INTRODUCTION: The objective of this analysis was to examine the relationship between genomic variation and health outcomes in studies performed in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with single agent epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) using a systematic review with statistical pooling of data. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the literature using the MEDLINE, BIOSIS, and EMABASE databases from July 1997 to July 2007. Eligible studies were evaluated for quality and clinical, methodological, and statistical heterogeneity. Abstracted data judged to be sufficiently homogenous were pooled using a fixed effect model. RESULTS: We found a statistically significant higher probability of tumor response (according to the RECIST criteria) for patients with EGFR mutations versus wild type (5.92, 95% CI 4.91-7.13) and patients with high- versus low EGFR protein expression (2.71, 95% CI 1.72-4.29). EGFR mutation and high EGFR protein expression were associated with significantly improved survival over the wild type and low protein expression groups (0.36, 95% CI 0.29-0.46 and 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.81), respectively. Last, there was a significant difference in EGFR-TKI treatment effect in the high EGFR gene copy number and high EGFR protein expression groups (0.72, 95% CI 0.57-0.92 and 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.80). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, EGFR mutation and protein expression status may provide useful clinical information in terms of the likelihood of tumor response and disease prognosis. EGFR gene copy number and to a lesser extent, EGFR protein expression status, appear to be promising biomarkers for predicting a survival benefit with EGFR-TKI therapy in second line NSCLC, but further evidence is needed.
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this analysis was to examine the relationship between genomic variation and health outcomes in studies performed in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with single agent epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) using a systematic review with statistical pooling of data. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the literature using the MEDLINE, BIOSIS, and EMABASE databases from July 1997 to July 2007. Eligible studies were evaluated for quality and clinical, methodological, and statistical heterogeneity. Abstracted data judged to be sufficiently homogenous were pooled using a fixed effect model. RESULTS: We found a statistically significant higher probability of tumor response (according to the RECIST criteria) for patients with EGFR mutations versus wild type (5.92, 95% CI 4.91-7.13) and patients with high- versus low EGFR protein expression (2.71, 95% CI 1.72-4.29). EGFR mutation and high EGFR protein expression were associated with significantly improved survival over the wild type and low protein expression groups (0.36, 95% CI 0.29-0.46 and 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.81), respectively. Last, there was a significant difference in EGFR-TKI treatment effect in the high EGFR gene copy number and high EGFR protein expression groups (0.72, 95% CI 0.57-0.92 and 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.80). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, EGFR mutation and protein expression status may provide useful clinical information in terms of the likelihood of tumor response and disease prognosis. EGFR gene copy number and to a lesser extent, EGFR protein expression status, appear to be promising biomarkers for predicting a survival benefit with EGFR-TKI therapy in second line NSCLC, but further evidence is needed.
Authors: Frances A Shepherd; José Rodrigues Pereira; Tudor Ciuleanu; Eng Huat Tan; Vera Hirsh; Sumitra Thongprasert; Daniel Campos; Savitree Maoleekoonpiroj; Michael Smylie; Renato Martins; Maximiliano van Kooten; Mircea Dediu; Brian Findlay; Dongsheng Tu; Dianne Johnston; Andrea Bezjak; Gary Clark; Pedro Santabárbara; Lesley Seymour Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-07-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lecia V Sequist; Victoria A Joshi; Pasi A Jänne; Alona Muzikansky; Panos Fidias; Matthew Meyerson; Daniel A Haber; Raju Kucherlapati; Bruce E Johnson; Thomas J Lynch Journal: Oncologist Date: 2007-01
Authors: Gregory J Riely; William Pao; Duykhanh Pham; Allan R Li; Naiyer Rizvi; Ennapadam S Venkatraman; Maureen F Zakowski; Mark G Kris; Marc Ladanyi; Vincent A Miller Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: M Satouchi; S Negoro; Y Funada; Y Urata; T Shimada; S Yoshimura; Y Kotani; T Sakuma; H Watanabe; S Adachi; Y Takada; Y Yatabe; T Mitsudomi Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2007-03-27 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: F Oshita; S Matsukuma; M Yoshihara; Y Sakuma; N Ohgane; Y Kameda; H Saito; K Yamada; E Tsuchiya; Y Miyagi Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-10-23 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Carol M Lewis; Bonnie S Glisson; Lei Feng; Fiona Wan; Ximing Tang; Ignacio I Wistuba; Adel K El-Naggar; David I Rosenthal; Mark S Chambers; Robert A Lustig; Randal S Weber Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-01-18 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Oscar Arrieta; Pablo Anaya; Vicente Morales-Oyarvide; Laura Alejandra Ramírez-Tirado; Ana C Polanco Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2015-09-04