS on colorectal cancer
Mingjing Meng, Keying Zhong, Ting Jiang, Zhongqiu Liu, Hiu Yee Kwan, Tao Su
Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy.2021; 140: 111717. CrossRef - Droplet digital PCR revealed high concordance between primary tumors and lymph node metastases in multiplex screening of KRAS mutations in colorectal cancer
Barbora Vanova, Michal Kalman, Karin Jasek, Ivana Kasubova, Tatiana Burjanivova, Anna Farkasova, Peter Kruzliak, Dietrich Busselberg, Lukas Plank, Zora Lasabova
Clinical and Experimental Medicine.2019; 19(2): 219. CrossRef - CRISPR Technology for Breast Cancer: Diagnostics, Modeling, and Therapy
Rachel L. Mintz, Madeleine A. Gao, Kahmun Lo, Yeh‐Hsing Lao, Mingqiang Li, Kam W. Leong
Advanced Biosystems.2018;[Epub] CrossRef
- Differential Immunohistochemical Profiles for Distinguishing Prostate Carcinoma and Urothelial Carcinoma
-
Woo Jin Oh, Arthur Minwoo Chung, Jee Soon Kim, Ji Heun Han, Sung Hoo Hong, Ji Yeol Lee, Yeong Jin Choi
-
J Pathol Transl Med. 2016;50(5):345-354. Published online August 7, 2016
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4132/jptm.2016.06.14
-
-
10,985
View
-
316
Download
-
25
Web of Science
-
28
Crossref
-
Abstract
PDF
- Background
The pathologic distinction between high-grade prostate adenocarcinoma (PAC) involving the urinary bladder and high-grade urothelial carcinoma (UC) infiltrating the prostate can be difficult. However, making this distinction is clinically important because of the different treatment modalities for these two entities.
Methods
A total of 249 patient cases (PAC, 111 cases; UC, 138 cases) collected between June 1995 and July 2009 at Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital were studied. An immunohistochemical evaluation of prostatic markers (prostate-specific antigen [PSA], prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA], prostate acid phosphatase [PAP], P501s, NKX3.1, and α-methylacyl coenzyme A racemase [AMACR]) and urothelial markers (CK34βE12, p63, thrombomodulin, S100P, and GATA binding protein 3 [GATA3]) was performed using tissue microarrays from each tumor.
Results
The sensitivities of prostatic markers in PAC were 100% for PSA, 83.8% for PSMA, 91.9% for PAP, 93.7% for P501s, 88.3% for NKX 3.1, and 66.7% for AMACR. However, the urothelial markers CK34βE12, p63, thrombomodulin, S100P, and GATA3 were also positive in 1.8%, 0%, 0%, 3.6%, and 0% of PAC, respectively. The sensitivities of urothelial markers in UC were 75.4% for CK34βE12, 73.9% for p63, 45.7% for thrombomodulin, 22.5% for S100P, and 84.8% for GATA3. Conversely, the prostatic markers PSA, PSMA, PAP, P501s, NKX3.1, and AMACR were also positive in 9.4%, 0.7%, 18.8%, 0.7%, 0%, and 8.7% of UCs, respectively.
Conclusions
Prostatic and urothelial markers, including PSA, NKX3.1, p63, thrombomodulin, and GATA3 are very useful for differentiating PAC from UC. The optimal combination of prostatic and urothelial markers could improve the ability to differentiate PAC from UC pathologically.
