4.4 Article

EGFR mutation status of paired cerebrospinal fluid and plasma samples in EGFR mutant non-small cell lung cancer with leptomeningeal metastases

期刊

CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 78, 期 6, 页码 1305-1310

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00280-016-3155-y

关键词

EGFR mutation testing; Cerebrospinal fluid; Non-small cell lung cancer; Brain metastasis; Leptomeningeal metastasis

资金

  1. AstraZeneca

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Central nervous system (CNS) is the prevalent site for metastases in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-relapsed NSCLC patients. To understand the EGFR mutation status in paired cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma samples after EGFR-TKI treatment failure might be useful to guide the treatment of intra-and extracranial tumors in those patients. Methods Paired CSF and plasma samples were collected from seven NSCLC patients with CNS metastases after EGFR-TKI failure. EGFR mutations were tested by amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) and droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) methods. Gefitinib concentrations were evaluated by high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS). Results EGFR mutations were detected in all seven CSF samples, including three of E19-Del, three of L858R and one of E19-Del&T790M by both methods. On the other hand, majority of the matched plasma samples (5/7) were negative for EGFR mutations by both methods. The other two plasma samples were positive for E19-Del&T790M by ddPCR, and one of them had undetectable T790M by ARMS. Gefitinib concentration in CSF was much lower than that in plasma (mean CSF/plasma ratio: 1.8 %). Conclusions After EGFR-TKI failure, majority of the NSCLC patients with CNS metastases remained positive detection of EGFR sensitive mutations in CSF, but much less detection in the matched plasma. Significantly low exposure of gefitinib in CSF might explain the intracranial protection of the EGFR sensitive mutation positive tumor cells.

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

4.4
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