Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 271

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improved EGFR mutation detection using combined exosomal RNA and circulating tumor DNA in NSCLC patient plasma

Open access
Krug, A.K., Enderle, D., Karlovich, C., Priewasser, T., Bentink, S., Spiel, A., Brinkmann, K., Emenegger, J., Grimm, D.G., Castellanos-Rizaldos, E., Goldman, J.W., Sequist, L.V., Soria, J.-C., Camidge, D.R., Gadgeel, S.M., Wakelee, H.A., Raponi, M., Noerholm, M., Skog, J.·2018·Annals of Oncology

Abstract

Background: A major limitation of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for somatic mutation detection has been the low level of ctDNA found in a subset of cancer patients. We investigated whether using a combined isolation of exosomal RNA (exoRNA) and cell-free DNA (cfDNA) could improve blood-based liquid biopsy for EGFR mutation detection in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Patients and methods: Matched pretreatment tumor and plasma were collected from 84 patients enrolled in TIGER-X (NCT01526928), a phase 1/2 study of rociletinib in mutant EGFR NSCLC patients. The combined isolated exoRNA and cfDNA (exoNA) was analyzed blinded for mutations using a targeted next-generation sequencing panel (EXO1000) and compared with existing data from the same samples using analysis of ctDNA by BEAMing. Results: For exoNA, the sensitivity was 98% for detection of activating EGFR mutations and 90% for EGFR T790M. The corresponding sensitivities for ctDNA by BEAMing were 82% for activating mutations and 84% for T790M. In a subgroup of patients with intrathoracic metastatic disease (M0/M1a; n = 21), the sensitivity increased from 26% to 74% for activating mutations (P = 0.003) and from 19% to 31% for T790M (P = 0.5) when using exoNA for detection. Conclusions: Combining exoRNA and ctDNA increased the sensitivity for EGFR mutation detection in plasma, with the largest improvement seen in the subgroup of M0/M1a disease patients known to have low levels of ctDNA and poses challenges for mutation detection on ctDNA alone. Clinical Trials: NCT01526928.

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 · 10.1093/annonc/mdx765

Cites

10 of 10 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 10 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Krug, A. K., Enderle, D., Karlovich, C., Priewasser, T., Bentink, S., Spiel, A., Brinkmann, K., Emenegger, J., Grimm, D. G., Castellanos-Rizaldos, E., Goldman, J. W., Sequist, L. V., Soria, J.-C., Camidge, D. R., Gadgeel, S. M., Wakelee, H. A., Raponi, M., Noerholm, M., & Skog, J.
Venue
Annals of Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-03
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
700-706
ISSN
0923-7534 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2773899600
Cited by
271
References
10
FWCI
6.47
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

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.