BRAF mutation testing in solid tumors: A methodological comparison

Grace W. Weyant, Jeffrey D. Wisotzkey, Floyd A. Benko, Keri J. Donaldson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Scopus citations


Solid tumor genotyping has become standard of care for the characterization of proto-oncogene mutational status, which has traditionally been accomplished with Sanger sequencing. However, companion diagnostic assays and comparable laboratory-developed tests are becoming increasingly popular, such as the cobas 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test and the INFINITI KRAS-BRAF assay, respectively. This study evaluates and validates the analytical performance of the INFINITI KRAS-BRAF assay and compares concordance of BRAF status with two reference assays, the cobas test and Sanger sequencing. DNA extraction from FFPE tissue specimens was performed followed by multiplex PCR amplification and fluorescent label incorporation using allele-specific primer extension. Hybridization to a microarray, signal detection, and analysis were then performed. The limits of detection were determined by testing dilutions of mutant BRAF alleles within wild-type background DNA, and accuracy was calculated based on these results. The INFINITI KRAS-BRAF assay produced 100% concordance with the cobas test and Sanger sequencing and had sensitivity equivalent to the cobas assay. The INFINITI assay is repeatable with at least 95% accuracy in the detection of mutant and wild-type BRAF alleles. These results confirm that the INFINITI KRAS-BRAF assay is comparable to traditional sequencing and the Food and Drug Administration-approved companion diagnostic assay for the detection of BRAF mutations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)481-485
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Molecular Diagnostics
Issue number5
StatePublished - Sep 2014

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine
  • Molecular Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'BRAF mutation testing in solid tumors: A methodological comparison'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this