| Literature DB >> 17848912 |
H Kimura1, M Suminoe, K Kasahara, T Sone, T Araya, S Tamori, F Koizumi, K Nishio, K Miyamoto, M Fujimura, S Nakao.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of EGFR mutation status in serum DNA as a means of predicting a benefit from gefitinib (IRESSA) therapy in Japanese patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We obtained pairs of tumour and serum samples from 42 patients treated with gefitinib. EGFR mutation status was determined by a direct sequencing method and by Scorpion Amplification Refractory Mutation System (ARMS) technology. EGFR mutations were detected in the tumour samples of eight patients and in the serum samples of seven patients. EGFR mutation status in the tumours and serum samples was consistent in 39 (92.9%) of the 42 pairs. EGFR mutations were strong correlations between both EGFR mutation status in the tumour samples and serum samples and objective response to gefitinib (P<0.001). Median progression-free survival time was significantly longer in the patients with EGFR mutations than in the patients without EGFR mutations (194 vs 55 days, P=0.016, in tumour samples; 174 vs 58 days, P=0.044, in serum samples). The results suggest that it is feasible to use serum DNA to detect EGFR mutation, and that it's potential as a predictor of response to, and survival on gefitinib is worthy of further evaluation.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2007 PMID: 17848912 PMCID: PMC2360394 DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603949
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Cancer ISSN: 0007-0920 Impact factor: 7.640
Patient characteristics and EGFR mutation status
|
| |
|---|---|
| No. of patients | 42 |
|
| |
| Median | 58 |
| Range | 40–1 |
|
| |
| Male | 28 (66.7%) |
| Female | 14 (33.3%) |
|
| |
| Current | 20 (47.6%) |
| Former | 8 (19.1%) |
| Never | 14 (33.3%) |
|
| |
| Adenocarcinoma | 31 (73.8%) |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 7 (16.7%) |
| Large-cell carcinoma | 4 (9.5%) |
|
| |
| Partial response | 10 (23.8%) |
| Stable disease | 14 (33.3%) |
| Progressive disease | 18 (42.9%) |
Patients with EGFR mutation
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 44 | M | Ad | Re | Never | PR | E746_A750del | E746_A750del |
| 79 | M | Ad | IV | Former | PR | L858R | L858R |
| 53 | M | Ad | IV | Never | PR | V689L, L858R | |
| 59 | M | La | IV | Current | PD | E746_A750del | E746_A750del |
| 63 | F | Ad | IIIB | Never | PR | L858R | |
| 62 | F | Ad | IV | Never | PR | E746_A750del | E746_A750del |
| 56 | F | Ad | IV | Never | PR | E746_A750del | E746_A750del |
| 57 | F | Ad | IIIB | Former | SD | E746_T751del | |
| 62 | F | Ad | IV | Never | PR | L858R | L858R |
Ad=adenocarcinoma; del=deletion; EGFR=epidermal growth factor receptor; F=female; La=large-cell carcinoma; M=male; PD=progressive disease; PR=partial response; Re=recurrence after surgery; SD=stable disease.
The numbering of the mutation sites was based on NP_005219.2 (amino acid).
L858R was detected both by Scorpion ARMS and direct sequencing. V689L was detected by direct sequencing. All samples detected in serum DNA but the samples (*) were detected by Scorpion ARMS alone.
Sensitivity for detection of EGFR mutations in serum samples
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| + | − | ||
| Tumour tissue | + | 6 | 2 |
| − | 1 | 33 | |
EGFR=epidermal growth factor receptor; +=mutation positive; −=mutation negative.
Frequency of EGFR mutations
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| + | − | + | − | |||
| ( | ||||||
| Female | 5 | 9 | 3 | 11 | ||
| Male | 3 | 25 | 4 | 24 | ||
| ( | ||||||
| Ad | 7 | 24 | 6 | 25 | ||
| Non-Ad | 1 | 10 | 1 | 10 | ||
| ( | ||||||
| Never | 5 | 9 | 5 | 9 | ||
| Current/former | 3 | 25 | 2 | 26 | ||
| ( | ||||||
| PR | 6 | 4 | 6 | 4 | ||
| SD/PD | 2 | 30 | 1 | 31 | ||
Ad=adenocarcinoma; EGFR=epidermal growth factor receptor; PD=progressive disease; PR=partial response; SD=stable disease; +=mutation positive; −=mutation negative.
P-value: Fisher's exact test.
Figure 1Kaplan–Meier probability of progression-free survival (A) and overall survival (B) with respect to the EGFR mutation status of NSCLC. P-values were calculated by the log-rank test.