4.7 Article

An evaluation study of EGFR mutation tests utilized for non-small-cell lung cancer in the diagnostic setting

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 11, Pages 2914-2919

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mds121

Keywords

cytology; EGFR mutation; FFPE; NSCLC; PCR

Categories

Funding

  1. AstraZeneca
  2. Ono Pharmaceutical
  3. Daiichi Sankyo
  4. Chugai Pharmaceutical
  5. Glaxo SmithKline
  6. Solasia Pharma KK
  7. Mitsubishi Chemical Medience

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation is predictive for the efficacy of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment. We evaluated the performance, sensitivity, and concordance between five EGFR tests. DNA admixtures (n = 34; 1%-50% mutant plasmid DNA) and samples from NSCLC patients [116 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue, 29 matched bronchofiberscopic brushing (BB) cytology, and 20 additional pleural effusion (PE) cytology samples] were analyzed. EGFR mutation tests were PCR-Invader (R), peptide nucleic acid-locked nucleic acid PCR clamp, direct sequencing, Cycleave (TM), and Scorpion Amplification Refractory Mutation System (ARMS)(R). Analysis success, mutation status, and concordance rates were assessed. All tests except direct sequencing detected four mutation types at >= 1% mutant DNA. Analysis success rates were 91.4%-100% (FFPE) and 100% (BB and PE cytology), respectively. Inter-assay concordance rates of successfully analyzed samples were 94.3%-100% (FFPE; kappa coefficients: 0.88-1.00), 93.1%-100% (BB cytology; 0.86-1.00), and 85.0%-100% (PE cytology; 0.70-1.00), and 93.1%-96.6% (0.86-0.93) between BB cytology and matched FFPE. All EGFR assays carried out comparably in the analysis of FFPE and cytology samples. Cytology-derived DNA is a viable alternative to FFPE samples for analyzing EGFR mutations.

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