These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison study of the performance of the QIAGEN EGFR RGQ and EGFR pyro assays for mutation analysis in non-small cell lung cancer.
    Author: Cushman-Vokoun AM, Crowley AM, Rapp SA, Greiner TC.
    Journal: Am J Clin Pathol; 2013 Jul; 140(1):7-19. PubMed ID: 23765529.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To compare 2 laboratory assays commonly used in the evaluation of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Fifty-three formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded NSCLC specimens were selected. Extracted DNA was analyzed using the EGFR RGQ Amplification Refractory Mutation System Scorpions probe-based real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay and the EGFR Pyro pyrosequencing assay. RESULTS: Fourteen EGFR mutations were identified in 13 specimens using at least 1 of the assays, with a mutation concordance rate of 92.9%. Using dideoxy sequencing as the gold standard, clinical sensitivity was 73.7% and 68.4% by the RGQ and Pyro assays, respectively, but 100% by both for common drug sensitivity mutations. Performance observations included the following: the RGQ system requires higher DNA input, the RGQ system is a single-step procedure, the EGFR Pyro assay is a 2-step procedure, only the RGQ system can identify exon 20 insertions, the RGQ system is more sensitive, and the Pyro system can specify exact mutations for all interrogated sites. CONCLUSIONS: Both the RGQ real-time PCR and Pyro assays adequately detect common EGFR mutations; however, the RGQ system is more clinically and analytically sensitive. Performance characteristics should be considered when evaluating these EGFR mutation assays for clinical adoption.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]