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.
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.
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.
- Development and characterization of nucleosomal DNA-based reference materials for the epidermal growth factor receptor gene liquid biopsy.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Review
- MUTE-Seq: An Ultrasensitive Method for Detecting Low-Frequency Mutations in cfDNA With Engineered Advanced-Fidelity FnCas9.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2025Article
- Integrating ctDNA testing forAdvances in laboratory medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Liquid Biopsy: The Challenges of a Revolutionary Approach in Oncology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.