-
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by - Unusual Perineal Metastasis in a Case of Prostate Cancer on 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT
Ritanshu Solanki, Bhagwant Rai Mittal, Rajender Kumar, Aravindh Sekar, Narender Kumar
Clinical Nuclear Medicine.2024; 49(2): e73. CrossRef - NKX3.1 Expression in Non-Prostatic Tumors and Characterizing its Expression in Esophageal/Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma
Ansa Mehreen, Kiran G. Manjee, Divyangi Paralkar, Gladell P. Paner, Thanh Lan
Advances in Anatomic Pathology.2024; 31(3): 202. CrossRef - Clinical Management of Intraductal Carcinoma of the Prostate
Gabriel Wasinger, Olivier Cussenot, Eva Compérat
Cancers.2024; 16(9): 1650. CrossRef - Metastatic prostate cancer presenting as a posterior mediastinal mass: A rare presentation
Muhammad Haider, Arun Umesh Mahtani, Bachar Botrus, Foma Munoh Kenne, Madiha Fatima Master
Clinical Case Reports.2023;[Epub] CrossRef - Diagnostic and Prognostic Roles of GATA3 Immunohistochemistry in Urothelial Carcinoma
Daeseon Yoo, Kyueng-Whan Min, Jung-Soo Pyo, Nae Yu Kim
Medicina.2023; 59(8): 1452. CrossRef - Primary high-grade urothelial carcinoma of prostate with prostatic hyperplasia: a rare case report and review of the literature
Liang Liu, Fu-zhen Sun, Pan-ying Zhang, Yu Xiao, Xiao Yue, Dong-Ming Wang, Qiang Wang
The Aging Male.2023;[Epub] CrossRef - Expression of Gata Binding Protein 3 as a Prognostic Factor in Urogenital Lesions and Its Association With Morphology
T Govardhan, Debahuti Mohapatra, Sujata Naik, Prateek Das, Pranita Mohanty, Ankita Pal
Cureus.2023;[Epub] CrossRef - Histological and immunohistochemical investigation of canine prostate carcinoma with identification of common intraductal carcinoma component
Simone de Brot, Jennifer Lothion‐Roy, Llorenç Grau‐Roma, Emily White, Franco Guscetti, Mark A. Rubin, Nigel P. Mongan
Veterinary and Comparative Oncology.2022; 20(1): 38. CrossRef - Urothelial Carcinoma and Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen: Cellular, Imaging, and Prognostic Implications
Arsalan Tariq, Amy E. McCart Reed, Andrew Morton, Sima Porten, Ian Vela, Elizabeth D. Williams, John W. Yaxley, Peter C. Black, Matthew J. Roberts
European Urology Focus.2022; 8(5): 1256. CrossRef - Immunohistochemical Reactivity of Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen in Salivary Gland Tumors
Haruto Nishida, Yoshihiko Kondo, Takahiro Kusaba, Hiroko Kadowaki, Tsutomu Daa
Head and Neck Pathology.2022; 16(2): 427. CrossRef - Weak NKX3.1 expression in a urothelial carcinoma: A diagnostic pitfall
Maryam Abdo, Robert Hoyt, Ashley Highfill, Daniel Mettman
Human Pathology Reports.2022; 27: 300599. CrossRef - Gene of the month: NKX3.1
Jon Griffin, Yuqing Chen, James W F Catto, Sherif El-Khamisy
Journal of Clinical Pathology.2022; 75(6): 361. CrossRef - Diagnostic Value of GATA3 and Uroplakin 3 in Differentiating Urothelial Carcinoma from Prostatic and Colorectal Carcinoma
Maha Salama, Dina A. Khairy
Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences.2022; 10(A): 514. CrossRef - Diagnostic challenges for the distinction of high-grade prostatic adenocarcinoma and high-grade urothelial carcinoma of simultaneous occurrences - A literature review
Shreyas Bhushan Jayade, Manana Jikurashvili
GEORGIAN SCIENTISTS.2022;[Epub] CrossRef - Cytomorphology, immunoprofile, and clinicopathologic correlation of metastatic prostatic carcinoma
Xiaoqi Lin, Qiuying Shi, Ximing J. Yang
Human Pathology.2022; 130: 36. CrossRef - Cutaneous Metastasis of Prostate Adenocarcinoma: A Rare Presentation of a Common Disease
Alexander Dills, Okechukwu Obi, Kevin Bustos, Jesse Jiang, Shweta Gupta
Journal of Investigative Medicine High Impact Case Reports.2021; 9: 232470962199076. CrossRef - Mining The Cancer Genome Atlas gene expression data for lineage markers in distinguishing bladder urothelial carcinoma and prostate adenocarcinoma
Ewe Seng Ch’ng
Scientific Reports.2021;[Epub] CrossRef - Immunohistochemical analysis of thrombomodulin expression in myocardial tissue from autopsy cases of ischemic heart disease
Takeshi Kondo, Motonori Takahashi, Gentaro Yamasaki, Marie Sugimoto, Azumi Kuse, Mai Morichika, Kanako Nakagawa, Makoto Sakurada, Migiwa Asano, Yasuhiro Ueno
