ArticleBritish journal of cancer2020
Plasma-based early screening and monitoring of EGFR mutations in NSCLC patients by a 3-color digital PCR assay.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aggregation-Induced Emission Luminogen: Role in Biopsy for Precision Medicine.Chemical reviews · 2024Review
- Highly Sensitive 3D-Nanoplasmonic-Based Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutation Multiplex Assay Chip for Liquid Biopsy.Small science · 2024Article
- Targeted EGFR Nanotherapy in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Review
- New insights into the biology and development of lung cancer in never smokers-implications for early detection and treatment.Journal of translational medicine · 2023Review
- Real-world analysis of the prognostic value of EGFR mutation detection in plasma ctDNA from patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Current and Emerging Applications of Droplet Digital PCR in Oncology: An Updated Review.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2022Review
- Monitoring epidermal growth factor receptor C797S mutation in Japanese non-small cell lung cancer patients with serial cell-free DNA evaluation using digital droplet PCR.Cancer science · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNoninvasive plasma-based detection of EGFR mutations using digital PCR promises a fast, sensitive and reliable approach to predicting the efficiency of EGFR-TKI. However, the low throughput and high cost of digital PCR restricts its clinical application.
methodsWe designed a digital PCR assay, which can simultaneously detect 39 mutations of exons 18-21 of the EGFR gene. To assess overall performance, retrospective FFPE tissues from 30 NSCLC patients and plasma from 33 NSCLC patients were collected and analysed.
resultsThe LoD of the EGFR mutations was as low as 0.308 copies/μL, and the linear correlation between the detected and expected values at different concentrations (0.01-10%) was low as well. Compared to ARMS-PCR in FFPE, the accuracy values of the dEGFR39 assay in plasma from 33 patients was 87.88% (29/33, 95% CI 72.67-95.18%). While monitoring the 33 patients, the EGFR mutation load as assessed by dEGFR39 was associated with the objective response to treatment. Thirteen samples from eight patients were identified by dEGFR39 to harbour the T790M mutation over time; of these patients, only nine (69%) were detected using SuperARMS.
conclusionOur results indicate that dEGFR39 assay is reliable, sensitive and cost-efficient. This method is beneficial for profiling EGFR mutations for precision therapy and prognosis after TKI treatment, especially in patients with insufficient tissue biopsy samples.
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.