Molecular alterations and clinical prognostic factors in resectable non-small cell lung cancer
1
Issued Date
2024-12-01
Resource Type
eISSN
14712407
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85185102173
Pubmed ID
38347487
Journal Title
BMC Cancer
Volume
24
Issue
1
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
BMC Cancer Vol.24 No.1 (2024)
Suggested Citation
Thamrongjirapat T., Muntham D., Incharoen P., Trachu N., Sae-Lim P., Sarachai N., Khiewngam K., Monnamo N., Kantathut N., Ngodngamthaweesuk M., Ativitavas T., Chansriwong P., Nitiwarangkul C., Ruangkanchanasetr R., Kositwattanarerk A., Sirachainan E., Dejthevaporn T., Reungwetwattana T. Molecular alterations and clinical prognostic factors in resectable non-small cell lung cancer. BMC Cancer Vol.24 No.1 (2024). doi:10.1186/s12885-024-11934-2 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/97341
Title
Molecular alterations and clinical prognostic factors in resectable non-small cell lung cancer
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Background: EGFR inhibitor and immunotherapy have been approved for adjuvant treatment in resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Limited reports of molecular and clinical characteristics as prognostic factors in NSCLC have been published. Methods: Medical records of patients with resectable NSCLC stage I–III diagnosed during 2015–2020 were reviewed. Real time-PCR (RT-PCR) was performed for EGFR mutations (EGFRm). Immunohistochemistry staining was conducted for ALK and PD-L1 expression. Categorical variables were compared using chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test. Survival analysis was done by cox-regression method. Results: Total 441 patients were included. The prevalence of EGFRm, ALK fusion, and PD-L1 expression were 57.8%, 1.9%, and 20.5% (SP263), respectively. The most common EGFRm were Del19 (43%) and L858R (41%). There was no significant difference of recurrence free survival (RFS) by EGFRm status whereas patients with PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 positive patients) had lower RFS compared to without PD-L1 expression (PD-L1 negative patients) (HR = 1.75, P = 0.036). Patients with both EGFRm and PD-L1 expression had worse RFS compared with EGFRm and PD-L1 negative patients (HR = 3.38, P = 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed higher CEA at cut-off 3.8 ng/ml, pT4, pN2, pStage II, and margin were significant poor prognostic factors for RFS in the overall population, which was similar to EGFRm population (exception of pT and pStage). Only pStage was a significant poor prognostic factor for PD-L1 positive patients. The predictive score for predicting of recurrence were 6 for all population (63% sensitivity and 86% specificity) and 5 for EGFRm population (62% sensitivity and 93% specificity). Conclusion: The prevalence and types of EGFRm were similar between early stage and advanced stage NSCLC. While lower prevalence of PD-L1 expression was found in early stage disease. Patients with both EGFRm and PD-L1 expression had poorer outcome. Thus PD-L1 expression would be one of the prognostic factor in EGFRm patients. Validation of the predictive score should be performed in a larger cohort.