ArticleTranslational lung cancer research2020
EGFR circulating tumour DNA testing: identification of predictors of ctDNA detection and implications for survival outcomes.
Article in Translational lung cancer research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Multiple time points for detecting circulating tumor DNA to monitor the response to neoadjuvant therapy in breast cancer: a meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- EGFR-plasma mutations in prognosis for non-small cell lung cancer treated with EGFR TKIs: A meta-analysis.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2022Pooled it
- Persistent lineage plasticity driving lung cancer development and progression.Clinical and translational medicine · 2025Review
- Biomarker and Prognostic Value of Super-ARMS Detection for EGFR Mutation in Advanced NSCLC.OncoTargets and therapy · 2025Article
- Review
- Prognostic Value of Circulating Tumor DNA (ctDNA) in Oncogene-Driven NSCLC: Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives.Cancers · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEGFR T790M testing is the standard of care for activating EGFR mutation (EGFRm) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) progressing on 1st/2nd generation TKIs to select patients for osimertinib. Despite sensitive assays, detection of circulating tumour deoxyribonucleic acid (ctDNA) is variable and influenced by clinical factors. The number and location of sites of progressive disease at time of testing were reviewed to explore the effect on EGFR ctDNA detection. The prognostic value of EGFR ctDNA detection on survival outcomes was assessed.
methodsFollowing extraction of cell-free DNA from plasma using the QIAamp Circulating Nucleic Acid Kit, custom droplet digital polymerase chair reaction (ddPCR) assays were used to assess EGFR ctDNA using the Bio-Rad QX200 system. The ddPCR assay has a limit of detection of ≤0.15% variant allele fraction. Baseline characteristics and imaging reports at time of EGFR ctDNA testing were reviewed retrospectively for a 1 year period.
resultsThe study included 177 patients who had an EGFR ctDNA test. Liver (aOR 3.13) or bone (aOR 2.76) progression or 3-5 sites of progression (aOR 2.22) were predictive of EGFR ctDNA detection. The median OS from first ctDNA test after multiple testing iterations was 12.3 m undetectable EGFR ctDNA, 7.6 m for original EGFR mutation only and 24.1 m with T790M (P=0.001).
conclusionsPatients with liver or bone progression and 3-5 progressing sites are more likely to have informative EGFR ctDNA testing. Detection of EGFR ctDNA is a negative prognostic indicator in the absence of a T790M resistance mutation, potentially reflecting the disease burden in the absence of targeted therapy options.
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.