• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

IDH Mutation Analysis in Glioma Patients by CADMA Compared with SNaPshot Assay and two Immunohistochemical Methods

I. Urbanovska, MH. Megova, Z. Dwight, O. Kalita, M. Uvirova, J. Simova, L. Tuckova, P. Buzrla, T. Palecek, M. Hajduch, J. Dvorackova, J. Drabek,

. 2019 ; 25 (3) : 971-978. [pub] 20180319

Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc19045524

Grantová podpora
LO 1304 Ministerstvo Školství, Mládeže a Tělovýchovy
LM 2015089 Ministerstvo Školství, Mládeže a Tělovýchovy
NT 13581 Ministerstvo Školství, Mládeže a Tělovýchovy
NV 16-32198A Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky
NV16-32198A MZ0 CEP - Centrální evidence projektů

Mutations in IDH1/2 genes are a marker of good prognosis for glioma patients, associated with low grade gliomas and secondary glioblastomas. Immunohistochemistry and Sanger sequencing are current standards for IDH1/2 genotyping while many other methods exist. The aim of this study was to validate Competitive amplification of differentially melting amplicons (CADMA) PCR for IDH genotyping by comparison with SNaPshot assay and two immunohistochemical methods. In our study, 87 glioma patients (46 from Olomouc and 41 from Ostrava) were analyzed. IDH1/2 mutations in native bioptical samples were analyzed at DNA level by CADMA and SNaPshot while IDH1 mutations in FFPE samples were analyzed at protein level by two IHC methods. CADMA PCR sensitivity for IDH1 was 96.4% and specificity 100% for 86 concluded samples. SNaPshot assay sensitivity was 92.9% and specificity of 100% for 85 concluded samples. IHC in the laboratory no. 2 reached sensitivity 85.7% and specificity 100% for 86 concluded samples. IHC in the laboratory no. 4 reached sensitivity of 96.4% and specificity of 79.7% in 74 concluded samples. Only one IDH2 mutation was found by SNaPshot while CADMA yielded false negative result. In conclusion, CADMA is a valid method for IDH1 p.(R132H) testing with higher sensitivity than SNaPshot assay. Also, molecular genetic methods of IDH1 testing from native samples were more robust than IHC from FFPE.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc19045524
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20200116104407.0
007      
ta
008      
200109s2019 ne f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1007/s12253-018-0413-9 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)29556922
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a ne
100    1_
$a Urbanovska, Irena $u CGB Laboratory Inc., Ostrava, Czech Republic. Department of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
245    10
$a IDH Mutation Analysis in Glioma Patients by CADMA Compared with SNaPshot Assay and two Immunohistochemical Methods / $c I. Urbanovska, MH. Megova, Z. Dwight, O. Kalita, M. Uvirova, J. Simova, L. Tuckova, P. Buzrla, T. Palecek, M. Hajduch, J. Dvorackova, J. Drabek,
520    9_
$a Mutations in IDH1/2 genes are a marker of good prognosis for glioma patients, associated with low grade gliomas and secondary glioblastomas. Immunohistochemistry and Sanger sequencing are current standards for IDH1/2 genotyping while many other methods exist. The aim of this study was to validate Competitive amplification of differentially melting amplicons (CADMA) PCR for IDH genotyping by comparison with SNaPshot assay and two immunohistochemical methods. In our study, 87 glioma patients (46 from Olomouc and 41 from Ostrava) were analyzed. IDH1/2 mutations in native bioptical samples were analyzed at DNA level by CADMA and SNaPshot while IDH1 mutations in FFPE samples were analyzed at protein level by two IHC methods. CADMA PCR sensitivity for IDH1 was 96.4% and specificity 100% for 86 concluded samples. SNaPshot assay sensitivity was 92.9% and specificity of 100% for 85 concluded samples. IHC in the laboratory no. 2 reached sensitivity 85.7% and specificity 100% for 86 concluded samples. IHC in the laboratory no. 4 reached sensitivity of 96.4% and specificity of 79.7% in 74 concluded samples. Only one IDH2 mutation was found by SNaPshot while CADMA yielded false negative result. In conclusion, CADMA is a valid method for IDH1 p.(R132H) testing with higher sensitivity than SNaPshot assay. Also, molecular genetic methods of IDH1 testing from native samples were more robust than IHC from FFPE.
650    _2
$a nádorové biomarkery $x genetika $7 D014408
650    _2
$a nádory mozku $x genetika $7 D001932
650    _2
$a mutační analýza DNA $x metody $7 D004252
650    _2
$a glioblastom $x genetika $7 D005909
650    _2
$a gliom $x genetika $7 D005910
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a imunohistochemie $x metody $7 D007150
650    _2
$a isocitrátdehydrogenasa $x genetika $7 D007521
650    _2
$a mutace $x genetika $7 D009154
650    _2
$a senzitivita a specificita $7 D012680
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Megova, Magdalena Houdova $u Institute of Molecular and Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital in Olomouc, Hnevotinska 5, 779 00, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Dwight, Zachary $u Department of Pathology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
700    1_
$a Kalita, Ondrej $u Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Uvirova, Magdalena $u CGB Laboratory Inc., Ostrava, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Simova, Jarmila $u CGB Laboratory Inc., Ostrava, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Tuckova, Lucie $u Department of Clinical and Molecular Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital in Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Buzrla, Petr $u Institute of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, University of Ostrava, Syllabova 19, 703 00, Ostrava - Zábřeh, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Palecek, Tomas $u Neurosurgery Clinic, University Hospital Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Hajduch, Marian $u Institute of Molecular and Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital in Olomouc, Hnevotinska 5, 779 00, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Dvorackova, Jana $u Department of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, Czech Republic. jana.dvorackova@fno.cz. Institute of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital, University of Ostrava, Syllabova 19, 703 00, Ostrava - Zábřeh, Czech Republic. jana.dvorackova@fno.cz.
700    1_
$a Drabek, Jiri $u Institute of Molecular and Translational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University and University Hospital in Olomouc, Hnevotinska 5, 779 00, Olomouc, Czech Republic. jiri_drabek@seznam.cz.
773    0_
$w MED00180530 $t Pathology oncology research : POR $x 1532-2807 $g Roč. 25, č. 3 (2019), s. 971-978
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29556922 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20200109 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20200116104741 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1483792 $s 1084197
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2019 $b 25 $c 3 $d 971-978 $e 20180319 $i 1532-2807 $m Pathology oncology research $n Pathol Oncol Res $x MED00180530
GRA    __
$a LO 1304 $p Ministerstvo Školství, Mládeže a Tělovýchovy
GRA    __
$a LM 2015089 $p Ministerstvo Školství, Mládeže a Tělovýchovy
GRA    __
$a NT 13581 $p Ministerstvo Školství, Mládeže a Tělovýchovy
GRA    __
$a NV 16-32198A $p Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky
GRA    __
$a NV16-32198A $p MZ0
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20200109

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace