4.0 Article

Epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutation as risk factor for recurrence in patients with surgically resected lung adenocarcinoma: a matched-pair analysis

Journal

INTERACTIVE CARDIOVASCULAR AND THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 23, Issue 2, Pages 216-222

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivw116

Keywords

Lung adenocarcinoma; Epidermal growth factor receptor; Recurrence factor; Matched-pair analysis

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16K10687] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation is a robust prognostic factor in patients with lung adenocarcinoma (ADC). However, the role of EGFR mutation status as a recurrence-risk factor remains unknown because the presence of such mutations is associated with other background characteristics. We therefore conducted a matched-pair analysis to compare recurrence-free survival (RFS) in matched cohorts of patients with lung ADC. METHODS: We enrolled 379 patients who underwent surgical resection for lung ADC between 2005 and 2012. We determined the EGFR mutation status of each tumour. Matching their age, gender, smoking history and pathological stage (pStage), we compared RFS between matched cohorts with and without EGFR mutation (n = 86 each). RESULTS: The median age was 67 years, there were 39 (45%) men, 39 (45%) ex- or current smokers and pStage I: 71 (83%), II: 5 (6%), III: 8 (9%), IV: 2 (2%) in each group. The 3- and 5-year RFS rates in patients with mutant and wild-type EGFR were 85 and 78%, and 74 and 60%, respectively, with significant differences between the groups (P = 0.040). Multivariate analysis identified vascular invasion and lymphatic permeation, but not EGFR mutation status, as independent risk factors for recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: EGFR-gene mutation might be a favourable recurrence-risk factor in patients with surgically resected lung ADC, but further studies in larger cohorts are needed to verify this hypothesis.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available