Back to Search Start Over

Comprehensive cross-platform comparison of methods for non-invasive EGFR mutation testing: results of the RING observational trial.

Authors :
Romero A
Jantus-Lewintre E
García-Peláez B
Royuela A
Insa A
Cruz P
Collazo A
Pérez Altozano J
Vidal OJ
Diz P
Cobo M
Hernández B
Vázquez Estevez S
Benítez G
Guirado M
Majem M
Bernabé R
Ortega AL
Blasco A
Bosch-Barrera J
Jurado JM
García González J
Viteri S
Garcia Giron C
Massutí B
Lopez Martín A
Rodriguez-Festa A
Calabuig-Fariñas S
Molina-Vila MÁ
Provencio M
Source :
Molecular oncology [Mol Oncol] 2021 Jan; Vol. 15 (1), pp. 43-56. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Nov 13.
Publication Year :
2021

Abstract

Several platforms for noninvasive EGFR testing are currently used in the clinical setting with sensitivities ranging from 30% to 100%. Prospective studies evaluating agreement and sources for discordant results remain lacking. Herein, seven methodologies including two next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based methods, three high-sensitivity PCR-based platforms, and two FDA-approved methods were compared using 72 plasma samples, from EGFR-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients progressing on a first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). NGS platforms as well as high-sensitivity PCR-based methodologies showed excellent agreement for EGFR-sensitizing mutations (K = 0.80-0.89) and substantial agreement for T790M testing (K = 0.77 and 0.68, respectively). Mutant allele frequencies (MAFs) obtained by different quantitative methods showed an excellent reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficients 0.86-0.98). Among other technical factors, discordant calls mostly occurred at mutant allele frequencies (MAFs) ≤ 0.5%. Agreement significantly improved when discarding samples with MAF ≤ 0.5%. EGFR mutations were detected at significantly lower MAFs in patients with brain metastases, suggesting that these patients risk for a false-positive result. Our results support the use of liquid biopsies for noninvasive EGFR testing and highlight the need to systematically report MAFs.<br /> (© 2020 The Authors. Published by FEBS Press and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1878-0261
Volume :
15
Issue :
1
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Molecular oncology
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
33107189
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1002/1878-0261.12832