Author
Listed:
- Zi Chen
- Hong-bing Liu
- Chun-hua Yu
- Ying Wang
- Li Wang
- Yong Song
Abstract
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.
Suggested Citation
Zi Chen & Hong-bing Liu & Chun-hua Yu & Ying Wang & Li Wang & Yong Song, 2014.
"Diagnostic Value of Mutation-Specific Antibodies for Immunohistochemical Detection of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutations in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(9), pages 1-17, September.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0105940
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105940
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0105940. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.