ArticleThe journal of pathology. Clinical research2015
ReadMax-a novel reading and scoring approach for EGFR gene copy number to predict therapeutic benefit of erlotinib treatment in EGFR wild-type non-small-cell lung cancer.
Article in The journal of pathology. Clinical research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
EGFR mutation testing is now well established as a means of selecting the optimal first-line therapy for patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, deciding on the correct treatment for EGFR wild-type NSCLC remains a challenge. EGFR fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) testing of gene copy number has been a promising marker, but has provided mixed results despite attempts to standardize the reading and scoring process. The novel ReadMax reading and scoring system focuses on the most aberrant cells, to identify oncogene addiction, rather than taking a representative reading as in the Colorado method. The methodology was developed using historical samples from the TRUST and MERIT studies, followed by re-reading of the samples from the SATURN trial. Analysis of samples using the ReadMax methodology revealed that progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were improved in patients with ReadMax FISH-positive (RM FISH+) tumours, compared with those whose tumours were not RM FISH+: PFS hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.52 for RM FISH+ versus 0.93 for not RM FISH+; OS HRs were 0.69 and 0.92, respectively. For PFS, HR for RM FISH+ versus not RM FISH+ in the SATURN erlotinib group was 0.53 (p = 0.003). The PFS and OS results were also similar in the EGFR wild-type population (PFS HRs were 0.63 and 0.96; OS HRs were 0.61 and 0.84, respectively), although amplification of the EGFR gene in patients with EGFR wild-type disease was not found to be predictive of treatment outcomes, which was unexpected but not unprecedented. KRAS status was not found to affect outcomes. Further experience is required to refine the ReadMax methodology and fully establish its validity and robustness. In conclusion, the ReadMax scoring system to identify patients with EGFR FISH-positive NSCLC is a promising technique, which could improve treatment options and outcomes for patients with advanced NSCLC, in particular for EGFR wild-type tumours.
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.