Table 3– Comparison of EGFR mutational status between primary tumour and corresponding metastasis
First author, year [ref.]Population studiedCases nDetection methodsTumour enrichment strategyPrimary tumour/metastatic tumourRate showing discordance
Mutant /mutantWT/WTMutant/WTWT/mutant
Sun, 2011 [35]Surgically resected NSCLC80 pairs of PT/LNMDSMacrodissection26.367.506.38.8#
Chang, 2011 [36]Surgically resected NSCLC56 pairs of PT/LNMDSMacrodissection19.651.821.57.128.6
Park, 2009 [37]Surgically resected NSCLC101 pairs of PT/LNMDS HDAMicrodissection10 (by DS) 18.8 (by HDA)78.2 (by DS) 64.4 (by HDA)10.9 (by DS) 9.9 (by HDA)1 (by DS) 6.9 (by HDA)11.9 (by DS) 16.8 (by HDA)
Yatabe, 2011 [22]Lung adenocarcinoma with LNM77 pairs of EGFR+ PT/LNMCycleave PCR/FANA1000000
50 pairs of EGFR- PT/LNM0100000
Chen, 2012 [32]Patients with tumour samples available from ≥2 disease sites84DS/HRMANANANANANA14.3 in paired PT/DM 10.2 in paired PT/LNM
Kalikaki, 2008 [38]NSCLC and corresponding metastasis25 pairs of PT/DMDSMicrodissection47216828
Gow, 2009 [39]67 pairs of PT/DMDS/SARMSNA13.447.813.425.438.8 (27 by SAMS)
  • Data are presented as %, unless otherwise stated. EGFR: epidermal growth factor receptor; WT: wild-type; NSCLC: nonsmall cell lung cancer; PT: primary tumour; LNM: lymph node metastasis; DS: direct Sanger sequencing; HDA: heteroduplex analysis; FA: fragment analysis; NA: not available; HRMA: high resolution melting analysis; DM: distant metastasis; SARMS: scorpion amplified refractory mutation system. #: two cases among 80 pairs demonstrated different mutational profiles of EGFR.