4.6 Article

Genetic and Proteomic Features Associated with Survival after Treatment with Erlotinib in First-Line Therapy of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer in Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 3503

期刊

JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY
卷 5, 期 2, 页码 169-178

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181c8cbd9

关键词

Lung cancer; Proteomics; Erlotinib; KRAS; EGFR

资金

  1. BioDesix
  2. ECOG, NCI [CA23318]
  3. [U01 CA114771-03]
  4. [P50 CA90949]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Serum proteomics and imitations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and KRAS have been associated with benefit after therapy with EGFR-targeted therapies in non-small cell lung cancer, but all three have not been evaluated in any one study. Hypothesis: Pretreatment serum proteomics predicts Survival in Western advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with wildtype EGFR and independent of KRAS mutation status. Methods: We analyzed available biospecimens from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 3503, a single-arm phase 11 study of erlotinib in first-line advanced lung cancer, for proteomics signatures in the previously described serum matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization proteomic classifier (VeriStrat) as well as for KRAS and EGFR mutations. Results: Out of 137 enrolled patients, analyzable biologic samples were available on 102. Nine of 41 (22%) demonstrated KRAS mutations and 3 of 41 (7%) harbored EGFR mutations. VeriStrat classification identified 64 of 88 (73%) as predicted to have good and 24 of 88 (27%) predicted to have poor outcomes. A statistically significant correlation of VeriStrat status (P < 0.001) was found with survival. EGFR mutations, but not KRAS mutations, also correlated with survival. Conclusions: The previously defined matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization predictor remains a potent and highly clinically significant predictor of survival after first-line treatment with erlotinib in patients with wild-type EGFR and independent of mutations in KRAS.

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