4.6 Article

Clonality of multifocal nonsmall cell lung cancer: implications for staging and therapy

Journal

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 39, Issue 6, Pages 1437-1442

Publisher

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/09031936.00105911

Keywords

Adenocarcinoma; clinical lung cancer; loss of heterozygosity analysis; lung cancer chemotherapy; lung cancer diagnosis; thoracic oncology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Nonsmall cell lung cancers (NSCLCs) display a variety of morphological and molecular features. Accurate subtyping of NSCLC has been shown to predict patient survival as well as response rates and toxicities of specific drugs. Assessment of multifocal lung tumours and the distinction of synchronous primary tumours from intrapulmonary metastases represent an important problem as this decision significantly influences tumour staging and subsequent treatment strategies. In order to provide a basis for evidence-based treatment decisions in these patients, we analysed the clonal relationship of multifocal NSCLC with indistinguishable histomorphology in a series of 78 patients by allelotyping (using polymorphic short tandem repeat markers) as well as KRAS and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation testing. Our data demonstrate a common clonal origin indicative of intrapulmonary metastases in almost two-thirds (similar to 62%) of the cases, while similar to 36% of multifocal NSCLC displayed unique molecular profiles suggesting separate primary tumours. Divergent KRAS and/or EGFR mutations were observed in similar to 8% of all cases. With the increased availability of EGFR-targeted therapy options, nonresectable, multifocal NSCLC with diverging KRAS and/or EGFR mutations are likely to show different treatment responses, underlining the need to separately analyse multifocal tumours. Obviously, this also holds true for further, novel molecular predictors of targeted therapies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available