ArticleThoracic cancer2019
Presence of mEGFR ctDNA predicts a poor clinical outcome in lung adenocarcinoma.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The APPLE trial in the evolving landscape of ctDNA monitoring.Translational lung cancer research · 2024Article
- Epidermal growth factor receptor-mutated lung carcinomas with insufficient response to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors.Future oncology (London, England) · 2024Review
- Liquid Biopsy for Lung Cancer: Up-to-Date and Perspectives for Screening Programs.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Clinical Utility of Plasma Cell-Free DNA EGFR Mutation Analysis in Treatment-Naïve Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Prognostic value of absolute quantification of mutated KRAS in circulating tumour DNA in lung adenocarcinoma patients prior to therapy.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2021Article
- Recent advances in diagnostic technologies in lung cancer.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCirculating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a biomarker for the selection of target agents in various malignancies. In this study, we examined the effect of ctDNA presence on the response to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) and on the prognosis in lung adenocarcinoma.
methodsctDNA of EGFR-TKI sensitizing mutations (mEGFR), L858R substitution and Exon 19 deletion (E19d) mutation, was evaluated using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) in 81 patients with lung adenocarcinoma which harbored mEGFR in the corresponding tumor tissues.
resultsThe study recruited lung cancer patients at various stages, and the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of mEGFR ctDNA detection by ddPCR were 40.0%, 88.5%, and 0.68, respectively. It showed higher sensitivity (75.0% vs. 10.0%) and AUC (0.83 vs. 0.49) in the advanced stages of lung adenocarcinoma compared with the early stages and the number of metastases and the fractional abundance of mEGFR ctDNA showed a strong correlation (σ = 0.516; P < 0.001, Spearman correlation test). There was a significantly shorter progression-free survival and duration of disease control by EGFR-TKIs in the ctDNA-positive group than the negative group (14.0 vs. 41.0 months, P = 0.02 and 12.0 vs. 23.0 months, P = 0.02, log-rank test, respectively). There was a trend for overall survival time to be shorter in patients with mEGFR ctDNA than for patients without mEGFR ctDNA (35.6 vs. 67.1 months, P = 0.06, log-rank test).
conclusionsThese data showed that mEGFR ctDNA detection using ddPCR is useful in the advanced stages and its presence predicted distant metastasis and poor clinical outcome in lung adenocarcinoma.
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.