ArticleCurrent medical science2020
EGFR Gene Mutation and Methodological Evaluation in 399 Patients with Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.
Article in Current medical science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The predictive value of circulating lymphocyte subpopulation characteristics for the prognosis of patients with stage III-IV non-small cell lung cancer treated with EGFR-TKI.Biomedical engineering online · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of a Concise Prediction Scoring System for Asian Lung Cancer Patients withTechnology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to study the characteristics of epidemic growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene distribution in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and to detect the mutation rate of EGFR gene by Sanger sequencing and amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS)-PCR. Paraffin-embedded sections of NSCLC tissues from 399 NSCLC patients diagnosed in Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University were collected, 103 of them were detected for exons 18-21 mutation of EGFR by Sanger sequencing method, 296 cases were detected for exons 18-21 mutation by ARMS-PCR method. DNA extraction of both groups was performed with Qiagen QLAamp DNA FFPE Tissue KIT. Comparisons of detection rates between the two methods were conducted by row X list chi-square test. The total mutation rate of EGFR gene detected by Sanger sequencing was 21.4%, exons 18-21 and combined mutation rates were 1.0%, 9.7%, 1.0%, 7.8% and 2.0%, respectively. And the proportions were 4.7%, 45.2%, 4.7%, 36.3% and 9.4% respectively. The total mutation rate detected by ARMS-PCR was 51.4%, exons 18-21 and combined mutation rates were 2.7%, 27%, 1.7%, 18.2% and 1.7%, respectively. The proportions were 5.3%, 52.6%, 3.3%, 35.5% and 3.3% respectively. Further analysis of mutation rate showed that there was significant difference between the two methods in detecting total mutation of EGFR gene (P<0.001). There were significant differences in mutation detection rates of exons 19 and 21 (P<0.001, P<0.05), but there were no significant differences in other exons. And there was no significant difference in mutation detection rates between the two methods. The mutation rate of EGFR gene in NSCLC patients was 50%. And exon 19 deletion was the most common mutation type, followed by exon 21 mutation. Compared with Sanger sequencing method, ARMS method is more sensitive with significant advantages in detecting exon 19 deletions and exon 21 mutations, which can be widely used in clinical detection of EGFR gene mutations. The results of this study will further guide patients with advanced NSCLC to select TKI targeted drugs, and provide clinical diagnostic basis for targeted therapy of NSCLC patients.
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.