Legal Medicine.2021; 51: 101897. CrossRef - Application and Pitfalls of Immunohistochemistry in Diagnosis of Challenging Genitourinary Cases
Jenny Ross, Guangyuan Li, Ximing J. Yang
Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine.2020; 144(3): 290. CrossRef - New Screening Test Improves Detection of Prostate Cancer Using Circulating Tumor Cells and Prostate-Specific Markers
Karin Ried, Tasnuva Tamanna, Sonja Matthews, Peter Eng, Avni Sali
Frontiers in Oncology.2020;[Epub] CrossRef - An Unlikely Culprit: Gastric Metastasis from Primary Prostatic Adenocarcinoma
Eric Omar Then, Spoorthi Nutakki, Andrew Ofosu, Saad Saleem, Vijay Gayam, Tagore Sunkara, Vinaya Gaduputi
Journal of Gastrointestinal Cancer.2020; 51(3): 1081. CrossRef - MRI of prostatic urethral mucinous urothelial carcinoma: Expanding the differential diagnosis for T2 hyperintense prostatic masses
Neel Patel, Bryan R. Foster, Elena K. Korngold, Kyle Jensen, Kevin R. Turner, Fergus V. Coakley
Clinical Imaging.2020; 68: 68. CrossRef - Morphological and Immunohistochemical Biomarkers in Distinguishing Prostate Carcinoma and Urothelial Carcinoma: A Comprehensive Review
Francesca Sanguedolce, Davide Russo, Vito Mancini, Oscar Selvaggio, Beppe Calò, Giuseppe Carrieri, Luigi Cormio
International Journal of Surgical Pathology.2019; 27(2): 120. CrossRef - A Case of Metastatic Prostate Cancer to the Urethra That Resolved After Androgen Deprivation Therapy
Darren J. Bryk, Kenneth W. Angermeier, Eric A. Klein
Urology.2019; 129: e4. CrossRef - The Homeodomain Transcription Factor NKX3.1 Modulates Bladder Outlet Obstruction Induced Fibrosis in Mice
Mehul S. Patel, Diana K. Bowen, Nicholas M. Tassone, Andrew D. Gould, Kirsten S. Kochan, Paula R. Firmiss, Natalie A. Kukulka, Megan Y. Devine, Belinda Li, Edward M. Gong, Robert W. Dettman
Frontiers in Pediatrics.2019;[Epub] CrossRef - Cancer of unknown primary: Ancillary testing of cytologic and small biopsy specimens in the era of targeted therapy
Morgan L. Cowan, Christopher J. VandenBussche
Cancer Cytopathology.2018; 126(S8): 724. CrossRef - Glandular Tumors of the Urachus and Urinary Bladder: A Practical Overview of a Broad Differential Diagnosis
Alexander S. Taylor, Rohit Mehra, Aaron M. Udager
Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine.2018; 142(10): 1164. CrossRef - S100P as a Marker for Urothelial Histogenesis: A Critical Review and Comparison With Novel and Traditional Urothelial Immunohistochemical Markers
Moushumi Suryavanshi, Julian Sanz-Ortega, Deepika Sirohi, Mukul K. Divatia, Chisato Ohe, Claudia Zampini, Daniel Luthringer, Steven C. Smith, Mahul B. Amin
Advances in Anatomic Pathology.2017; 24(3): 151. CrossRef
- Histologic Disorderliness in the Arrangement of Tumor Cells as an Objective Measure of Tumor Differentiation
-
Sungwook Suh, Gyeongsin Park, Young Sub Lee, Yosep Chong, Youn Soo Lee, Yeong Jin Choi
-
Korean J Pathol. 2014;48(5):339-345. Published online October 27, 2014
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4132/KoreanJPathol.2014.48.5.339
-
-
Abstract
PDF
- Background: Inter-observer and intra-observer variation in histologic tumor grading are well documented. To determine whether histologic disorderliness in the arrangement of tumor cells may serve as an objective criterion for grading, we tested the hypothesis the degree of disorderliness is related to the degree of tumor differentiation on which tumor grading is primarily based. Methods: Borrowing from the statistical thermodynamic definition of entropy, we defined a novel mathematical formula to compute the relative degree of histologic disorderliness of tumor cells. We then analyzed a total of 51 photomicrographs of normal colorectal mucosa and colorectal adenocarcinoma with varying degrees of differentiation using our formula. Results: A one-way analysis of variance followed by post hoc pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni correction indicated that the mean disorderliness score was the lowest for the normal colorectal mucosa and increased with decreasing tumor differentiation. Conclusions: Disorderliness, a pathologic feature of malignant tumors that originate from highly organized structures is useful as an objective tumor grading proxy in the field of digital pathology.
|
E-submission
