Qihua He1,2, Peiling Xin3, Mingzhe Zhang4, Si Jiang5, Jianrong Zhang6, Shengyi Zhong7, Yang Liu1,2, Minzhang Guo1,2, Xuewei Chen1,2, Xiaojun Xia1,2, Zhenkui Pan8, Chenye Guo8, Xiuyu Cai9, Wenhua Liang1,2, Jianxing He1,2. 1. Department of Thoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 510000, China. 2. Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Disease & China State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease & National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou 510120, China. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, First Hospital of Quanzhou Affiliated to Fujian Medical University, Quanzhou 362000, China. 4. Department of Cardiology, First Hospital of Quanzhou Affiliated to Fujian Medical University, Quanzhou 362000, China. 5. Department of Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 510000, China. 6. George Warren Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA. 7. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Xianning Central Hospital, Xianning 437000, China. 8. Department of Oncology, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao 266000, China. 9. Department of General Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510000, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation represents a good response to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor and an advantageous prognostic factor in advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the predictive value of EGFR mutation for prognosis in NSCLC patients after complete surgery, which more reflective of natural process, remains controversial. We sought to examine the predictive value of EGFR mutation in NSCLC. Several studies with small sample sizes have been reported but small studies bring bias especially in a postoperative setting. Therefore, we sought to pool all current evidence to show the true effects. METHODS: Electronic databases were used to search the relevant articles. Disease-free survival (DFS), which will be less effected by subsequent treatments after recurrence, was the primary endpoint. The DFS between EGFR mutated and wild-type patients were compared focus on stage I patients who are rarely received adjuvant therapy. Besides, the DFS of patients with 19 exon deletion (19del) and 21 exon L858R mutation (L858R) were compared. A random effects model was used. RESULTS: A total of 19 relevant studies which involved 4,872 cases were enrolled and 2,086 patients were EGFR-mutated. The majority of studies used PCR-based methods to detect EGFR mutations. Through meta-analysis, we observed the DFS of EGFR-mutated patients were similar to wild type patients in overall population (HR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.17). Similar results were observed in stage I subgroup (HR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.33). DFS of 19 del patients were potentially inferior to L858R patients but the difference was not significant (HR 1.38, 95% CI: 0.76 to 2.52). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in postoperative DFS between EGFR-mutant patients and wild-type with resected NSCLC. In addition, there is still insufficient evidence to support different postoperative treatment strategies (especially for stage I) for both mutated and wild-type patients. However, 19 del may be a negative factor, which may require more strict management. Thus, we strongly encourage reporting specific prognostic impacts of different mutation types.
BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation represents a good response to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor and an advantageous prognostic factor in advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the predictive value of EGFR mutation for prognosis in NSCLC patients after complete surgery, which more reflective of natural process, remains controversial. We sought to examine the predictive value of EGFR mutation in NSCLC. Several studies with small sample sizes have been reported but small studies bring bias especially in a postoperative setting. Therefore, we sought to pool all current evidence to show the true effects. METHODS: Electronic databases were used to search the relevant articles. Disease-free survival (DFS), which will be less effected by subsequent treatments after recurrence, was the primary endpoint. The DFS between EGFR mutated and wild-type patients were compared focus on stage I patients who are rarely received adjuvant therapy. Besides, the DFS of patients with 19 exon deletion (19del) and 21 exon L858R mutation (L858R) were compared. A random effects model was used. RESULTS: A total of 19 relevant studies which involved 4,872 cases were enrolled and 2,086 patients were EGFR-mutated. The majority of studies used PCR-based methods to detect EGFR mutations. Through meta-analysis, we observed the DFS of EGFR-mutated patients were similar to wild type patients in overall population (HR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.17). Similar results were observed in stage I subgroup (HR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.33). DFS of 19 del patients were potentially inferior to L858R patients but the difference was not significant (HR 1.38, 95% CI: 0.76 to 2.52). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in postoperative DFS between EGFR-mutant patients and wild-type with resected NSCLC. In addition, there is still insufficient evidence to support different postoperative treatment strategies (especially for stage I) for both mutated and wild-type patients. However, 19 del may be a negative factor, which may require more strict management. Thus, we strongly encourage reporting specific prognostic impacts of different mutation types.
Authors: David M Jackman; Beow Y Yeap; Lecia V Sequist; Neal Lindeman; Alison J Holmes; Victoria A Joshi; Daphne W Bell; Mark S Huberman; Balazs Halmos; Michael S Rabin; Daniel A Haber; Thomas J Lynch; Matthew Meyerson; Bruce E Johnson; Pasi A Jänne Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2006-07-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Zhifu Sun; Marie-Christine Aubry; Claude Deschamps; Randolph S Marks; Scott H Okuno; Brent A Williams; Hiroshi Sugimura; V Shane Pankratz; Ping Yang Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Hisayuki Shigematsu; Li Lin; Takao Takahashi; Masaharu Nomura; Makoto Suzuki; Ignacio I Wistuba; Kwun M Fong; Huei Lee; Shinichi Toyooka; Nobuyoshi Shimizu; Takehiko Fujisawa; Ziding Feng; Jack A Roth; Joachim Herz; John D Minna; Adi F Gazdar Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-03-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: J Guillermo Paez; Pasi A Jänne; Jeffrey C Lee; Sean Tracy; Heidi Greulich; Stacey Gabriel; Paula Herman; Frederic J Kaye; Neal Lindeman; Titus J Boggon; Katsuhiko Naoki; Hidefumi Sasaki; Yoshitaka Fujii; Michael J Eck; William R Sellers; Bruce E Johnson; Matthew Meyerson Journal: Science Date: 2004-04-29 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Thomas J Lynch; Daphne W Bell; Raffaella Sordella; Sarada Gurubhagavatula; Ross A Okimoto; Brian W Brannigan; Patricia L Harris; Sara M Haserlat; Jeffrey G Supko; Frank G Haluska; David N Louis; David C Christiani; Jeff Settleman; Daniel A Haber Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-04-29 Impact factor: 91.245
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