Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 18, 2026

Employing Digital Droplet PCR to Detect BRAF V600E Mutations in Formalin-fixed Paraffin-embedded Reference Standard Cell Lines
Published on: October 8, 2015
A comparison of four methods for detecting KRAS mutations in formalin-fixed specimens from metastatic colorectal
Mototsugu Matsunaga1, Toshikado Kaneta2, Keisuke Miwa1
1Multidisciplinary Treatment Cancer Center, Kurume University Hospital, Kurume, Fukuoka 830-0011, Japan.
Abstract:
There is currently no standard method for the detection of Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) mutation status in colorectal tumors. In the present study, we compared the KRAS mutation detection ability of four methods: direct sequencing, Scorpion-ARMS assaying, pyrosequencing and multi-analyte profiling (Luminex xMAP). We evaluated 73 cases of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) resistant to irinotecan, oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine that were enrolled in an all-case study of cetuximab. The KRAS mutation detection capacity of the four analytical methods was compared using DNA samples extracted from tumor tissue, and the detection success rate and concordance of the detection results were evaluated. KRAS mutations were detected by direct sequencing, Scorpion-ARMS assays, pyrosequencing and Luminex xMAP at success rates of 93.2%, 97.3%, 95.9% and 94.5%, respectively. The concordance rates of the detection results by Scorpion-ARMS, pyrosequencing and Luminex xMAP with those of direct sequencing were 0.897, 0.923 and 0.900 (κ statistics), respectively. The direct sequencing method could not determine KRAS mutation status in five DNA samples. Of these, Scorpion-ARMS, pyrosequencing and Luminex xMAP successfully detected three, two and one KRAS mutation statuses, respectively. Three cases demonstrated inconsistent results, whereby Luminex xMAP detected mutated KRAS in two samples while wild-type KRAS was detected by the other methods. In the remaining case, direct sequencing detected wild-type KRAS, which was identified as mutated KRAS by the other methods. In conclusion, we confirmed that Scorpion-ARMS, pyrosequencing and Luminex xMAP were equally reliable in detecting KRAS mutation status in mCRC. However, in rare cases, the KRAS status was differentially diagnosed using these methods.
More Related Videos
11:20Simple and Rapid Method to Obtain High-quality Tumor DNA from Clinical-pathological Specimens Using Touch Imprint Cytology
Published on: March 21, 2018
10:41Wild-type Blocking PCR Combined with Direct Sequencing as a Highly Sensitive Method for Detection of Low-Frequency Somatic Mutations
Published on: March 29, 2017