ArticleOncology reports2015
A new rapid method for detecting epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in Oncology reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular Diagnostics of Infectious Diseases.Yonago acta medica · 2026Review
- Evaluation of a novel saliva-based epidermal growth factor receptor mutation detection for lung cancer: A pilot study.Thoracic cancer · 2016Article
- Nanoporous Glass Integrated in Volumetric Bar-Chart Chip for Point-of-Care Diagnostics of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.ACS nano · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene are associated with a favorable clinical response to the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors gefitinib and erlotinib in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We present here, a new method for the rapid detection of the two most common EGFR mutations (delE746-A750 and L858R) from clinical samples. The methodology involves the combination of newly designed mutation-specific primers and a novel real-time PCR machine with an innovative thermo-control mechanism that enables ultrarapid PCR. We evaluated this method using a cell mixture composed of various ratios of lung cancer cells harboring mutated or wild-type EGFR, lung cancer tissues obtained by surgery, and a cytology sample obtained by bronchoscopy from a lung cancer patient. In the cell mixture analysis, our method detected 0.1% of cells with delE746-A750 and 1% of cells with L858R among cells with wild-type EGFR. In 143 lung cancer tissues, the result of this assay was concordant with those of direct sequencing in 138 samples. The five samples with discordant results were tested using a PCR-Invader assay and the result matched those of our method at 100%. We also successfully detected EGFR mutations in the lavage obtained from a lung cancer patient. The turnaround time for this method was <10 min, and all steps could be accomplished in <50 min after sample collection. Thus, our novel PCR method offers a rapid, simple, and less expensive test for EGFR mutations and can be applied as a point-of-care diagnostic test.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.