PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of KRAS and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) genotype on the response to erlotinib treatment in the BR.21, placebo-controlled trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed 206 tumors for KRAS mutation, 204 tumors for EGFR mutation, and 159 tumors for EGFR gene copy by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). We reanalyzed EGFR deletion/mutation using two highly sensitive techniques that detect abnormalities in samples with 5% to 10% tumor cellularity. KRAS mutation was analyzed by direct sequencing. RESULTS: Thirty patients (15%) had KRAS mutations, 34 (17%) had EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R mutations, and 61 (38%) had high EGFR gene copy (FISH positive). Response rates were 10% for wild-type and 5% for mutant KRAS (P = .69), 7% for wild-type and 27% for mutant EGFR (P = .03), and 5% for EGFR FISH-negative and 21% for FISH-positive patients (P = .02). Significant survival benefit from erlotinib therapy was observed for patients with wild-type KRAS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.69, P = .03) and EGFR FISH positivity (HR = 0.43, P = .004) but not for patients with mutant KRAS (HR = 1.67, P = .31), wild-type EGFR (HR = 0.74, P = .09), mutant EGFR (HR = 0.55, P = .12), and EGFR FISH negativity (HR = 0.80, P = .35). In multivariate analysis, only EGFR FISH-positive status was prognostic for poorer survival (P = .025) and predictive of differential survival benefit from erlotinib (P = .005). CONCLUSION: EGFR mutations and high copy number are predictive of response to erlotinib. EGFR FISH is the strongest prognostic marker and a significant predictive marker of differential survival benefit from erlotinib.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of KRAS and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) genotype on the response to erlotinib treatment in the BR.21, placebo-controlled trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed 206 tumors for KRAS mutation, 204 tumors for EGFR mutation, and 159 tumors for EGFR gene copy by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). We reanalyzed EGFR deletion/mutation using two highly sensitive techniques that detect abnormalities in samples with 5% to 10% tumor cellularity. KRAS mutation was analyzed by direct sequencing. RESULTS: Thirty patients (15%) had KRAS mutations, 34 (17%) had EGFR exon 19 deletion or exon 21 L858R mutations, and 61 (38%) had high EGFR gene copy (FISH positive). Response rates were 10% for wild-type and 5% for mutant KRAS (P = .69), 7% for wild-type and 27% for mutant EGFR (P = .03), and 5% for EGFR FISH-negative and 21% for FISH-positive patients (P = .02). Significant survival benefit from erlotinib therapy was observed for patients with wild-type KRAS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.69, P = .03) and EGFR FISH positivity (HR = 0.43, P = .004) but not for patients with mutant KRAS (HR = 1.67, P = .31), wild-type EGFR (HR = 0.74, P = .09), mutant EGFR (HR = 0.55, P = .12), and EGFR FISH negativity (HR = 0.80, P = .35). In multivariate analysis, only EGFR FISH-positive status was prognostic for poorer survival (P = .025) and predictive of differential survival benefit from erlotinib (P = .005). CONCLUSION:EGFR mutations and high copy number are predictive of response to erlotinib. EGFR FISH is the strongest prognostic marker and a significant predictive marker of differential survival benefit from erlotinib.
Authors: Sam J Lubner; Michelle R Mahoney; Jill L Kolesar; Noelle K Loconte; George P Kim; Henry C Pitot; Philip A Philip; Joel Picus; Wei-Peng Yong; Lisa Horvath; Guy Van Hazel; Charles E Erlichman; Kyle D Holen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-06-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Elizabeth A Hopper-Borge; Rochelle E Nasto; Vladimir Ratushny; Louis M Weiner; Erica A Golemis; Igor Astsaturov Journal: Expert Opin Ther Targets Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 6.902
Authors: Lauren Averett Byers; Lixia Diao; Jing Wang; Pierre Saintigny; Luc Girard; Michael Peyton; Li Shen; Youhong Fan; Uma Giri; Praveen K Tumula; Monique B Nilsson; Jayanthi Gudikote; Hai Tran; Robert J G Cardnell; David J Bearss; Steven L Warner; Jason M Foulks; Steven B Kanner; Varsha Gandhi; Nancy Krett; Steven T Rosen; Edward S Kim; Roy S Herbst; George R Blumenschein; J Jack Lee; Scott M Lippman; K Kian Ang; Gordon B Mills; Waun K Hong; John N Weinstein; Ignacio I Wistuba; Kevin R Coombes; John D Minna; John V Heymach Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Gang Zheng; Li-Hui Tseng; Lisa Haley; Junaid Ibrahim; Jennifer Bynum; Rena Xian; Christopher D Gocke; James R Eshleman; Ming-Tseh Lin Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2018-11-24 Impact factor: 3.466