ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2021
Detection of EGFR mutation of pulmonary adenocarcinoma in sputum using droplet digital PCR.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2021. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sputum Liquid Biopsy for Lung Cancer Screening, Diagnosis, Subtyping, Surveillance, Response Prediction, and Prognostication: A Scoping Review.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- Cancer and Aging Biomarkers: Classification, Early Detection Technologies and Emerging Research Trends.Biosensors · 2025Review
- EML4-ALK Gene Mutation Detected with New NGS Lung Cancer Panel CDx Using Sputum Cytology in a Case of Advanced NSCLC.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- The utility of sputum supernatant as an alternative liquid biopsy specimen for next-generation sequencing-based somatic variation profiling.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Current and Emerging Applications of Droplet Digital PCR in Oncology: An Updated Review.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2022Review
- Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is still unclear whether epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation of primary lung adenocarcinoma can be detected on sputum samples. This study aimed to examine EGFR mutations of primary lung adenocarcinoma in sputum samples using droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) and compare it with an EGFR mutation in surgically resected lung cancer.
methodsSputum was prospectively collected from the patients before complete resection of the primary lung cancer at Kanagawa Cancer Center from September 2014 to May 2016. ddPCR was performed to detect EGFR exon 21 L858R point mutation (Ex21) and EGFR exon 19 deletion mutation (Ex19) in sputum samples from patients with lung adenocarcinoma. The concordance of EGFR mutation status in sputum samples and tumors in surgically resected specimen was evaluated for each positive and negative cytology group.
resultsOne hundred and eighteen patients with primary lung adenocarcinoma provided sputum samples. Sputum cytology was positive in 13 patients (11.0%). ddPCR detected two cases of Ex21 and two cases of Ex19 in sputum cytology positive cases. Compared to surgically resected specimens, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of EGFR mutation (Ex19 and Ex21) detection were 80.0%, 100%, and 100%, respectively, in sputum cytology positive cases. In contrast, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of EGFR mutation (Ex19 and Ex21) detection were 3.1%, 100%, and 100%, respectively, in sputum cytology negative cases.
conclusionsEGFR mutations in primary lung adenocarcinoma can be detected with high sensitivity in sputum samples if sputum cytology is positive.
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.