4.5 Article

Correlation between molecular analysis, diagnosis according to the 2015 WHO classification of unresected lung tumours and TTF1 expression in small biopsies and cytology specimens from 344 non-small cell lung carcinoma patients

Journal

PATHOLOGY
Volume 49, Issue 6, Pages 604-610

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.pathol.2017.07.002

Keywords

Non-small cell lung carcinoma; EGFR mutation; TTF1 immunohistochemistry; 2015 WHO classification

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigated correlations between diagnosis according to the 2015 World Health Organization (WHO) classification of unresected lung tumours, molecular analysis and TTF1 expression in small biopsy and cytology specimens from 344 non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) patients. One case failed testing for EGFR, KRAS and ALK abnormalities and six had insufficient tumour for ALK testing. Overall mutation rate in 343 cases was 48% for the genes tested, with 19% EGFR, 33% KRAS and 4% BRAF mutations, and 5% ALK rearrangements detected. More EGFR-mutant (78%) and ALK-rearranged (75%) tumours had morphologic adenocarcinoma than ARAS-mutant (56%) tumours. Despite no significant difference in the overall rate of any molecular abnormality between morphologic adenocarcinoma (52%) and NSCLC, favour adenocarcinoma (47%) (p = 0.18), KRAS mutations were detected more frequently in the latter group. No significant difference in the overall rate of any molecular abnormality between TTF1 positive (49%) and TTF1 negative tumours (44%) (p = 0.92) was detected, but more EGFR-mutant (97%) and ALK-rearranged tumours (92%) were TTF1 positive than KRAS-mutant tumours (68%). Rates of EGFR, KRAS and BRAF mutations and ALK rearrangements in this Australian NSCLC patient population are consistent with the published international literature. Our findings suggest that 2015 WHO classification of unresected tumours may assist in identifying molecular subsets of advanced NSCLC.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available