4.7 Article

Epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations and increased copy numbers predict gefitinib sensitivity in patients with recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 28, Pages 6829-6837

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.01.0793

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To evaluate epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR mutations and copy number as predictors of clinical outcome in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC receiving gefitinib. Patients and Methods Sixty-six patients with NSCLC who experienced relapse after surgery and received gefitinib were included. Direct sequencing of exons 18 to 24 of EGFR and exons 18 to 24 of ERBB2 was performed using DNA extracted from surgical specimens. Pyrosequencing and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction were performed to analyze the allelic pattern and copy number of EGFR. Results Thirty-nine patients (59%) had EGFR mutations; 20 patients had deletional mutations in exon 19, 17 patients had missense mutations (L858R) in exon 21, and two patients had missense mutations (G719S or G719C) in exon 18. No mutations were identified in ERBB2. Response rate (82% [32 of 39 patients] v 11 % [three of 27 patients]; P < .0001), time to progression (TTP; median, 12.6 v 1.7 months; P < .0001), and overall survival (median, 20.4 v 6.9 months; P = .0001) were significantly better in patients with EGFR mutations than in patients with wild-type El Increased EGFR copy numbers (>= 3/cell) were observed in 29, patients (44%) and were significantly associated with a higher response rate (72% [21 of 29 patients] v 38% [14 of 37 patients]; P = .005) and a longer TTP (median, 9.4 v 2.6 months: P = .038). High EGFR copy numbers (>= 6/cell) were caused by selective amplification of mutant alleles. Conclusion EGFR mutations and increased copy numbers were significantly associated with better clinical outcome in gefitinib-treated NSCLC patients.

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