A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Detection of BRAF p.V600E mutations in melanomas: comparison of four methods argues for sequential use of immunohistochemistry and pyrosequencing. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

BRAF p.V600 mutation detection recently became necessary to treat metastatic melanoma patients with vemurafenib. This study compares different methods of detection of BRAF mutations. Melanoma samples from 111 patients were analyzed for BRAF mutations, and for 89 of them, results were obtained with the four following methods: Sanger sequencing, real-time PCR, immunohistochemistry, and pyrosequencing. All samples contained at least 60% of tumor cells. Directional Sanger sequencing of PCR products failed to detect 3 of 40 p.V600E-mutated cases (7.5%) (sensitivity, 92.5%; 95% CI, 78.5% to 98.0%). BRAF p.V600E-specific real-time PCR identified 39 of 40 p.V600E-mutated cases (97.6%) (sensitivity, 97.5%; 95% CI, 87.1% to 99.6%) and all 39 wild-type (WT) cases and surprisingly was also positive for 6/6 p.V600K (specificity, 87.8%; 95% CI, 75.8% to 94.3%). However, other mutations, p.V600R (n = 1), p.K601E (n = 2), and p.600_601delinsE (n = 1), were not detected. Immunohistochemistry with VE1, specific for p.V600E, identified all p.V600E and WT cases (sensitivity, 100%; 95% CI, 91.2% to 100%) but was negative for all other BRAF mutations. Pyrosequencing successfully identified all WT and mutated cases. Immunohistochemistry is highly specific for p.V600E, and could be used as a first-line method, as is currently performed for HER2 amplification detection. Pyrosequencing proved to be the most efficient method to detect BRAF mutations in melanomas and could be performed on VE1-negative or uninterpretable cases.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2012.09.001DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

braf mutations
16
detection braf
8
mutations melanomas
8
immunohistochemistry pyrosequencing
8
sanger sequencing
8
real-time pcr
8
pv600e-mutated cases
8
specific pv600e
8
mutations
6
braf
6

Similar Publications