INTRODUCTION: EGFR screening requires good quality tissue, sensitivity and turn-around time (TAT). We report our experience of routine screening, describing sample type, TAT, specimen quality (cellularity and DNA yield), histopathological description, mutation result and clinical outcome. METHODS: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) sections were screened for EGFR mutations (M+) in exons 18-21. Clinical, pathological and screening outcome data were collected for year 1 of testing. Screening outcome alone was collected for year 2. RESULTS: In year 1, 152 samples were tested, most (72%) were diagnostic. TAT was 4.9 days (95%confidence interval (CI)=4.5-5.5). EGFR-M+ prevalence was 11% and higher (20%) among never-smoking women with adenocarcinomas (ADCs), but 30% of mutations occurred in current/ex-smoking men. EGFR-M+ tumours were non-mucinous ADCs and 100% thyroid transcription factor (TTF1+). No mutations were detected in poorly differentiated NSCLC-not otherwise specified (NOS). There was a trend for improved overall survival (OS) among EGFR-M+ versus EGFR-M- patients (median OS=78 versus 17 months). In year 1, test failure rate was 19%, and associated with scant cellularity and low DNA concentrations. However 75% of samples with poor cellularity but representative of tumour were informative and mutation prevalence was 9%. In year 2, 755 samples were tested; mutation prevalence was 13% and test failure only 5.4%. Although samples with low DNA concentration (<2 ng/μL) had more test failures (30% versus 3.9% for [DNA]>2.2 ng/μL), the mutation rate was 9.2%. CONCLUSION: Routine epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) screening using diagnostic samples is fast and feasible even on samples with poor cellularity and DNA content. Mutations tend to occur in better-differentiated non-mucinous TTF1+ ADCs. Whether these histological criteria may be useful to select patients for EGFR testing merits further investigation.
INTRODUCTION:EGFR screening requires good quality tissue, sensitivity and turn-around time (TAT). We report our experience of routine screening, describing sample type, TAT, specimen quality (cellularity and DNA yield), histopathological description, mutation result and clinical outcome. METHODS:Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) sections were screened for EGFR mutations (M+) in exons 18-21. Clinical, pathological and screening outcome data were collected for year 1 of testing. Screening outcome alone was collected for year 2. RESULTS: In year 1, 152 samples were tested, most (72%) were diagnostic. TAT was 4.9 days (95%confidence interval (CI)=4.5-5.5). EGFR-M+ prevalence was 11% and higher (20%) among never-smoking women with adenocarcinomas (ADCs), but 30% of mutations occurred in current/ex-smoking men. EGFR-M+ tumours were non-mucinous ADCs and 100% thyroid transcription factor (TTF1+). No mutations were detected in poorly differentiated NSCLC-not otherwise specified (NOS). There was a trend for improved overall survival (OS) among EGFR-M+ versus EGFR-M- patients (median OS=78 versus 17 months). In year 1, test failure rate was 19%, and associated with scant cellularity and low DNA concentrations. However 75% of samples with poor cellularity but representative of tumour were informative and mutation prevalence was 9%. In year 2, 755 samples were tested; mutation prevalence was 13% and test failure only 5.4%. Although samples with low DNA concentration (<2 ng/μL) had more test failures (30% versus 3.9% for [DNA]>2.2 ng/μL), the mutation rate was 9.2%. CONCLUSION: Routine epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) screening using diagnostic samples is fast and feasible even on samples with poor cellularity and DNA content. Mutations tend to occur in better-differentiated non-mucinous TTF1+ ADCs. Whether these histological criteria may be useful to select patients for EGFR testing merits further investigation.
Authors: Alexandra Pender; Isaac Garcia-Murillas; Sareena Rana; Rosalind J Cutts; Gavin Kelly; Kerry Fenwick; Iwanka Kozarewa; David Gonzalez de Castro; Jaishree Bhosle; Mary O'Brien; Nicholas C Turner; Sanjay Popat; Julian Downward Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-09-28 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Audrey Vallee; Christine Sagan; Anne-Gaelle Le Loupp; Kalyane Bach; Thomas Dejoie; Marc G Denis Journal: Int J Oncol Date: 2013-08-07 Impact factor: 5.650
Authors: Paweł Krawczyk; Rodryg Ramlau; Joanna Chorostowska-Wynimko; Tomasz Powrózek; Marzena Anna Lewandowska; Janusz Limon; Bartosz Wasąg; Juliusz Pankowski; Jerzy Kozielski; Ewa Kalinka-Warzocha; Aleksandra Szczęsna; Kamila Wojas-Krawczyk; Michał Skroński; Rafał Dziadziuszko; Paulina Jaguś; Ewelina Antoszewska; Justyna Szumiło; Bożena Jarosz; Aldona Woźniak; Wojciech Jóźwicki; Wojciech Dyszkiewicz; Monika Pasieka-Lis; Dariusz M Kowalski; Maciej Krzakowski; Jacek Jassem; Janusz Milanowski Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2014-08-03 Impact factor: 4.553