PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the different EGFR mutation status in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after first-line EGFR-TKIs therapy and analyze its relationship with efficacy and prognosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with metastatic NSCLC harboring EGFR mutation in the Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University from June 2016 to December 2020. Samples were collected before treatment and at the time of disease progression after first-line EGFR-TKIs therapy. Amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) PCR and next-generation sequencing (NGS) were used to detect EGFR mutation. ORR, DCR, and PFS of different EGFR mutation groups were compared. RESULTS: The EGFR mutation rate of re-biopsy was 60.23%. The inconsistency rate of EGFR mutations in the same and different simple types was 72.22% (26/36) and 92.31% (48/52), respectively. Alterations in terms of EGFR mutations were divided into four groups: Group A: EGFR-sensitive mutation negative and T790M negative (39.77%); Group B: EGFR-sensitive mutation positive and T790M negative (18.19%); Group C: EGFR-sensitive mutation negative and T790M positive (36.36%); Group D: EGFR-sensitive mutation positive and T790M positive (5.68%). The differences between the four groups in ORR and DCR were not statistically significant (P>0.05). The median PFS of all patients was 10.65 months. PFS of Group A, B, C, and D was 12.26, 7.96, 10.55, and 13.81 months, respectively, with statistical significance (Log rank P = 0.014). CONCLUSION: EGFR mutation status in metastatic NSCLC patients receiving the first- and second-generation TKIs after disease progression show diversity. Monitoring the EGFR mutation changes is of great importance for subsequent clinical decision-making and exploring the underlying mechanisms of acquired resistance.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the different EGFR mutation status in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after first-line EGFR-TKIs therapy and analyze its relationship with efficacy and prognosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with metastatic NSCLC harboring EGFR mutation in the Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University from June 2016 to December 2020. Samples were collected before treatment and at the time of disease progression after first-line EGFR-TKIs therapy. Amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) PCR and next-generation sequencing (NGS) were used to detect EGFR mutation. ORR, DCR, and PFS of different EGFR mutation groups were compared. RESULTS: The EGFR mutation rate of re-biopsy was 60.23%. The inconsistency rate of EGFR mutations in the same and different simple types was 72.22% (26/36) and 92.31% (48/52), respectively. Alterations in terms of EGFR mutations were divided into four groups: Group A: EGFR-sensitive mutation negative and T790M negative (39.77%); Group B: EGFR-sensitive mutation positive and T790M negative (18.19%); Group C: EGFR-sensitive mutation negative and T790M positive (36.36%); Group D: EGFR-sensitive mutation positive and T790M positive (5.68%). The differences between the four groups in ORR and DCR were not statistically significant (P>0.05). The median PFS of all patients was 10.65 months. PFS of Group A, B, C, and D was 12.26, 7.96, 10.55, and 13.81 months, respectively, with statistical significance (Log rank P = 0.014). CONCLUSION: EGFR mutation status in metastatic NSCLC patients receiving the first- and second-generation TKIs after disease progression show diversity. Monitoring the EGFR mutation changes is of great importance for subsequent clinical decision-making and exploring the underlying mechanisms of acquired resistance.
Authors: Helena A Yu; Maria E Arcila; Natasha Rekhtman; Camelia S Sima; Maureen F Zakowski; William Pao; Mark G Kris; Vincent A Miller; Marc Ladanyi; Gregory J Riely Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Helena A Yu; Camelia S Sima; James Huang; Stephen B Solomon; Andreas Rimner; Paul Paik; M Catherine Pietanza; Christopher G Azzoli; Naiyer A Rizvi; Lee M Krug; Vincent A Miller; Mark G Kris; Gregory J Riely Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Tony S K Mok; Sang-We Kim; Yi-Long Wu; Kazuhiko Nakagawa; Jin-Ji Yang; Myung-Ju Ahn; Jie Wang; James Chih-Hsin Yang; You Lu; Shinji Atagi; Santiago Ponce; Xiaojin Shi; Yuri Rukazenkov; Vincent Haddad; Kenneth S Thress; Jean-Charles Soria Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Pasi A Jänne; James Chih-Hsin Yang; Dong-Wan Kim; David Planchard; Yuichiro Ohe; Suresh S Ramalingam; Myung-Ju Ahn; Sang-We Kim; Wu-Chou Su; Leora Horn; Daniel Haggstrom; Enriqueta Felip; Joo-Hang Kim; Paul Frewer; Mireille Cantarini; Kathryn H Brown; Paul A Dickinson; Serban Ghiorghiu; Malcolm Ranson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Geoffrey R Oxnard; Kenneth S Thress; Ryan S Alden; Rachael Lawrance; Cloud P Paweletz; Mireille Cantarini; James Chih-Hsin Yang; J Carl Barrett; Pasi A Jänne Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jessica Garcia; Anne-Sophie Wozny; Florence Geiguer; Aurélia Delherme; David Barthelemy; Patrick Merle; Claire Tissot; Frederick S Jones; Chassidy Johnson; Xiaobin Xing; Zhenyu Xu; Daniel L Edelstein; Marie Brevet; Pierre-Jean Souquet; Claire Rodriguez-Lafrasse; Léa Payen; Sébastien Couraud Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 4.452