PURPOSE: Clinical reports about responsiveness to gefitinib treatment in patients of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with mutations in exon 20 of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) are limited. To increase understanding of the influence of exon 20 mutations on NSCLC treatment with gefitinib, we investigated the clinical features of lung cancer in patients with exon 20 mutations and analyzed the gefitinib treatment response. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We surveyed the clinical data and mutational studies of NSCLC patients with EGFR exon 20 mutations in the National Taiwan University Hospital and reviewed the literature reports about EGFR exon 20 mutations and the gefitinib treatment response. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients with mutations in exon 20 were identified. Nine (39%) had coexisting mutations in EGFR exons other than exon 20. Sixteen patients received gefitinib treatment, and a response was noted in 4 patients. The gefitinib response rate of NSCLC with exon 20 mutations was 25%, far lower than those with deletions in exon 19 and L858R mutations. Interestingly, different exon 20 mutations and coexisting mutations seemed to have a different influence on gefitinib response. CONCLUSIONS: EGFR exon 20 mutations of NSCLC patients result in poorer responsiveness to gefitinib treatment, but variability exists between different individuals.
PURPOSE: Clinical reports about responsiveness to gefitinib treatment in patients of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with mutations in exon 20 of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) are limited. To increase understanding of the influence of exon 20 mutations on NSCLC treatment with gefitinib, we investigated the clinical features of lung cancer in patients with exon 20 mutations and analyzed the gefitinib treatment response. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We surveyed the clinical data and mutational studies of NSCLCpatients with EGFR exon 20 mutations in the National Taiwan University Hospital and reviewed the literature reports about EGFR exon 20 mutations and the gefitinib treatment response. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients with mutations in exon 20 were identified. Nine (39%) had coexisting mutations in EGFR exons other than exon 20. Sixteen patients received gefitinib treatment, and a response was noted in 4 patients. The gefitinib response rate of NSCLC with exon 20 mutations was 25%, far lower than those with deletions in exon 19 and L858R mutations. Interestingly, different exon 20 mutations and coexisting mutations seemed to have a different influence on gefitinib response. CONCLUSIONS:EGFR exon 20 mutations of NSCLCpatients result in poorer responsiveness to gefitinib treatment, but variability exists between different individuals.
Authors: Aaron M Udager; Delphine C M Rolland; Jonathan B McHugh; Bryan L Betz; Carlos Murga-Zamalloa; Thomas E Carey; Lawrence J Marentette; Mario A Hermsen; Kathleen E DuRoss; Megan S Lim; Kojo S J Elenitoba-Johnson; Noah A Brown Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Zengliu Su; Dora Dias-Santagata; Markeesa Duke; Katherine Hutchinson; Ya-Lun Lin; Darrell R Borger; Christine H Chung; Pierre P Massion; Cindy L Vnencak-Jones; A John Iafrate; William Pao Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2010-12-23 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Pasi A Jänne; David S Boss; D Ross Camidge; Carolyn D Britten; Jeffrey A Engelman; Edward B Garon; Feng Guo; Steven Wong; Jane Liang; Stephen Letrent; Robert Millham; Ian Taylor; S Gail Eckhardt; Jan H M Schellens Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2011-01-10 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: King Pan Ng; Axel M Hillmer; Charles T H Chuah; Wen Chun Juan; Tun Kiat Ko; Audrey S M Teo; Pramila N Ariyaratne; Naoto Takahashi; Kenichi Sawada; Yao Fei; Sheila Soh; Wah Heng Lee; John W J Huang; John C Allen; Xing Yi Woo; Niranjan Nagarajan; Vikrant Kumar; Anbupalam Thalamuthu; Wan Ting Poh; Ai Leen Ang; Hae Tha Mya; Gee Fung How; Li Yi Yang; Liang Piu Koh; Balram Chowbay; Chia-Tien Chang; Veera S Nadarajan; Wee Joo Chng; Hein Than; Lay Cheng Lim; Yeow Tee Goh; Shenli Zhang; Dianne Poh; Patrick Tan; Ju-Ee Seet; Mei-Kim Ang; Noan-Minh Chau; Quan-Sing Ng; Daniel S W Tan; Manabu Soda; Kazutoshi Isobe; Markus M Nöthen; Tien Y Wong; Atif Shahab; Xiaoan Ruan; Valère Cacheux-Rataboul; Wing-Kin Sung; Eng Huat Tan; Yasushi Yatabe; Hiroyuki Mano; Ross A Soo; Tan Min Chin; Wan-Teck Lim; Yijun Ruan; S Tiong Ong Journal: Nat Med Date: 2012-03-18 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: M Beau-Faller; N Prim; A-M Ruppert; I Nanni-Metéllus; R Lacave; L Lacroix; F Escande; S Lizard; J-L Pretet; I Rouquette; P de Crémoux; J Solassol; F de Fraipont; I Bièche; A Cayre; E Favre-Guillevin; P Tomasini; M Wislez; B Besse; M Legrain; A-C Voegeli; L Baudrin; F Morin; G Zalcman; E Quoix; H Blons; J Cadranel Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-11-26 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Geoffrey R Oxnard; Peter C Lo; Mizuki Nishino; Suzanne E Dahlberg; Neal I Lindeman; Mohit Butaney; David M Jackman; Bruce E Johnson; Pasi A Jänne Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Susumu Kobayashi; Hannah M Canepa; Alexandra S Bailey; Sohei Nakayama; Norihiro Yamaguchi; Michael A Goldstein; Mark S Huberman; Daniel B Costa Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 15.609