Clinical pharmacogenomic testing of KRAS, BRAF and EGFR mutations by high resolution melting analysis and ultra-deep pyrosequencing

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and its downstream factors KRAS and BRAF are mutated in several types of cancer, affecting the clinical response to EGFR inhibitors. Mutations in the EGFR kinase domain predict sensitivity to the tyrosine kinase inhibitors gefitinib and erlotinib in lung adenocarcinoma, while activating point mutations in KRAS and BRAF confer resistance to the anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody cetuximab in colorectal cancer. The development of new generation methods for systematic mutation screening of these genes will allow more appropriate therapeutic choices. METHODS: We describe a high resolution melting (HRM) assay for mutation detection in EGFR exons 19-21, KRAS codon 12/13 and BRAF V600 using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples. Somatic variation of KRAS exon 2 was also analysed by massively parallel pyrosequencing of amplicons with the GS Junior 454 platform. RESULTS: We tested 120 routine diagnostic specimens from patients with colorectal or lung cancer. Mutations in KRAS, BRAF and EGFR were observed in 41.9%, 13.0% and 11.1% of the overall samples, respectively, being mutually exclusive. For KRAS, six types of substitutions were detected (17 G12D, 9 G13D, 7 G12C, 2 G12A, 2 G12V, 2 G12S), while V600E accounted for all the BRAF activating mutations. Regarding EGFR, two cases showed exon 19 deletions (delE746-A750 and delE746-T751insA) and another two substitutions in exon 21 (one showed L858R with the resistance mutation T590M in exon 20, and the other had P848L mutation). Consistent with earlier reports, our results show that KRAS and BRAF mutation frequencies in colorectal cancer were 44.3% and 13.0%, respectively, while EGFR mutations were detected in 11.1% of the lung cancer specimens. Ultra-deep amplicon pyrosequencing successfully validated the HRM results and allowed detection and quantitation of KRAS somatic mutations. CONCLUSIONS: HRM is a rapid and sensitive method for moderate-throughput cost-effective screening of oncogene mutations in clinical samples. Rather than Sanger sequence validation, next-generation sequencing technology results in more accurate quantitative results in somatic variation and can be achieved at a higher throughput scale.

Consensus statement of the European guidelines on clinical management of HIV-1 tropism testing

Introduction: Testing for HIV tropism is recommended before prescribing a chemokine receptor blocker. To date, in most European countries HIV tropism is determined using a phenotypic test. Recently, new data have emerged supporting the use of a genotypic HIV V3-loop sequence analysis as the basis for tropism determination. The European guidelines group on clinical management of HIV-1 tropism testing was established to make recommendations to clinicians and virologists. Methods: We searched online databases for articles from Jan 2006 until March 2010 with the terms: tropism or CCR5-antagonist or CCR5 antagonist or maraviroc or vicriviroc. Additional articles and/or conference abstracts were identified by hand searching. This strategy identified 712 potential articles and 1240 abstracts. All were reviewed and finally 57 papers and 42 abstracts were included and used by the panel to reach a consensus statement. Results: The panel recommends HIV-tropism testing for the following indications: i) drug-naïve patients in whom toxicity or limited therapeutic options are foreseen; ii) patients experiencing therapy failure whenever a treatment change is considered. Both the phenotypic Enhanced Trofile assay (ESTA) and genotypic population sequencing of the V3-loop are recommended for use in clinical practice. Although the panel does not recommend one methodology over another it is anticipated that genotypic testing will be used more frequently because of its greater accessibility, lower cost and shorter turnaround time. The panel also provides guidance on technical aspects and interpretation issues. If using genotypic methods, triplicate PCR amplification and sequencing testing is advised using the G2P interpretation tool (clonal model) with an FPR of 10%. If the viral load is below the level of reliable amplification, proviral DNA can be used, and the panel recommends performing triplicate testing and use of an FPR of 10%. If genotypic DNA testing is not performed in triplicate the FPR should be increased to 20%. Conclusions: The European guidelines on clinical management of HIV-1 tropism testing provide an overview of current literature, evidence-based recommendations for the clinical use of tropism testing and expert guidance on unresolved issues and current developments. Current data support both the use of genotypic population sequencing and ESTA for co-receptor tropism determination. For practical reasons genotypic population sequencing is the preferred method in Europe.

International survey on skin patch test procedures, attitudes and interpretation.

BACKGROUND Skin patch test is the gold standard method in diagnosing contact allergy. Although used for more than 100 years, the patch test procedure is performed with variability around the world. A number of factors can influence the test results, namely the quality of reagents used, the timing of the application, the patch test series (allergens/haptens) that have been used for testing, the appropriate interpretation of the skin reactions or the evaluation of the patient's benefit. METHODS We performed an Internet -based survey with 38 questions covering the educational background of respondents, patch test methods and interpretation. The questionnaire was distributed among all representatives of national member societies of the World Allergy Organization (WAO), and the WAO Junior Members Group. RESULTS One hundred sixty-nine completed surveys were received from 47 countries. The majority of participants had more than 5 years of clinical practice (61 %) and routinely carried out patch tests (70 %). Both allergists and dermatologists were responsible for carrying out the patch tests. We could observe the use of many different guidelines regardless the geographical distribution. The use of home-made preparations was indicated by 47 % of participants and 73 % of the respondents performed 2 or 3 readings. Most of the responders indicated having patients with adverse reactions, including erythroderma (12 %); however, only 30 % of members completed a consent form before conducting the patch test. DISCUSSION The heterogeneity of patch test practices may be influenced by the level of awareness of clinical guidelines, different training backgrounds, accessibility to various types of devices, the patch test series (allergens/haptens) used for testing, type of clinical practice (public or private practice, clinical or research-based institution), infrastructure availability, financial/commercial implications and regulations among others. CONCLUSION There is a lack of a worldwide homogeneity of patch test procedures, and this raises concerns about the need for standardization and harmonization of this important diagnostic procedure.