Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36977550›Full record

ArticleThoracic cancer2023

Efficacy of different platforms in detecting EGFR mutations using cerebrospinal fluid cell-free DNA from non-small-cell lung cancer patients with leptomeningeal metastases.

Chi-Lu Chiang, Hsiang-Ling Ho, Yi-Chen Yeh, Cheng-Chia Lee, Hsu-Ching Huang, Chia-I Shen, Yung-Hung Luo, Yuh-Min Chen, Chao-Hua Chiu, Teh-Ying Chou

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Thoracic cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chi-Lu ChiangInstitute of Clinical Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0003-1093-0669
Hsiang-Ling HoDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yi-Chen YehSchool of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Cheng-Chia LeeSchool of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hsu-Ching HuangSchool of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chia-I ShenInstitute of Clinical Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yung-Hung LuoSchool of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yuh-Min ChenSchool of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chao-Hua ChiuTaipei Cancer Center, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Teh-Ying ChouInstitute of Clinical Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei, Taiwan.
National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · TWTaipei Medical University Hospital · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCell-free tumor DNA (ctDNA) obtained through liquid biopsy is useful for the molecular analysis of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Few studies have directly compared analysis platforms in terms of their diagnostic performance in analyzing ctDNA obtained from the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients with leptomeningeal metastasis (LM).

methodsWe prospectively analyzed patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant NSCLC who were subjected to CSF analysis for suspected LM. To detect EGFR mutations, CSF ctDNA was analyzed using the cobas EGFR Mutation Test and droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR). CSF samples from osimertinib-refractory patients with LM were also subjected to next-generation sequencing (NGS).

resultsSignificantly higher rates of valid results (95.1% vs. 78%, respectively, p = 0.04) and EGFR common mutation detection (94.3% vs. 77.1%, respectively, p = 0.047) were obtained through ddPCR than through the cobas EGFR Mutation Test. The sensitivities of ddPCR and cobas were 94.3% and 75.6%, respectively. The concordance rate for EGFR mutation detection through ddPCR and the cobas EGFR Mutation Test was 75.6% and that for EGFR mutation detection in CSF and plasma ctDNA was 28.1%. In osimertinib-resistant CSF samples, all original EGFR mutations were detected through NGS. MET amplification and CCDC6-RET fusion were demonstrated in one patient each (9.1%).

conclusionsThe cobas EGFR Mutation Test, ddPCR, and NGS appear to be feasible methods for analyzing CSF ctDNA in patients with NSCLC and LM. In addition, NGS may provide comprehensive information regarding the mechanisms underlying osimertinib resistance.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungCell-Free Nucleic AcidsCirculating Tumor DNALung NeoplasmsMeningeal CarcinomatosisAcrylamidesAniline CompoundsErbB ReceptorsHumansIndolesMutationPyrimidinesAcrylamidesAniline CompoundsCell-Free Nucleic AcidsCirculating Tumor DNAEGFR protein, humanErbB ReceptorsIndolesosimertinibPyrimidinescell-free DNAcerebrospinal fluidepidermal growth factor receptornext-generation sequencingnon-small-cell lung cancer

Identifiers

PMID36977550
PMCPMC10175033
OpenAlexW4361216008

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.