| Title |
Comparison of Immunohistochemistry and Direct Sequencing Methods for Identification of the BRAFV600E Mutation in Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Surgical Oncology, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1245/s10434-018-6460-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jong-kyu Kim, Chan Yong Seong, In Eui Bae, Jin Wook Yi, Hyeong Won Yu, Su-jin Kim, Jae-Kyung Won, Young Jun Chai, June Young Choi, Kyu Eun Lee |
| Abstract |
BRAFV600E mutation is the most common somatic variant in papillary thyroid carcinoma (PTC) and is associated with aggressive prognostic factors. The conventional detection method for BRAF mutations is polymerase chain reaction followed by Sanger sequencing. Recently, an immunohistochemistry (IHC) method using a BRAFV600E-specific antibody (VE1) has been developed and widely adopted in the clinics; however, there is a lack of evidence regarding the comparability of the IHC and Sanger sequencing methods. Our institution began using the BRAFV600E IHC test in January 2013. We retrospectively analyzed 697 samples that were tested using both the IHC and sequencing methods, and evaluated their concordance. BRAF mutation was detected in 90.0% (627/697) of samples using IHC and 83.4% (581/697) of samples using direct sequencing. The diagnostic parameters of IHC compared with Sanger sequencing were as follows: 100% sensitivity (581/581), 60.3% specificity (70/116), 92.7% positive predictive value (581/627), and 100% negative predictive value (70/70). No false negative results were recorded using IHC. The overall concordance rate between the two methods was 93.4% (651/697). Discordant results were found in 46 samples (6.6%), 29 of which were from cases with small tumors (< 6 mm), 8 were from cases with low tumor cellularity, and 9 were specimens yielding low-quality DNA. IHC using the VE1 antibody is a reliable and highly sensitive method for detecting the BRAFV600E mutation in classic PTC. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 45% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 9% |
| Spain | 1 | 9% |
| India | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 36% |
| Scientists | 4 | 36% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 18% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 41% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 35% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2018.
All research outputs
#5,959,493
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#1,927
of 6,540 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,535
of 328,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#50
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,540 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,975 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.