Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39465302›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Detection of EGFR mutations in patients with suspected lung cancer using paired tissue-plasma testing: a prospective comparative study with plasma ddPCR assay.

Lynn Yim-Wah Shong, Jun-Yang Deng, Hoi-Hin Kwok, Nerissa Chui-Mei Lee, Steven Cee-Zhung Tseng, Lai-Yun Ng, Wilson Kwok-Sang Yee, David Chi-Leung Lam

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Integrating ctDNA testing forAdvances in laboratory medicine · 2025
    Review
  5. Advances in laboratory medicine · 2025
    Article
  6. Liquid Biopsy: The Challenges of a Revolutionary Approach in Oncology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
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

8 authors.

Lynn Yim-Wah Shong *Department of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, P. R. China.
Jun-Yang Deng *Department of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, P. R. China.
Hoi-Hin KwokDepartment of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, P. R. China.
Nerissa Chui-Mei LeeDepartment of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, P. R. China.
Steven Cee-Zhung TsengDepartment of Medicine and Geriatrics, Kwong Wah Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, P. R. China.
Lai-Yun NgDepartment of Medicine and Geriatrics, Kwong Wah Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, P. R. China.
Wilson Kwok-Sang YeeDepartment of Medicine and Geriatrics, Kwong Wah Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, P. R. China.
David Chi-Leung LamDepartment of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, P. R. China. dcllam@hku.hk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Detecting EGFR mutations in plasma using droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assay offers a promising diagnostic tool for lung cancer patients. The performance of plasma-based ddPCR assay relative to traditional EGFR mutation testing in tissue biopsies among Asian patients with suspected lung cancer remains underexplored. Consecutive patients admitted for diagnostic workup for suspected lung cancer were recruited. Peripheral blood samples were collected on the same day of tissue biopsies. Tissue samples were subjected to EGFR mutation analysis via real-time PCR, whereas plasma samples were processed for ddPCR assay to evaluate for EGFR mutation status. The tissue re-biopsy rate was 43.8% while 0.7% of patients failed blood taking. Despite repeat biopsy, 15.2% of patients could not achieve histological diagnosis. Of the 202 patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer, EGFR mutations were detected in 13.4% of plasma samples, compared to 44.3% in tissue samples. Plasma ddPCR for EGFR mutations detection were barely detectable in stages I and II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but the sensitivity was 25.0%, 56.3%, and 75.0% in stages III, IVA, and IVB NSCLC, respectively. Plasma EGFR mutations were highly specific among all stages of lung cancer. Concordance rates of plasma ddPCR assay also rose with more advanced stages, recorded at 41.9% for stages I and II, 71.9% for stage III, 86.3% for stage IV. In stage IV lung cancer, the false negative rate for the plasma ddPCR assay was 34.4%, whereas that for the tissue testing was 19.2% due to insufficient tissue samples. Plasma-based EGFR genotyping using ddPCR is a non-invasive method that offers early diagnosis and serves as a valuable adjunct to tissue-based testing for patients with advanced-stage lung cancer. However, its usefulness is limited in the context of early-stage lung cancer, indicating a need for further research to improve its accuracy in these patients.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungErbB ReceptorsLung NeoplasmsMutationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDNA Mutational AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityEGFR protein, humanErbB ReceptorsddPCREGFR mutationsLung cancerNSCLCPlasma

Identifiers

PMID39465302
PMCPMC11514293

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.