Performance evaluation comparison of 3 commercially available PCR-based KRAS mutation testing platforms

The identification of KRAS mutations in patients with certain types of cancer, including colonic adenocarcinoma and non-small cell lung carcinoma, has become increasingly important as these patients are contraindicated from receiving epidermal growth factor receptor-targeted therapies. Several polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based tests are commercially available for KRAS mutation testing including Applied Biosystems KRAS Mutation Analysis on the ABI3130xl, Qiagen therascreen KRAS RGQ PCR on the Rotor-Gene Q MDx, and Qiagen KRAS Pyro on the PyroMark Q24; however, these tests have not been compared side by side. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance characteristics and workflow for 3 PCR-based methods of detecting KRAS mutation status. We evaluated the performance characteristics and workflow for 3 commercially available KRAS mutation detection platforms. All of the 188 samples run were successful, with 29% being positive for the KRAS mutation. Of the positive tests, Applied Biosystems detected 84% of the positive cases, whereas Qiagen therascreen RGQ and Qiagen KRAS Pyro detected 100% of the positive cases. In cases of discrepancy between Applied Biosystems and therascreen RGQ, Pyro agreed with therascreen RGQ 95% of the time. Qiagen therascreen RGQ and Pyro were comparable in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy, with all values being 100%. All 3 techniques accurately identified the appropriate mutation in the known control specimens. In summary, all 3 tests are relatively comparable for detecting the KRAS mutation, with Applied Biosystems having a slightly lower sensitivity, negative predictive value, and accuracy than therascreen RGQ and Pyro.