Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 493

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

EGFR mutation detection in ctDNA from NSCLC patient plasma: A cross-platform comparison of leading technologies to support the clinical development of AZD9291

Open access
Thress, Kenneth S., Brant, Roz, Carr, T. Hedley, Dearden, Simon, Jenkins, Suzanne, Brown, Helen, Hammett, Tracey, Cantarini, Mireille, Barrett, J. Carl·2015·Lung Cancer
DOI 10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.10.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the ability of different technology platforms to detect epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations, including T790M, from circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comparison of multiple platforms for detecting EGFR mutations in plasma ctDNA was undertaken. Plasma samples were collected from patients entering the ongoing AURA trial (NCT01802632), investigating the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of AZD9291 in patients with EGFR-sensitizing mutation-positive NSCLC. Plasma was collected prior to AZD9291 dosing but following clinical progression on a previous EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Extracted ctDNA was analyzed using two non-digital platforms (cobas(®) EGFR Mutation Test and therascreen™ EGFR amplification refractory mutation system assay) and two digital platforms (Droplet Digital™ PCR and BEAMing digital PCR [dPCR]). RESULTS: Preliminary assessment (38 samples) was conducted using all four platforms. For EGFR-TKI-sensitizing mutations, high sensitivity (78-100%) and specificity (93-100%) were observed using tissue as a non-reference standard. For the T790M mutation, the digital platforms outperformed the non-digital platforms. Subsequent assessment using 72 additional baseline plasma samples was conducted using the cobas(®) EGFR Mutation Test and BEAMing dPCR. The two platforms demonstrated high sensitivity (82-87%) and specificity (97%) for EGFR-sensitizing mutations. For the T790M mutation, the sensitivity and specificity were 73% and 67%, respectively, with the cobas(®) EGFR Mutation Test, and 81% and 58%, respectively, with BEAMing dPCR. Concordance between the platforms was >90%, showing that multiple platforms are capable of sensitive and specific detection of EGFR-TKI-sensitizing mutations from NSCLC patient plasma. CONCLUSION: The cobas(®) EGFR Mutation Test and BEAMing dPCR demonstrate a high sensitivity for T790M mutation detection. Genomic heterogeneity of T790M-mediated resistance may explain the reduced specificity observed with plasma-based detection of T790M mutations versus tissue. These data support the use of both platforms in the AZD9291 clinical development program.

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 · 10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.10.004

Cites

30 of 30 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

Show all 30 references

Cited by

See all 493

Metadata

Authors
Thress, K. S., Brant, R., Carr, T. H., Dearden, S., Jenkins, S., Brown, H., Hammett, T., Cantarini, M., & Barrett, J. C.
Venue
Lung Cancer
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-12
Volume
90
Issue
3
Pages
509-515
ISSN
0169-5002 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.10.004
OpenAlex
W2097560495
Cited by
493
References
30
FWCI
51.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: EGFR mutation detection in ctDNA from NSCLC patient plasma: A cross-platform comparison of leading technologies to support the clinical development of AZD9291. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.10.004
The paper
Thress, K. S., Brant, R., Carr, T. H., Dearden, S., Jenkins, S., Brown, H., Hammett, T., Cantarini, M., & Barrett, J. C. (2015). EGFR mutation detection in ctDNA from NSCLC patient plasma: A cross-platform comparison of leading technologies to support the clinical development of AZD9291. Lung Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.10.004

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.