Sensitive cell‑free DNA assay for accurate detection of RAS and BRAF mutations in liquid biopsies of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Final results of the multicentric ColoBEAM study
Rattachement africain : fr, us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
) status available for analysis, and 198 patients had both RAS and BRAF statuses available. Overall, the study confirmed the feasibility of liquid biopsy, achieving a concordance rate of 83.2% for RAS mutations and 82.3% for RAS and BRAF mutations when compared with tissue biopsy. The sensitivity of liquid biopsy for detecting RAS mutations was 77.3%, with a specificity of 94.3%. For RAS and BRAF mutations combined, the sensitivity was 77.0% and the specificity was 93.7%. Further analysis based on patient characteristics at the time of blood sampling showed higher sensitivity in chemotherapy-naive patients (sensitivity, 86.1%; specificity, 91.3%) and in patients with liver metastases (sensitivity, 88.6%; specificity, 89.7%). Sensitivity was also higher when the primary tumour was present (sensitivity, 88.6%) and in cases of disease progression or recurrence (sensitivity, 82.8%). In conclusion, liquid biopsy was a feasible and valuable method for detecting RAS and BRAF mutations in patients with mCRC, offering a less invasive alternative to traditional tissue biopsy in real-world settings. The trial registration number is 2015-A01272-47/NCT02751177 (registered March 3, 2016).
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Sensitive cell‑free DNA assay for accurate detection of RAS and BRAF mutations in liquid biopsies of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Final results of the multicentric ColoBEAM study
- Date Crossref
- 30/10/2025
- Éditeur
- Spandidos Publications
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.