Diagnostic Value of Mutation-Specific Antibodies for Immunohistochemical Detection of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

被引:26
作者
Chen, Zi [1 ]
Liu, Hong-bing [1 ]
Yu, Chun-hua [2 ]
Wang, Ying [3 ]
Wang, Li [1 ]
Song, Yong [1 ]
机构
[1] Nanjing Univ, Sch Med, Dept Resp Med, Jinling Hosp, Nanjing 210008, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
[2] Second Mil Med Univ, Dept Med Engn, Jinling Hosp, Nanjing, Jiangsu, Peoples R China
[3] Yijishan Hosp, Wannan Med Collage, Dept Resp Med, Wuhu, Peoples R China
来源
PLOS ONE | 2014年 / 9卷 / 09期
关键词
ACTIVATING EGFR MUTATIONS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; TEST ACCURACY; ODDS RATIO; GENE; ADENOCARCINOMA; SENSITIVITY; GEFITINIB;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pone.0105940
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Background: Various studies have assessed the diagnostic accuracy of EGFR mutation-specific antibodies in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We performed a meta-analysis of existing data to investigate the diagnostic value of mutation-specific antibodies for detection of EGFR mutations in NSCLC. Methods: We systematically retrieved relevant studies from PubMed, Web of Knowledge, and Google Scholar. Data from studies that met the inclusion criteria were extracted for further exploration of heterogeneity, including calculation of the average sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and analysis of SROC(summary receiver operating characteristic) curves. Results: Fifteen studies met our inclusion criteria. A summary of the meta-analysis of the efficacy of the anti-E746-A750 antibody was as follows: sensitivity, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.55-0.64); specificity, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.98); PLR, 33.50 (95% CI, 13.96-80.39); NLR, 0.39 (95% CI, 0.30-0.51) and DOR, 111.17 (95% CI, 62.22-198.63). A similar meta-analysis was performed for the anti-L858R antibody with results as follows: sensitivity, 0.76 (95% CI, 0.71-0.79); specificity, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95-0.97); PLR, 24.42 (95% CI, 11.66-51.17); NLR, 0.22 (95% CI, 0.12-0.39) and DOR, 126.66 (95% CI, 54.60-293.82). Conclusion: Immunohistochemistry alone is sufficient for the detection of EGFR mutations if the result is positive. Molecular-based analyses are necessary only if the anti-E746-A750 antibody results are negative. Immunohistochemistry seems more suitable for clinical screening for EGFR mutations prior to molecular-based analysis.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 35 条
  • [1] EGFR Mutation-specific Antibodies in Pulmonary Adenocarcinoma: A Comparison With DNA Direct Sequencing
    Ambrosini-Spaltro, Andrea
    Campanini, Nicoletta
    Bortesi, Beatrice
    Azzoni, Cinzia
    Naldi, Nadia
    Ampollini, Luca
    Tiseo, Marcello
    Ardizzoni, Andrea
    Rusca, Michele
    Carbognani, Paolo
    Silini, Enrico M.
    [J]. APPLIED IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR MORPHOLOGY, 2012, 20 (04) : 356 - 362
  • [2] A Comparison of EGFR Mutation Testing Methods in Lung Carcinoma: Direct Sequencing, Real-time PCR and Immunohistochemistry
    Angulo, Barbara
    Conde, Esther
    Suarez-Gauthier, Ana
    Plaza, Carlos
    Martinez, Rebeca
    Redondo, Pilar
    Izquierdo, Elisa
    Rubio-Viqueira, Belen
    Paz-Ares, Luis
    Hidalgo, Manuel
    Lopez-Rios, Fernando
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2012, 7 (08):
  • [3] Towards complete and,accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative
    Bossuyt, PM
    Reitsma, JB
    Bruns, DE
    Gatsonis, CA
    Glasziou, PP
    Irwig, LM
    Lijmer, JG
    Moher, D
    Rennie, D
    de Vet, HCE
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2003, 326 (7379): : 41 - 44
  • [4] Assessment of EGFR Mutation Status in Lung Adenocarcinoma by Immunohistochemistry Using Antibodies Specific to the Two Major Forms of Mutant EGFR
    Brevet, Marie
    Arcila, Maria
    Ladanyi, Marc
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS, 2010, 12 (02) : 169 - 176
  • [5] EGFR mutant-specific immunohistochemistry has high specificity and sensitivity for detecting targeted activating EGFR mutations in lung adenocarcinoma
    Cooper, W. A.
    Yu, B.
    Yip, P. Y.
    Ng, C. C.
    Lum, T.
    Farzin, M.
    Trent, R. J.
    Mercorella, B.
    Clarkson, A.
    Kohonen-Corish, M. R. J.
    Horvath, L. G.
    Kench, J. G.
    McCaughan, B.
    Gill, A. J.
    O'Toole, S. A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY, 2013, 66 (09) : 744 - 748
  • [6] Systematic reviews in health care - Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening
    Deeks, JJ
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 323 (7305): : 157 - 162
  • [7] The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed
    Deeks, JJ
    Macaskill, P
    Irwig, L
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2005, 58 (09) : 882 - 893
  • [8] Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: Didactic guidelines
    Devillé W.L.
    Buntinx F.
    Bouter L.M.
    Montori V.M.
    De Vet H.C.W.
    Van Der Windt D.A.W.M.
    Bezemer P.D.
    [J]. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2 (1) : 1 - 13
  • [9] Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008
    Ferlay, Jacques
    Shin, Hai-Rim
    Bray, Freddie
    Forman, David
    Mathers, Colin
    Parkin, Donald Maxwell
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2010, 127 (12) : 2893 - 2917
  • [10] Clinical utility of likelihood ratios
    Gallagher, EJ
    [J]. ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 1998, 31 (03) : 391 - 397