BACKGROUND: Several sensitive assays, including the PCR-invader method (structure-specific 5' nuclease-based method), have been used to detect EGFR mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, validation has not been reported. We assessed the detection rate of EGFR mutation by the PCR-invader method and direct sequencing using same clinical specimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: EGFR mutations were analyzed with the PCR-invader method and compared with direct sequencing using paraffin tissues and pleural and pericardial effusions from NSCLC patients. The relationships between the treatment responses and mutations were evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS: Fifty-four samples from 42 NSCLC patients were studied. EGFR mutations were identified in 52% of the patients and 52% of the samples with the PCR-invader method, but only in 43% of the patients and in 35% of the samples by direct sequencing. In the samples obtained from the same patients at different sites and different times, EGFR mutations were coincident in nine out of ten patients by the PCR-invader method but in six out of ten patients by direct sequencing. Seventeen patients with EGFR mutations were treated with gefitinib; the response rate (RR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 41 and 94%, and median treatment duration was more than 6 months. Seven EGFR mutation-negative patients were treated with gefitinib; the RR and DCR were 0 and 14%, and median treatment duration was 1 month. CONCLUSION: The PCR-invader method was useful for detecting EGFR mutations in clinical lung cancer specimens and is more sensitive than direct sequencing.
BACKGROUND: Several sensitive assays, including the PCR-invader method (structure-specific 5' nuclease-based method), have been used to detect EGFR mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, validation has not been reported. We assessed the detection rate of EGFR mutation by the PCR-invader method and direct sequencing using same clinical specimens. PATIENTS AND METHODS: EGFR mutations were analyzed with the PCR-invader method and compared with direct sequencing using paraffin tissues and pleural and pericardial effusions from NSCLCpatients. The relationships between the treatment responses and mutations were evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS: Fifty-four samples from 42 NSCLCpatients were studied. EGFR mutations were identified in 52% of the patients and 52% of the samples with the PCR-invader method, but only in 43% of the patients and in 35% of the samples by direct sequencing. In the samples obtained from the same patients at different sites and different times, EGFR mutations were coincident in nine out of ten patients by the PCR-invader method but in six out of ten patients by direct sequencing. Seventeen patients with EGFR mutations were treated with gefitinib; the response rate (RR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 41 and 94%, and median treatment duration was more than 6 months. Seven EGFR mutation-negative patients were treated with gefitinib; the RR and DCR were 0 and 14%, and median treatment duration was 1 month. CONCLUSION: The PCR-invader method was useful for detecting EGFR mutations in clinical lung cancer specimens and is more sensitive than direct sequencing.
Authors: Katsuhiko Naoki; Tzu-Hsiu Chen; William G Richards; David J Sugarbaker; Matthew Meyerson Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2002-12-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: V Lyamichev; A L Mast; J G Hall; J R Prudent; M W Kaiser; T Takova; R W Kwiatkowski; T J Sander; M de Arruda; D A Arco; B P Neri; M A Brow Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Rafael Rosell; Teresa Moran; Cristina Queralt; Rut Porta; Felipe Cardenal; Carlos Camps; Margarita Majem; Guillermo Lopez-Vivanco; Dolores Isla; Mariano Provencio; Amelia Insa; Bartomeu Massuti; Jose Luis Gonzalez-Larriba; Luis Paz-Ares; Isabel Bover; Rosario Garcia-Campelo; Miguel Angel Moreno; Silvia Catot; Christian Rolfo; Noemi Reguart; Ramon Palmero; José Miguel Sánchez; Roman Bastus; Clara Mayo; Jordi Bertran-Alamillo; Miguel Angel Molina; Jose Javier Sanchez; Miquel Taron Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-08-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A Sutani; Y Nagai; K Udagawa; Y Uchida; N Koyama; Y Murayama; T Tanaka; H Miyazawa; M Nagata; M Kanazawa; K Hagiwara; K Kobayashi Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-11-14 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Neal I Lindeman; Philip T Cagle; Mary Beth Beasley; Dhananjay Arun Chitale; Sanja Dacic; Giuseppe Giaccone; Robert Brian Jenkins; David J Kwiatkowski; Juan-Sebastian Saldivar; Jeremy Squire; Erik Thunnissen; Marc Ladanyi Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Neal I Lindeman; Philip T Cagle; Mary Beth Beasley; Dhananjay Arun Chitale; Sanja Dacic; Giuseppe Giaccone; Robert Brian Jenkins; David J Kwiatkowski; Juan-Sebastian Saldivar; Jeremy Squire; Erik Thunnissen; Marc Ladanyi Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2013-04-03 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Takeshi Yoshida; Guolin Zhang; Matthew A Smith; Alex S Lopez; Yun Bai; Jiannong Li; Bin Fang; John Koomen; Bhupendra Rawal; Kate J Fisher; Y Ann Chen; Michiko Kitano; Yume Morita; Haruka Yamaguchi; Kiyoko Shibata; Takafumi Okabe; Isamu Okamoto; Kazuhiko Nakagawa; Eric B Haura Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-06-11 Impact factor: 12.531