4.6 Article

Discordance of Molecular Biomarkers Associated with Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Pathway between Primary Tumors and Lymph Node Metastasis in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY
卷 4, 期 7, 页码 809-815

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181a94af4

关键词

Non-small cell lung cancer; EGFR; Mutation; Lymph node; Metastasis; DNA sequencing

资金

  1. Korean Health 21 RD Project
  2. Ministry of Health and Welfare, and Republic of Korea [0405-MN01-0604-0007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: For the identification of the patients who most likely benefit from epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), molecular assays are considered to be of paramount importance. Given the heterogeneity of NSCLC at the molecular level, this study was conducted to determine the discrepancy in EGFR mutations between primary tumors and the corresponding lymph node metastasis. Patients and Methods: Surgically resected 101 paired primary NSCLC and metastatic lymph nodes were evaluated for the EGFR mutations by direct DNA sequencing and heteroduplex analysis. Results: EGFR mutation was detected in 29.7% (30 of 101) of the primary tumors and in 27.7% of lymph node metastases (28 of 101) by either direct sequencing or heteroduplex analysis, respectively. By direct sequencing, 12 cases (11.9%) showed discordance in EGFR mutations between primary tumors and metastasis. In 11 cases, EGFR mutations were detected only in the primary tumor, whereas 1 case only in lymph node metastases. By heteroduplex analysis, 17 cases (16.8%) were discordant. Ten cases were primary tumor positive and lymph node negative, whereas seven cases were lymph node positive and primary tumor negative. Conclusions: A considerable proportion of NSCLC showed discrepancy in EGFR Mutations between primary tumors and metastatic lymph nodes, suggesting tumor heterogeneity at the molecular level during the process of metastasis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据