Cited by 301Lung Cancer Treatments and MutationsHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchCancer Genomics and Diagnostics

EGFR mutation testing in lung cancer: a review of available methods and their use for analysis of tumour tissue and cytology samples

Open access
Ellison, Gillian, Zhu, Guanshan, Moulis, Alexandros, Dearden, Simon, Speake, Georgina, McCormack, Rose·2013·Journal of Clinical Pathology

Abstract

AIMS: Activating mutations in the gene encoding epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) can confer sensitivity to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as gefitinib in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Testing for mutations in EGFR is therefore an important step in the treatment-decision pathway. We reviewed reported methods for EGFR mutation testing in patients with lung cancer, initially focusing on studies involving standard tumour tissue samples. We also evaluated data on the use of cytology samples in order to determine their suitability for EGFR mutation analysis. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE database for studies reporting on EGFR mutation testing methods in patients with lung cancer. RESULTS: Various methods have been investigated as potential alternatives to the historical standard for EGFR mutation testing, direct DNA sequencing. Many of these are targeted methods that specifically detect the most common EGFR mutations. The development of targeted mutation testing methods and commercially available test kits has enabled sensitive, rapid and robust analysis of clinical samples. The use of screening methods, subsequent to sample micro dissection, has also ensured that identification of more rare, uncommon mutations is now feasible. Cytology samples including fine needle aspirate and pleural effusion can be used successfully to determine EGFR mutation status provided that sensitive testing methods are employed. CONCLUSIONS: Several different testing methods offer a more sensitive alternative to direct sequencing for the detection of common EGFR mutations. Evidence published to date suggests cytology samples are viable alternatives for mutation testing when tumour tissue samples are not available.

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 · 10.1136/jclinpath-2012-201194

Cites

93 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [57]Navani N Brown JM Nankivell M Suitability of EBUS-TBNA specimens for subtyping and genotyping of NSCLC: a multi-centre study of 774 patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2012; 185: 1316– 22 22505743 PMC3378660

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ellison, G., Zhu, G., Moulis, A., Dearden, S., Speake, G., & McCormack, R.
Affiliations
  • AstraZeneca (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • AstraZeneca R&D, Shanghai, China
  • AstraZeneca SA Hellas, Athens, Greece
Corresponding author
Ellison, Gillian
Venue
Journal of Clinical Pathology
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2012-11-21
Volume
66
Issue
2
Pages
79-89
ISSN
  • 0021-9746 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-4146
OpenAlex
W2158667695
Cited by
301
References
93
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 26
FWCI
24.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Pathology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
AstraZeneca
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › HER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Keywords
EGFR mutation testing, non-small cell lung cancer, EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, gefitinib, fine needle aspirate, pleural effusion, uncommon EGFR mutations, direct DNA sequencing
MeSH terms
Antineoplastic Agents, Biopsy, Needle, Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung, Cytodiagnosis, DNA Mutational Analysis, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Mutation, Pleural Effusion, Predictive Value of Tests, Reagent Kits, Diagnostic, Sensitivity and Specificity, Specimen Handling, Patient Selection, Microdissection, Protein Kinase Inhibitors, Precision Medicine, ErbB Receptors

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