4.4 Article

Comparison of plasma ctDNA and tissue/cytology-based techniques for the detection of EGFR mutation status in advanced NSCLC: Spanish data subset from ASSESS

Journal

CLINICAL & TRANSLATIONAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 20, Issue 10, Pages 1261-1267

Publisher

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1007/s12094-018-1855-y

Keywords

Non-small-cell lung cancer; EGFR mutation; ctDNA; Plasma; Real-world; Liquid biopsy

Categories

Funding

  1. AstraZeneca

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposeThe analysis of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in many patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) has provided the opportunity for successful treatment with specific, targeted EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. However, this therapeutic decision may be challenging when insufficient tumor tissue is available for EGFR mutation testing. Therefore, blood surrogate samples for EGFR mutation analysis have been suggested.MethodsData were collected from the Spanish cohort of patients in the large, non-interventional, diagnostic ASSESS study (NCT01785888) evaluating the utility of circulating free tumor-derived DNA from plasma for EGFR mutation testing. The incidence of EGFR mutation in Spain and the level of concordance between matched tissue/cytology and plasma samples were evaluated.ResultsIn a cohort of 154 eligible patients, EGFR mutations were identified in 15.1 and 11.0% of tumor and plasma samples, respectively. The most commonly used EGFR mutation testing method for the tumor tissue samples was the QIAGEN Therascreen((R)) EGFR RGQ PCR kit (52.1%). Fragment Length Analysis+PNA LNA Clamp was used for the plasma samples. The concordance rate for EGFR mutation status between the tissue/cytology and plasma samples was 88.8%; the sensitivity was 45.5%, and the specificity was 96.7%.ConclusionsThe high concordance between the different DNA sources for EGFR mutation testing supports the use of plasma samples when tumor tissue is unavailable.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available