Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 170

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in needle biopsy/aspiration samples predict response to gefitinib therapy and survival of patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer

Shih, Jin‐Yuan, Gow, Chien‐Hung, Yu, Chong‐Jen, Yang, Chih‐Hsin, Chang, Yih‐Leong, Tsai, Meng‐Feng, Hsu, Ya‐Chieh, Chen, Kuan‐Yu, Su, Wen‐Pin, Yang, Pan‐Chyr·2006·International Journal of Cancer

Abstract

Recently, mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene in nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients were reported to correlate with gefitinib response. Less than 30% of NSCLC patients are surgically resectable; however, molecular analysis has to rely on nonsurgical diagnostic tissue samples. The objective of this study is to investigate EGFR mutation analysis on needle biopsy/aspiration samples and its correlations with gefitinib response and patients' survival. EGFR mutation was assessed from DNA of 63 paraffin‐embedded small needle biopsy/aspiration specimens from 62 patients with NSCLC treated with gefitinib. The peripheral blood lymphocyte DNA of the patients was sequenced to verify the EGFR mutation. EGFR mutations were found in 47% of 62 patients (60% of 20 CT‐guided biopsies, 44% of 18 ultrasound‐guided biopsies, 31% of 16 endoscopic biopsies and 44% of 9 effusion cell blocks). EGFR mutations were frequently present in females (p = 0.006) and never smokers (p = 0.04). Patients with EGFR mutations had a significantly better response rate compared to that of the nonmutation group (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that EGFR mutation (p < 0.001) and PS 0–1 (p = 0.02) were independently associated with a better response rate. Cox regression analysis showed that EGFR mutation was the independent prognostic factor for progression‐free survival (p = 0.008) and overall survival (p = 0.03). In conclusion, EGFR mutation analysis is feasible in needle biopsy/aspiration paraffin‐fixed specimens. EGFR mutation is an independent predictor of gefitinib response and survival in patients of advanced NSCLC treated by gefitinib. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ijc.21458

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 170

Metadata

Authors
Shih, J., Gow, C., Yu, C., Yang, C., Chang, Y., Tsai, M., Hsu, Y., Chen, K., Su, W., & Yang, P.
Venue
International Journal of Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-12-13
Volume
118
Issue
4
Pages
963-969
ISSN
  • 0020-7136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0215
OpenAlex
W1982397643
Cited by
170
References
3
FWCI
13.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.