AIMS: EGFR mutations now guide the clinical use of EGFR-targeted therapy in lung cancer. However, standard EGFR mutation analysis requires a minimum amount of tumor tissue, which may not be available in certain situations. In this study, we combined a mass spectrometry genotyping assay (Sequenom) with a mutant-enriched PCR (ME-PCR) to detect EGFR mutations in free plasma DNA from patients with lung cancer. METHOD: DNAs were extracted from 31 plasma samples from 31 patients and analyzed by both methods for EGFR Exon 19 deletion and EGFR L858R mutation. Results in plasma DNA samples were compared with EGFR mutation status obtained in tumor DNA (18/31 EGFR mutant). The relationship of EGFR mutation status in tumor and/or plasma samples to overall survival was assessed. RESULTS: The EGFR mutation status in plasma DNA was identical to the primary tumor in 61% of patients (19/31). By mass spectrometry genotyping, the plasma samples contained mutant DNA corresponding to 5/14 EGFR Exon 19 deletions and 3/4 EGFR L858R mutations previously diagnosed in the matched tumors. Two samples were positive in plasma DNA but negative in primary tumor tissue. Results were similar for samples studied by ME-PCR. For patients treated with erlotinib, overall survival was correlated with the presence of EGFR mutation in plasma and/or tumor tissue (p=0.002), with the two patients positive only in plasma DNA showing responses and favorable outcomes. CONCLUSION: The detection of EGFR mutations in plasma DNA samples by mass spectrometry genotyping and ME-PCR is feasible. A positive EGFR result in plasma DNA has a high predictive value for tumor EGFR status and for favorable clinical course on EGFR-targeted therapy and could therefore be useful in guiding clinical decisions in patients with insufficient or unavailable tumor specimens.
AIMS: EGFR mutations now guide the clinical use of EGFR-targeted therapy in lung cancer. However, standard EGFR mutation analysis requires a minimum amount of tumor tissue, which may not be available in certain situations. In this study, we combined a mass spectrometry genotyping assay (Sequenom) with a mutant-enriched PCR (ME-PCR) to detect EGFR mutations in free plasma DNA from patients with lung cancer. METHOD: DNAs were extracted from 31 plasma samples from 31 patients and analyzed by both methods for EGFR Exon 19 deletion and EGFR L858R mutation. Results in plasma DNA samples were compared with EGFR mutation status obtained in tumor DNA (18/31 EGFR mutant). The relationship of EGFR mutation status in tumor and/or plasma samples to overall survival was assessed. RESULTS: The EGFR mutation status in plasma DNA was identical to the primary tumor in 61% of patients (19/31). By mass spectrometry genotyping, the plasma samples contained mutant DNA corresponding to 5/14 EGFR Exon 19 deletions and 3/4 EGFR L858R mutations previously diagnosed in the matched tumors. Two samples were positive in plasma DNA but negative in primary tumor tissue. Results were similar for samples studied by ME-PCR. For patients treated with erlotinib, overall survival was correlated with the presence of EGFR mutation in plasma and/or tumor tissue (p=0.002), with the two patients positive only in plasma DNA showing responses and favorable outcomes. CONCLUSION: The detection of EGFR mutations in plasma DNA samples by mass spectrometry genotyping and ME-PCR is feasible. A positive EGFR result in plasma DNA has a high predictive value for tumorEGFR status and for favorable clinical course on EGFR-targeted therapy and could therefore be useful in guiding clinical decisions in patients with insufficient or unavailable tumor specimens.
Authors: Yanan Kuang; Andrew Rogers; Beow Y Yeap; Lilin Wang; Mike Makrigiorgos; Kristi Vetrand; Sara Thiede; Robert J Distel; Pasi A Jänne Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-04-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Tony K F Yung; K C Allen Chan; Tony S K Mok; Joanna Tong; Ka-Fai To; Y M Dennis Lo Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-03-10 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Fengfei Wang; Lilin Wang; Christine Briggs; Ewa Sicinska; Sandra M Gaston; Harvey Mamon; Matthew H Kulke; Raffaella Zamponi; Massimo Loda; Elizabeth Maher; Shuji Ogino; Charles S Fuchs; Jin Li; Carlos Hader; G Mike Makrigiorgos Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2007-08-09 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: H Kimura; M Suminoe; K Kasahara; T Sone; T Araya; S Tamori; F Koizumi; K Nishio; K Miyamoto; M Fujimura; S Nakao Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2007-09-17 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Helena A Yu; Camelia S Sima; Matthew D Hellmann; Jarushka Naidoo; Natalie Busby; Katherine Rodriguez; Gregory J Riely; Mark G Kris Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lee Cheng Phua; Hui Wen Ng; Angie Hui Ling Yeo; Elya Chen; Michelle Shu Mei Lo; Peh Yean Cheah; Eric Chun Yong Chan; Poh Koon Koh; Han Kiat Ho Journal: Oncol Lett Date: 2015-08-03 Impact factor: 2.967
Authors: Etay Ziv; Joseph P Erinjeri; Hooman Yarmohammadi; F Edward Boas; Elena N Petre; Song Gao; Waleed Shady; Constantinos T Sofocleous; David R Jones; Charles M Rudin; Stephen B Solomon Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 11.105