Evaluation of the Anyplex BRAF V600E real-time detection assay using dual-priming oligonucleotide technology in fine-needle aspirates of thyroid nodules

3Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Several molecular assays have been developed to detect the BRAF V600E mutation in fine needle aspirates (FNAs) for the diagnosis of papillary thyroid cancer. Using a multiplex PCR technique, we evaluated the Anyplex BRAF V600E Real-time Detection (Anyplex) assay and compared its efficacy with that of the Seeplex BRAF V600E ACE Detection (Seeplex) method. Methods: We tested 258 consecutive FNA specimens using the Seeplex and Anyplex assays. Any conflicting results between the two assays were confirmed by using mutant enrichment with 3′-modified oligonucleotide (MEMO) sequencing. The limits of detection (LODs) and reproducibility for each assay were evaluated with serially diluted DNA from a BRAF V600E-positive cell line. Results: The BRAF V600E mutation was detected in 36.4% (94/258) FNA specimens by either the Seeplex or Anyplex assay. Results for the two assays showed 93.4% (241/258) agreement, with a kappa value of 0.861 (95% confidence interval, 0.798-0.923). Of the eight specimens that were BRAF V600E-positive by the Anyplex assay but not by the Seeplex assay, five were found to be BRAF V600E-positive by MEMO sequencing. The mutation detection rate of the Seeplex and Anyplex assays was 79.0% and 84.0%, respectively, in the FNA specimens diagnosed as malignant (n=81). The LOD as determined by probit analysis was 0.046% (95% confidence interval, 0.019-0.532%). Conclusions: The Anyplex assay performed better than the Seeplex assay with respect to the detection of the BRAF V600E mutation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Choi, R., Park, K. S., Kim, J. W., & Ki, C. S. (2015). Evaluation of the Anyplex BRAF V600E real-time detection assay using dual-priming oligonucleotide technology in fine-needle aspirates of thyroid nodules. Annals of Laboratory Medicine, 35(6), 624–629. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2015.35.6.624

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free