Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32357863›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2020

Sensitive detection methods are key to identify secondary EGFR c.2369C>T p.(Thr790Met) in non-small cell lung cancer tissue samples.

Cleo Keppens, Elisabeth M C Dequeker, Etienne Rouleau, Nils 't Hart, Lukas Bubendorf, Kelly Dufraing, Céline Garrec, Paul Guéguen, Aude Lamy, Antonio Marchetti and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 12 institutions in 6 countries.

Cleo KeppensDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4498-8386
Elisabeth M C DequekerDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Etienne RouleauService de Génétique des Tumeurs, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif Cedex, France.
Nils 't HartDepartment of Pathology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), Hanzeplein 1, PO Box 30001, 9700, RB, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Lukas BubendorfInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Kelly DufraingDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Céline GarrecInstitut de Biologie, CHU Hôtel Dieu, Laboratoire de Génétique Moléculaire, Nantes Cedex 1, France.
Paul GuéguenCHRU Brest/Hôpital Morvan, Laboratoire de Génétique Moléculaire et d'Histocompatibilité, Brest, France.
Aude LamyCHU de Rouen / Hôpital Charles Nicolle, laboratoire de génétique somatique des tumeurs, Rouen Cedex, France.
Antonio MarchettiLaboratory of Molecular Diagnostics, Center for Advanced Studies and Technology, University of Chieti, 66100, Chieti, Italy.
Patrick PauwelsDepartment of Pathology, University Hospital Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium.
Ales RyskaDepartment of Pathology, Charles University Medical Faculty Hospital, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic.
Véronique TackDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Luigi TornilloInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Kaat Van CasterenDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Jan H von der ThüsenDepartment of pathology, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Karen ZwaenepoelDepartment of Pathology, University Hospital Antwerp, Edegem, Belgium.
Birgit Lissenberg-WitteAmsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Erik ThunnissenDepartment of pathology, VU University Medical Center (VUMC) Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Ed SchuuringDepartment of Pathology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), Hanzeplein 1, PO Box 30001, 9700, RB, Groningen, the Netherlands. e.schuuring@umcg.nl.
KU Leuven · BEAntwerp University Hospital · BEUniversity Hospital of Basel · CHUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLAmsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLCentre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Brest · FRCharles University · CZErasmus MC · NLHôpital Charles-Nicolle · FRInstitut Gustave Roussy · FRUniversity of Chieti-Pescara · IT

Funding

Pfizer Oncology Not applicable
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCorrect identification of the EGFR c.2369C>T p.(Thr790Met) variant is key to decide on a targeted therapeutic strategy for patients with acquired EGFR TKI resistance in non-small cell lung cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the correct detection of this variant in 12 tumor tissue specimens tested by 324 laboratories participating in External Quality Assessment (EQA) schemes.

methodsData from EQA schemes were evaluated between 2013 and 2018 from cell lines (6) and resections (6) containing the EGFR c.2369C>T p.(Thr790Met) mutation. Adequate performance was defined as the percentage of tests for which an outcome was available and correct. Additional data on the used test method were collected from the participants. Chi-squared tests on contingency tables and a biserial rank correlation were applied by IBM SPSS Statistics version 25 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

resultsIn 26 of the 1190 tests (2.2%) a technical failure occurred. For the remaining 1164 results, 1008 (86.6%) were correct, 151 (12.9%) were false-negative and 5 (0.4%) included incorrect mutations. Correct p.(Thr790Met) detection improved over time and for repeated scheme participations. In-house non-next-generation sequencing (NGS) techniques performed worse (81.1%, n = 293) compared to non-NGS commercial kits (85.2%, n = 656) and NGS (97.0%, n = 239). Over time there was an increase in the users of NGS. Resection specimens performed worse (82.6%, n = 610 tests) compared to cell line material (90.9%, n = 578 tests), except for NGS (96.3%, n = 344 for resections and 98.6%, n = 312 for cell lines). Samples with multiple mutations were more difficult compared to samples with the single p.(Thr790Met) variant. A change of the test method was shown beneficial to reduce errors but introduced additional analysis failures.

conclusionsA significant number of laboratories that offer p.(Thr790Met) testing did not detect this relevant mutation compared to the other EQA participants. However, correct identification of this variant is improving over time and was higher for NGS users. Revising the methodology might be useful to resolve errors, especially for resection specimens with low frequency or multiple variants. EQA providers should include challenging resections in the scheme.

Indexed as

MutationCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungErbB ReceptorsFollow-Up StudiesGenetic TestingHumansLongitudinal StudiesLung NeoplasmsPolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuality ControlTumor Cells, CulturedEGFR protein, humanErbB Receptorsc.2369C>T p.(Thr790Met)EGFRExternal quality assessmentNon-small cell lung cancerOsimertinibPredictive biomarkerResistance

Identifiers

PMID32357863
PMCPMC7193365
OpenAlexW3023354872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.