4.6 Article

Diagnostic Value of Mutation-Specific Antibodies for Immunohistochemical Detection of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 9, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105940

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Various studies have assessed the diagnostic accuracy of EGFR mutation-specific antibodies in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We performed a meta-analysis of existing data to investigate the diagnostic value of mutation-specific antibodies for detection of EGFR mutations in NSCLC. Methods: We systematically retrieved relevant studies from PubMed, Web of Knowledge, and Google Scholar. Data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were extracted for further exploration of heterogeneity, including calculation of the average sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and analysis of SROC(summary receiver operating characteristic) curves. Results: Fifteen studies met our inclusion criteria. A summary of the meta-analysis of the efficacy of the anti-E746-A750 antibody was as follows: sensitivity, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.55-0.64); specificity, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.98); PLR, 33.50 (95% CI, 13.96-80.39); NLR, 0.39 (95% CI, 0.30-0.51) and DOR, 111.17 (95% CI, 62.22-198.63). A similar meta-analysis was performed for the anti-L858R antibody with results as follows: sensitivity, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71-0.79); specificity, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95-0.97); PLR, 24.42 (95% CI, 11.66-51.17); NLR, 0.22 (95% CI, 0.12-0.39) and DOR, 126.66 (95% CI, 54.60-293.82). Conclusion: Immunohistochemistry alone is sufficient for the detection of EGFR mutations if the result is positive. Molecular-based analyses are necessary only if the anti-E746-A750 antibody results are negative. Immunohistochemistry seems more suitable for clinical screening for EGFR mutations prior to molecular-based analysis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available