Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHirsch, Fred R
dc.contributor.authorDziadziuszko, Rafal
dc.contributor.authorThatcher, Nick
dc.contributor.authorMann, Helen
dc.contributor.authorWatkins, Claire
dc.contributor.authorParums, Dinah V
dc.contributor.authorSpeake, Georgina
dc.contributor.authorHolloway, Brian
dc.contributor.authorBunn, Paul A
dc.contributor.authorFranklin, Wilbur A
dc.date.accessioned2009-04-02T15:51:31Z
dc.date.available2009-04-02T15:51:31Z
dc.date.issued2008-03-01
dc.identifier.citationEpidermal growth factor receptor immunohistochemistry: comparison of antibodies and cutoff points to predict benefit from gefitinib in a phase 3 placebo-controlled study in advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer. 2008, 112 (5):1114-21 Canceren
dc.identifier.issn0008-543X
dc.identifier.pmid18219661
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/cncr.23282
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10541/59033
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: The ISEL (Iressa Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer) clinical trial evaluated the efficacy of gefitinib versus placebo in pretreated nonsmall-cell lung cancer patients. Two different antibodies, scoring systems, and cutoff points of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) protein expression were compared to predict response and survival of enrolled patients. METHODS: EGFR expression was assessed in tumor samples by immunohistochemistry using the Dako EGFR pharmDx kit (scoring percent of tumor cells with positive staining) and Zymed monoclonal antibody clone 31G7 (scoring staining index derived from proportion of positive cells times staining intensity). RESULTS: Data for EGFR expression were available for 379 patients for Dako and 357 patients for Zymed antibody (22% and 21%, respectively, of trial population). Objective response rates in gefitinib-treated EGFR-positive patients defined with various cutpoints with Dako antibody varied between 8% and 12%, and with Zymed antibody between 10% and 13%. Lower cutoff points with Dako antibody provided the best discrimination between EGFR-positive and EGFR-negative patients for survival hazard ratios comparing gefitinib to placebo, with a significant treatment/cutoff point interaction for 10% cutoff point (P = .049). A similar but less apparent trend was noted for Zymed antibody, although the discrimination between hazard ratios was not significant for any cutoff point analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment with the Dako PharmDx kit and percentage of cells with positive staining may provide more accurate prediction of differential effect on survival with gefitinib than assessment with Zymed antibody and staining index. Using higher cutpoints to define positivity does not improve test discrimination.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectLung Canceren
dc.subjectNon-Small-Cell Lung Canceren
dc.subjectClinical Trialen
dc.subject.meshAntibodies, Monoclonal
dc.subject.meshCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung
dc.subject.meshFemale
dc.subject.meshHumans
dc.subject.meshImmunohistochemistry
dc.subject.meshLung Neoplasms
dc.subject.meshMale
dc.subject.meshPlacebos
dc.subject.meshPredictive Value of Tests
dc.subject.meshQuinazolines
dc.subject.meshReceptor, Epidermal Growth Factor
dc.subject.meshTumor Markers, Biological
dc.titleEpidermal growth factor receptor immunohistochemistry: comparison of antibodies and cutoff points to predict benefit from gefitinib in a phase 3 placebo-controlled study in advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer.en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentDivision of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO 80045, USA. Fred.Hirsch@UCHSC.eduen
dc.identifier.journalCanceren
html.description.abstractBACKGROUND: The ISEL (Iressa Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer) clinical trial evaluated the efficacy of gefitinib versus placebo in pretreated nonsmall-cell lung cancer patients. Two different antibodies, scoring systems, and cutoff points of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) protein expression were compared to predict response and survival of enrolled patients. METHODS: EGFR expression was assessed in tumor samples by immunohistochemistry using the Dako EGFR pharmDx kit (scoring percent of tumor cells with positive staining) and Zymed monoclonal antibody clone 31G7 (scoring staining index derived from proportion of positive cells times staining intensity). RESULTS: Data for EGFR expression were available for 379 patients for Dako and 357 patients for Zymed antibody (22% and 21%, respectively, of trial population). Objective response rates in gefitinib-treated EGFR-positive patients defined with various cutpoints with Dako antibody varied between 8% and 12%, and with Zymed antibody between 10% and 13%. Lower cutoff points with Dako antibody provided the best discrimination between EGFR-positive and EGFR-negative patients for survival hazard ratios comparing gefitinib to placebo, with a significant treatment/cutoff point interaction for 10% cutoff point (P = .049). A similar but less apparent trend was noted for Zymed antibody, although the discrimination between hazard ratios was not significant for any cutoff point analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment with the Dako PharmDx kit and percentage of cells with positive staining may provide more accurate prediction of differential effect on survival with gefitinib than assessment with Zymed antibody and staining index. Using higher cutpoints to define positivity does not improve test discrimination.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record