4.7 Review

EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer: preclinical data and clinical implications

Journal

LANCET ONCOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages E23-E31

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70129-2

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Pfizer
  2. Roche
  3. Conquer Cancer Foundation of the American Society of Clinical Oncology
  4. National Institutes of Health [CA090578, CA126026]
  5. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P20CA090578, P50CA090578, R00CA126026, K99CA126026] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death. The identification of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) somatic mutations defined a new, molecularly classified subgroup of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Classic EGFR activating mutations, such as inframe deletions in exon 19 or the Leu858Arg (L858R) point mutation in exon 21 are associated with sensitivity to first generation quinazoline reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations, which are typically located after the C-helix of the tyrosine kinase domain of EGFR, may account for up to 4% of all EGFR mutations. Preclinical models have shown that the most prevalent EGFR exon 20 insertion mutated proteins are resistant to clinically achievable doses of reversible (gefitinib, erlotinib) and irreversible (neratinib, afatinib, PF00299804) EGFR TKIs. Growing clinical experience with patients whose tumours harbour EGFR exon 20 insertions corresponds with the preclinical data; very few patients have had responses to EGFR TKIs. Despite the prevalence and biological importance of EGFR exon 20 insertions, few reports have summarised all preclinical and clinical data on these mutations. Here, we review the literature and provide an update with an emphasis on the structural, molecular, and clinical implications of EGFR exon 20 insertions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available