Published online before print April 10, 2008

This Article Full Text (Rapid PDF) All Versions of this Article: jmoldx.2008.070178v1 10/3/242    most recent Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Li, A. R. Articles by Ladanyi, M. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Li, A. R. Articles by Ladanyi, M.

Copyright © 2008 American Society for Investigative Pathology
Journal of Molecular Diagnostics, doi:10.2353/jmoldx.2008.070178

Accepted for publication January 22, 2008.

Article

EGFR Mutations in Lung Adenocarcinomas. Clinical Testing Experience and Relationship to EGFR Gene Copy Number and Immunohistochemical Expression

Allan R. Li^*, Dhananjay Chitale^*, Gregory J. Riely, William Pao, Vincent A. Miller, Maureen F. Zakowski^*, Valerie Rusch, Mark G. Kris, and Marc Ladanyi^*@

From the Departments of Pathology,* Medicine, and Surgery, and the Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York

^@ To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: ladanyim{at}mskcc.org.

	Abstract

Lung adenocarcinomas responsive to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors possess EGFR mutations and often increased EGFR copy number. We prospectively studied 334 clinical cases using polymerase chain reaction-based assays to detect deletions within exon 19 and the L858R mutation in exon 21, which together account for approximately 90% of EGFR mutations. Seventy-eight (23%) of these tumors had an EGFR mutation, with 55 (71%) exon 19 deletions and 23 (29%) exon 21 L858R mutations. We were able to compare mutant and normal EGFR alleles and found a preferential amplification of the mutant allele. The association of mutations with EGFR amplification (determined by chromogenic in situ hybridization) and EGFR expression (determined by immunohistochemistry) was further examined in a subset of 60 tumors. EGFR amplification (5 EGFR signals per nucleus) was seen in 15 of 29 (52%) EGFR-mutated tumors but in only five of 31 (6%) non-mutated tumors (P = 0.006). EGFR overexpression was strongly associated with amplification but was statistically independent of EGFR mutation. Most patients with EGFR mutations (17 of 29, 59%) never smoked compared with 13% (four of 31) of patients lacking such mutations (P = 0.0003). The association of amplification with smoking status was marginal and was nonexistent with EGFR expression. Thus, these results indicate that EGFR amplification, preferentially of the mutant allele, often accompanies EGFR mutation, whereas EGFR immunohistochemical staining associates with amplification but cannot predict EGFR mutation status.