ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2025
An in-depth exploration of four heterogeneity structure-based EGFR mutation subgroups in Chinese non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Individualized management strategies for advanced non-small cell lung cancer withOncology letters · 2026Article
- A real-world study on the comparative effectiveness of first-line treatment regimens in advanced NSCLC patients withTherapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEGFR mutations have been classified into four functional subgroups (Classical-like, P-loop and αC-helical compressing (PACC), T790M-like, and exon 20 loop insertions) based on their influence on EGFR protein structure, as well as response to various types of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). However, the differences in molecular phenotypes and clinical outcomes for patients carrying these different forms of EGFR mutations are not fully understood. Here we sought to investigate the distribution of different EGFR structural types in Chinese NSCLC patients and the biological characteristics of each subgroup.
methods2992 EGFR mutant NSCLC patients with available next-generation sequencing result were collected for mutation analysis. 118 patients with targeted RNA sequencing data were further analyzed to compare transcriptome differences across mutation subgroups.
resultsAcross the entire cohort, 80.82% of patients were Classical-like, 5.92% were PACC, 10.76% were T790M-like, and 2.51% were Ex20ins. TP53 was the most common co-occurring mutation across the four subgroups, occurring in 60% of the T790M-like subgroup. Interestingly, the Ex20ins group exhibited a notable proportion of genomic alterations related to DNA repair processes. Additionally, both the Ex20ins and T790M subgroups demonstrated higher tumor mutational burden (TMB) scores. Furthermore, for the first time, we observed transcriptomic heterogeneity within these four subgroups. Classical-like group displayed enrichment of immune-related pathways, including PD1 signaling, CD28 family, and TCR signaling. Notably, the L858R group showed significant enrichment in immune activation signatures, including effector memory CD8 T cells, natural killer cells, and MHC I/II. This suggests a potentially robust immune response in that group. In contrast, the T790M-like subgroups showed lower anti-tumor immune signatures but were marked by a significant enrichment in tumor proliferation signatures.
conclusionIn this study, we have employed a structure-based classification approach for EGFR mutants to comprehensively characterize the mutational landscape and heterogeneous biological traits at the transcriptional and functional levels in Chinese patients with NSCLC.
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.