Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 648

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Circulating tumour DNA profiling reveals heterogeneity of EGFR inhibitor resistance mechanisms in lung cancer patients

Open access
Chabon, Jacob J., Simmons, Andrew D., Lovejoy, Alexander F., Esfahani, Mohammad S., Newman, Aaron M., Haringsma, Henry J., Kurtz, David M., Stehr, Henning, Scherer, Florian, Karlovich, Chris A., Harding, Thomas C., Durkin, Kathleen A., Otterson, Gregory A., Purcell, W. Thomas, Camidge, D. Ross, Goldman, Jonathan W., Sequist, Lecia V., Piotrowska, Zofia, Wakelee, Heather A., Neal, Joel W., Alizadeh, Ash A., Diehn, Maximilian·2016·Nature Communications

Abstract

Circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) analysis facilitates studies of tumour heterogeneity. Here we employ CAPP-Seq ctDNA analysis to study resistance mechanisms in 43 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with the third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor rociletinib. We observe multiple resistance mechanisms in 46% of patients after treatment with first-line inhibitors, indicating frequent intra-patient heterogeneity. Rociletinib resistance recurrently involves MET,EGFR,PIK3CA,ERRB2,KRAS and RB1. We describe a novel EGFR L798I mutation and find that EGFR C797S, which arises in ∼33% of patients after osimertinib treatment, occurs in <3% after rociletinib. Increased MET copy number is the most frequent rociletinib resistance mechanism in this cohort and patients with multiple pre-existing mechanisms (T790M and MET) experience inferior responses. Similarly, rociletinib-resistant xenografts develop MET amplification that can be overcome with the MET inhibitor crizotinib. These results underscore the importance of tumour heterogeneity in NSCLC and the utility of ctDNA-based resistance mechanism assessment.

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 · 10.1038/ncomms11815

Cites

65 of 65 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 65 references

Cited by

See all 648

Metadata

Authors
Chabon, J. J., Simmons, A. D., Lovejoy, A. F., Esfahani, M. S., Newman, A. M., Haringsma, H. J., Kurtz, D. M., Stehr, H., Scherer, F., Karlovich, C. A., Harding, T. C., Durkin, K. A., Otterson, G. A., Purcell, W. T., Camidge, D. R., Goldman, J. W., Sequist, L. V., Piotrowska, Z., Wakelee, H. A., Neal, J. W., Alizadeh, A. A., & Diehn, M.
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2016-06-10
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
11815-11815
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2416111151
Cited by
648
References
65
FWCI
74.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Circulating tumour DNA profiling reveals heterogeneity of EGFR inhibitor resistance mechanisms in lung cancer patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/ncomms11815
The paper
Chabon, J. J., Simmons, A. D., Lovejoy, A. F., Esfahani, M. S., Newman, A. M., Haringsma, H. J., Kurtz, D. M., Stehr, H., Scherer, F., Karlovich, C. A., Harding, T. C., Durkin, K. A., Otterson, G. A., Purcell, W. T., Camidge, D. R., Goldman, J. W., Sequist, L. V., Piotrowska, Z., Wakelee, H. A., . . . Diehn, M. (2016). Circulating tumour DNA profiling reveals heterogeneity of EGFR inhibitor resistance mechanisms in lung cancer patients. Nature Communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11815

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.