4.7 Article

Small-cell lung cancer detection in never-smokers: clinical characteristics and multigene mutation profiling using targeted next-generation sequencing

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 161-166

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdu504

关键词

small-cell lung cancer; never-smoker; survival; next-generation sequencing; epidermal growth factor receptor mutation

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Once regarded as a smoker's disease, small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) has been occasionally detected in never-smokers as smoking rates decrease worldwide. We investigated the clinical and genetic characteristics of SCLC in never-smokers. Patients diagnosed with SCLC were grouped into smokers and never-smokers. The clinical outcomes of the two groups were compared. For SCLC in never-smokers, somatic mutation profiling was carried out using the AmpliSeq (TM) Cancer Hotspot Panel v2 and semiconductor sequencing technology. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation was confirmed by PNAClamp (TM). In total, 391 SCLC patients treated over a 5-year period were analyzed. Fifty patients (13%) were never-smokers. The median overall survival was 18.2 months in never-smokers and 13.1 months in smokers (P = 0.054). Never-smoking history was independently a good prognostic factor [hazard ratio = 0.645, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.456-0.914], as were limited disease (HR = 0.372, 95% CI 0.294-0.471), and lower age (HR = 0.709, 95% CI 0.566-0.888). The objective response rates to first-line etoposide/cisplatin therapy were similar between never-smokers and smokers (75% versus 81%). Of 28 genetically evaluable never-smokers, EGFR mutations were detected in four cases (two L858R, one deletion in exon 19, and one G719A). Other mutations were in TP53 (n = 26), RB1 (n = 7), PTEN (n = 5), MET (n = 4), and SMAD4 (n = 3). Never-smokers with SCLC are increasingly prevalent and have a better prognosis than smokers with SCLC in Korea. Our study warrants further investigation in this group.

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

4.7
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