4.6 Article

Diagnostic Value of Mutation-Specific Antibodies for Immunohistochemical Detection of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105940

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Various studies have assessed the diagnostic accuracy of EGFR mutation-specific antibodies in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We performed a meta-analysis of existing data to investigate the diagnostic value of mutation-specific antibodies for detection of EGFR mutations in NSCLC. Methods: We systematically retrieved relevant studies from PubMed, Web of Knowledge, and Google Scholar. Data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were extracted for further exploration of heterogeneity, including calculation of the average sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and analysis of SROC(summary receiver operating characteristic) curves. Results: Fifteen studies met our inclusion criteria. A summary of the meta-analysis of the efficacy of the anti-E746-A750 antibody was as follows: sensitivity, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.55-0.64); specificity, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.98); PLR, 33.50 (95% CI, 13.96-80.39); NLR, 0.39 (95% CI, 0.30-0.51) and DOR, 111.17 (95% CI, 62.22-198.63). A similar meta-analysis was performed for the anti-L858R antibody with results as follows: sensitivity, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71-0.79); specificity, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95-0.97); PLR, 24.42 (95% CI, 11.66-51.17); NLR, 0.22 (95% CI, 0.12-0.39) and DOR, 126.66 (95% CI, 54.60-293.82). Conclusion: Immunohistochemistry alone is sufficient for the detection of EGFR mutations if the result is positive. Molecular-based analyses are necessary only if the anti-E746-A750 antibody results are negative. Immunohistochemistry seems more suitable for clinical screening for EGFR mutations prior to molecular-based analysis.

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