PURPOSE: EGFR gene mutations and increased EGFR copy number have been associated with favorable response to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKI) in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In contrast, KRAS mutation has been shown to predict poor response to such therapy. We tested the utility of combinations of these three markers in predicting response and survival in patients with NSCLC treated with EGFR-TKIs. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Patients with advanced NSCLC treated with EGFR-TKI with available archival tissue specimens were included. EGFR and KRAS mutations were analyzed using PCR-based sequencing. EGFR copy number was analyzed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. RESULTS: The study included 73 patients, 59 of whom had all three potential markers successfully analyzed. EGFR mutation was detected in 7 of 71 patients (9.8%), increased EGFR copy number in 32 of 59 (54.2%), and KRAS mutation in 16 of 70 (22.8%). EGFR mutation (P<0.0001) but not increased EGFR copy number (P=0.48) correlated with favorable response. No survival benefit was detected in patients with either of these features. KRAS mutation correlated with progressive disease (P=0.04) and shorter median time to progression (P=0.0025) but not with survival. Patients with both EGFR mutation and increased EGFR copy number had a >99.7% chance of objective response, whereas patients with KRAS mutation with or without increased EGFR copy number had a >96.5% chance of disease progression. CONCLUSION: KRAS mutation should be included as indicator of resistance in the panel of markers used to predict response to EGFR-TKIs in NSCLC.
PURPOSE:EGFR gene mutations and increased EGFR copy number have been associated with favorable response to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKI) in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In contrast, KRAS mutation has been shown to predict poor response to such therapy. We tested the utility of combinations of these three markers in predicting response and survival in patients with NSCLC treated with EGFR-TKIs. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:Patients with advanced NSCLC treated with EGFR-TKI with available archival tissue specimens were included. EGFR and KRAS mutations were analyzed using PCR-based sequencing. EGFR copy number was analyzed using fluorescence in situ hybridization. RESULTS: The study included 73 patients, 59 of whom had all three potential markers successfully analyzed. EGFR mutation was detected in 7 of 71 patients (9.8%), increased EGFR copy number in 32 of 59 (54.2%), and KRAS mutation in 16 of 70 (22.8%). EGFR mutation (P<0.0001) but not increased EGFR copy number (P=0.48) correlated with favorable response. No survival benefit was detected in patients with either of these features. KRAS mutation correlated with progressive disease (P=0.04) and shorter median time to progression (P=0.0025) but not with survival. Patients with both EGFR mutation and increased EGFR copy number had a >99.7% chance of objective response, whereas patients with KRAS mutation with or without increased EGFR copy number had a >96.5% chance of disease progression. CONCLUSION:KRAS mutation should be included as indicator of resistance in the panel of markers used to predict response to EGFR-TKIs in NSCLC.
Authors: Konstantin H Dragnev; Tian Ma; Jobin Cyrus; Fabrizio Galimberti; Vincent Memoli; Alexander M Busch; Gregory J Tsongalis; Marc Seltzer; David Johnstone; Cherie P Erkmen; William Nugent; James R Rigas; Xi Liu; Sarah J Freemantle; Jonathan M Kurie; Samuel Waxman; Ethan Dmitrovsky Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2011-06
Authors: Guoli Chen; Matthew Theodore Olson; Alan O'Neill; Alexis Norris; Katie Beierl; Shuko Harada; Marija Debeljak; Keila Rivera-Roman; Samantha Finley; Amanda Stafford; Christopher David Gocke; Ming-Tseh Lin; James Richard Eshleman Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2012-02-10 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Binsheng Zhao; Geoffrey R Oxnard; Chaya S Moskowitz; Mark G Kris; William Pao; Pingzhen Guo; Valerie M Rusch; Marc Ladanyi; Naiyer A Rizvi; Lawrence H Schwartz Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Edward B Garon; Richard S Finn; Wylie Hosmer; Judy Dering; Charles Ginther; Shahriar Adhami; Naeimeh Kamranpour; Sharon Pitts; Amrita Desai; David Elashoff; Tim French; Paul Smith; Dennis J Slamon Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2010-06-29 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Olivier Gevaert; Jiajing Xu; Chuong D Hoang; Ann N Leung; Yue Xu; Andrew Quon; Daniel L Rubin; Sandy Napel; Sylvia K Plevritis Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-06-21 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Stephan Kruger; Michael Haas; Steffen Ormanns; Sibylle Bächmann; Jens T Siveke; Thomas Kirchner; Volker Heinemann; Stefan Boeck Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-08-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Fabrizio Galimberti; Sarah L Thompson; Saranya Ravi; Duane A Compton; Ethan Dmitrovsky Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-02-02 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Muling Mao; Feng Tian; John M Mariadason; Chun C Tsao; Robert Lemos; Farshid Dayyani; Y N Vashisht Gopal; Zhi-Qin Jiang; Ignacio I Wistuba; Xi M Tang; William G Bornman; Gideon Bollag; Gordon B Mills; Garth Powis; Jayesh Desai; Gary E Gallick; Michael A Davies; Scott Kopetz Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-12-18 Impact factor: 12.531