4.5 Article

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) amplification rates observed in screening patients for randomized trials in glioblastoma

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
卷 144, 期 1, 页码 205-210

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-019-03222-y

关键词

EGFR; Biomarker; Screening; Depatux-m; GBM

资金

  1. AbbVie [NCT02573324, NCT02343406, NCT02590263]
  2. Voices Against Brain Cancer
  3. William Rhodes and Louise Tilzer-Rhodes Center for Glioblastoma at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital
  4. National Cancer Institute [P30CA013696, UG1CA189960]
  5. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [ZIABC011846] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeEpidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) amplification has been reported to occur in50% of glioblastomas (GBMs). We are conducting several global studies that require central testing for EGFR amplification during screening, representing an opportunity to confirm the frequency of amplification in GBM in a large cohort and to evaluate whether EGFR amplification differs by region of the world.MethodsEGFR amplification was measured by fluorescence in situ hybridization during screening for therapeutic trials of an EGFR antibody-drug conjugate: two Phase 2/3 global trials (INTELLANCE-1, INTELLANCE-2), and a Japanese Phase 1/2 trial (INTELLANCE-J). We evaluated the proportion of tumor tissue samples harboring EGFR amplification among those tested and differences in amplification frequency by geography.ResultsEGFR was amplified in 54% of 3150 informative cases screened for INTELLANCE-1 and -2, consistent with historic controls, but was significantly lower in patients from Asia versus the rest of the world (35% vs. 56%, P<0.0030). The independent INTELLANCE-J trial validated this finding (33% amplified of 153 informative cases).ConclusionsEGFR amplification occurs less frequently in patients from Asia than elsewhere. Further study is required to understand biological differences to optimize treatment in glioblastoma.

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

4.5
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