Impact of fixation artifacts and threshold selection on high resolution melting analysis for KRAS mutation screening

Wendy Pérez-Báez1, Ethel A García-Latorre2, Héctor Aquiles Maldonado-Martínez3

  • 1Immunology Department and CQB Post-graduate Program, National School of Biological Sciences, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Prol. Carpio y Plan de Ayala s/n, Colonia Santo Tomás, Delegación Miguel Hidalgo, Ciudad de México, Mexico City, CP 11340, México; Molecular Pathology and Immunopathology Department, Pathology Department, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, San Fernando 2 piso 1, Colonia Barrio del Niño Jesús, Delegación Tlalpan, Ciudad de México, Mexico City, CP 14080, México.

Abstract

Insights

High-resolution melting analysis (HRMA) is a sensitive method for detecting KRAS mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Pre-treating samples with UDG is recommended to mitigate FFPE artifacts and improve accuracy for KRAS mutation testing.

Area of Science:

  • Oncology
  • Molecular Diagnostics
  • Genetics

Background:

  • Treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) relies on EGFR-targeting antibodies, necessitating KRAS wild-type (WT) status.
  • KRAS mutation detection in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues is crucial for treatment selection.
  • High-resolution melting analysis (HRMA) offers a sensitive, rapid, and cost-effective method for KRAS mutation detection.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the performance of HRMA and UDG-pre-treated HRMA for KRAS mutation detection in FFPE samples.
  • To compare HRMA-based methods against a validated FDA test (Therascreen™).
  • To determine the optimal threshold for HRMA in classifying KRAS wild-type versus mutant genotypes.

Main Methods:

  • 104 mCRC patient samples were analyzed using Therascreen™, HRMA, and HRMA with UDG pre-treatment.
  • Comparative analysis of KRAS status allocation among the three methods.
  • Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to assess discriminative power and determine optimal thresholds.

Main Results:

  • Both HRMA and HRMA-UDG demonstrated high sensitivity (1.0) compared to Therascreen™.
  • HRMA-UDG showed a statistically significant difference in genotype allocation compared to HRMA (p > 0.001).
  • HRMA-UDG performance was comparable to Therascreen™ (p = 0.125), with AUCs of 0.978 for HRMA and 0.98 for HRMA-UDG.

Conclusions:

  • HRMA is a highly sensitive method for KRAS mutation detection with significant discriminative power.
  • FFPE artifacts impact HRMA results; UDG pre-treatment is strongly recommended for FFPE samples.
  • An optimal HRMA threshold of 93% concordance may be suitable for screening, requiring further validation.

Related Concept Videos