OBJECTIVE: Limited availability of tumoral tissue in non-small-cell lung cancer and presence of epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-independent responses call for investigation of other molecular predictive marker of gefitinib responsiveness. Therefore, CA repeat polymorphism in intron 1 was analyzed for its association with gefitinib responsiveness together with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation in Korean patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For 86 advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients treated with gefitinib, epidermal growth factor receptor mutation was analyzed by direct sequencing (exons 18-21) from tumor tissue and CA repeat polymorphism was assessed by fragment length analysis from tumor and/or normal tissue. RESULTS: CA repeat status was identical in 33 patients with matched tumor and normal tissue. CA repeat was low (sum of both alleles < or =37) in 40 (46.5%) and high (sum > or =38) in 46 (53.5%) patients. Although epidermal growth factor receptor mutation was more frequent in high CA repeat patients [17.5% (7/40) in low vs. 28.3% (13/46) in high, P=0.18], response rate was higher in low CA repeat patients [25.0% (10/40) in low vs. 13.0% (6/46) in high, P=0.16]. In multivariate analysis, low CA repeat was associated with better objective response (odds ratio 7.1, 95% confidence interval 1.2-40.8; P=0.029) and time-to-progression (hazard ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.34-0.88; P=0.014), independent of the epidermal growth factor receptor mutational status. CA repeat status was not associated with epidermal growth factor receptor expression. CONCLUSION: Low number of CA repeats in intron 1 of epidermal growth factor receptor is associated with gefitinib responsiveness in non-small-cell lung cancer patients independent of epidermal growth factor receptor mutation.
OBJECTIVE: Limited availability of tumoral tissue in non-small-cell lung cancer and presence of epidermal growth factor receptor mutation-independent responses call for investigation of other molecular predictive marker of gefitinib responsiveness. Therefore, CA repeat polymorphism in intron 1 was analyzed for its association with gefitinib responsiveness together with epidermal growth factor receptor mutation in Korean patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For 86 advanced non-small-cell lung cancerpatients treated with gefitinib, epidermal growth factor receptor mutation was analyzed by direct sequencing (exons 18-21) from tumor tissue and CA repeat polymorphism was assessed by fragment length analysis from tumor and/or normal tissue. RESULTS: CA repeat status was identical in 33 patients with matched tumor and normal tissue. CA repeat was low (sum of both alleles < or =37) in 40 (46.5%) and high (sum > or =38) in 46 (53.5%) patients. Although epidermal growth factor receptor mutation was more frequent in high CA repeat patients [17.5% (7/40) in low vs. 28.3% (13/46) in high, P=0.18], response rate was higher in low CA repeat patients [25.0% (10/40) in low vs. 13.0% (6/46) in high, P=0.16]. In multivariate analysis, low CA repeat was associated with better objective response (odds ratio 7.1, 95% confidence interval 1.2-40.8; P=0.029) and time-to-progression (hazard ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.34-0.88; P=0.014), independent of the epidermal growth factor receptor mutational status. CA repeat status was not associated with epidermal growth factor receptor expression. CONCLUSION: Low number of CA repeats in intron 1 of epidermal growth factor receptor is associated with gefitinib responsiveness in non-small-cell lung cancerpatients independent of epidermal growth factor receptor mutation.
Authors: Trevor McKibbin; Wei Zhao; Michael Tagen; Najat C Daw; Wayne L Furman; Lisa M McGregor; J Russell Geyer; Jeffrey W Allen; Clinton F Stewart Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2010-06-04 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Ugur Hodoglugil; Michelle W Carrillo; Joan M Hebert; Niki Karachaliou; Rafael C Rosell; Russ B Altman; Teri E Klein Journal: Pharmacogenet Genomics Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Christopher G Azzoli; Sherman Baker; Sarah Temin; William Pao; Timothy Aliff; Julie Brahmer; David H Johnson; Janessa L Laskin; Gregory Masters; Daniel Milton; Luke Nordquist; David G Pfister; Steven Piantadosi; Joan H Schiller; Reily Smith; Thomas J Smith; John R Strawn; David Trent; Giuseppe Giaccone Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-11-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Minkyu Jung; Byoung Chul Cho; Chul Ho Lee; Hyung Soon Park; Young Ae Kang; Se Kyu Kim; Joon Chang; Dae Jun Kim; Sun Young Rha; Joo Hang Kim; Ji Hyun Lee Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2012-11-01 Impact factor: 2.759