Establishing an EGFR mutation screening service for non-small cell lung cancer – Sample quality criteria and candidate histological predictors

Abstract Introduction EGFR screening requires good quality tissue, sensitivity and turn-around time (TAT). We report our experience of routine screening, describing sample type, TAT, specimen quality (cellularity and DNA yield), histopathological description, mutation result and clinical outcome. Me...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of cancer (1990) 2012-01, Vol.48 (1), p.61-67
Hauptverfasser: Leary, Alexandra F, Castro, David Gonzalez de, Nicholson, Andrew G, Ashley, Sue, Wotherspoon, Andrew, O’Brien, Mary E.R, Popat, Sanjay
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Introduction EGFR screening requires good quality tissue, sensitivity and turn-around time (TAT). We report our experience of routine screening, describing sample type, TAT, specimen quality (cellularity and DNA yield), histopathological description, mutation result and clinical outcome. Methods Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) sections were screened for EGFR mutations (M+) in exons 18–21. Clinical, pathological and screening outcome data were collected for year 1 of testing. Screening outcome alone was collected for year 2. Results In year 1, 152 samples were tested, most (72%) were diagnostic. TAT was 4.9 days (95% confidence interval (CI) = 4.5–5.5). EGFR -M+ prevalence was 11% and higher (20%) among never-smoking women with adenocarcinomas (ADCs), but 30% of mutations occurred in current/ex-smoking men. EGFR -M+ tumours were non-mucinous ADCs and 100% thyroid transcription factor (TTF1+). No mutations were detected in poorly differentiated NSCLC-not otherwise specified (NOS). There was a trend for improved overall survival (OS) among EGFR -M+ versus EGFR -M– patients (median OS = 78 versus 17 months). In year 1, test failure rate was 19%, and associated with scant cellularity and low DNA concentrations. However 75% of samples with poor cellularity but representative of tumour were informative and mutation prevalence was 9%. In year 2, 755 samples were tested; mutation prevalence was 13% and test failure only 5.4%. Although samples with low DNA concentration ( 2.2 ng/μL), the mutation rate was 9.2%. Conclusion Routine epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR ) screening using diagnostic samples is fast and feasible even on samples with poor cellularity and DNA content. Mutations tend to occur in better-differentiated non-mucinous TTF1+ ADCs. Whether these histological criteria may be useful to select patients for EGFR testing merits further investigation.
ISSN:0959-8049
1879-0852
DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2011.09.022