Premium
Performance comparison of two androgen receptor splice variant 7 (AR‐V7) detection methods
Author(s) -
Bernemann Christof,
Steinestel Julie,
Humberg Verena,
Bögemann Martin,
Schrader Andres Jan,
Lennerz Jochen K.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1111/bju.14146
Subject(s) - androgen receptor , prostate cancer , concordance , cancer research , androgen deprivation therapy , androgen , serial dilution , splice , taqman , medicine , cancer , oncology , biology , real time polymerase chain reaction , pathology , gene , hormone , biochemistry , alternative medicine
Objectives To compare the performance of two established androgen receptor splice variant 7 (AR‐V7) mRNA detection systems, as paradoxical responses to next‐generation androgen‐deprivation therapy in AR‐V7 mRNA‐positive circulating tumour cells (CTC) of patients with castration‐resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) could be related to false‐positive classification using detection systems with different sensitivities. Materials and Methods We compared the performance of two established mRNA‐based AR‐V7 detection technologies using either SYBR Green or TaqMan chemistries. We assessed in vitro performance using eight genitourinary cancer cell lines and serial dilutions in three AR‐V7‐positive prostate cancer cell lines, as well as in 32 blood samples from patients with CRPC. Results Both assays performed identically in the cell lines and serial dilutions showed identical diagnostic thresholds. Performance comparison in 32 clinical patient samples showed perfect concordance between the assays. In particular, both assays determined AR‐V7 mRNA‐positive CTCs in three patients with unexpected responses to next‐generation anti‐androgen therapy. Thus, technical differences between the assays can be excluded as the underlying reason for the unexpected responses to next‐generation anti‐androgen therapy in a subset of AR‐V7 patients. Conclusions Irrespective of the method used, patients with AR‐V7 mRNA‐positive CRPC should not be systematically precluded from an otherwise safe treatment option.