Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

Prognostic value of localization of epidermal growth factor receptor in lung adenocarcinoma

  • 1, 2, 3,
  • 4, 5,
  • 6,
  • 6, 7,
  • 4, 5,
  • 6,
  • 6,
  • 3, 8 and
  • 3, 9Email author
Journal of Biomedical Science201825:53

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12929-018-0451-3

  • Received: 13 February 2018
  • Accepted: 22 May 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

The nuclear translocation of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) has been considered to play a role in carcinogenesis. However, the relevance of differentially located EGFR proteins in lung cancer remains unclear.

Methods

We examined 161 patients with primary lung adenocarcinoma to detect EGFR expression in lung cancer cells using immunohistochemistry and determined the correlations of EGFR expression with clinical characteristics, EGFR mutations, and survival time. Moreover, we graded complete membranous staining with strong intensity as high membranous EGFR (mEGFR) expression, and nuclear EGFR staining with strong intensity as high nuclear (nEGFR) expression.

Results

The prevalence of high mEGFR and nEGFR expression in lung adenocarcinoma was 42.86 and 39.13%, respectively. After multivariate analyses, high mEGFR expression was associated with a significantly reduced mortality risk in older patients, those with a history of smoking, and those without brain metastasis (hazard ratio[95% confidential interval], HR[95% CI] = 0.55[0.32~ 0.92]; 0.51[0.26~ 0.98] and 0.56[0.33~ 0.94], in overall survival, respectively). An association between high nEGFR expression and early recurrence was observed in patients with metastasis (HR[95% CI] =1.68[1.05~ 2.68], in progression-free survival). Notably, patients with low mEGFR and low nEGFR expression had the lowest survival rate in cases without brain metastasis (p = 0.018) and with a history of smoking (p = 0.062) and total EGFR (any high mEGFR or nEGFR) expression indicated a more favorable response to platinum-based chemotherapy regardless of EGFR mutations (HR[95% CI] =0.33[0.12–0.92]; adjusted HR[95% CI] = 0.36[0.13~ 1.02] with the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitor).

Conclusions

EGFR proteins at different cellular locations in lung adenocarcinoma might influence the biology of cancer cells and are an independent indicator of more favorable prognosis and treatment response.

Keywords

  • Epidermal growth factor receptor
  • Lung adenocarcinoma
  • Survival
  • Immunohistochemistry
  • Localization

Background

Lung cancer is the leading cause of deaths worldwide, including in Taiwan. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate of advanced-stage lung cancer is less than 20% [1]. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs, erlotinib or gefitinib) have been prescribed in lung adenocarcinoma patients who have epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations and have markedly improved the survival outcome, but patients still eventually develop TKI resistance [2, 3]. Thus, a more comprehensive understanding of lung carcinogenesis is necessary to develop more effective therapies.

Overexpression of EGFR is implicated in the pathogenesis of many human malignancies, including lung cancer [4]. EGFR overexpression has been reported to be strongly associated with cancer progression and to predict shorter survival in surgically resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [5, 6]. Nevertheless, high EGFR expression may predict the response to gefitinib in lung adenocarcinoma with a high survival and provide survival benefits when gefitinib is used in combination with cetuximab in advanced NSCLC with wildtype EGFR status [79]. Therefore, a more detailed understanding of EGFR biology in lung carcinomas is required.

The localization of nuclear EGFR, which has been detected in various cancers in the last decade, functions as a transcription factor for cell proliferation, angiogenesis and resistance to standard therapy [10]. Nuclear EGFR expression has been reported to be related to disease progression and poor survival time in breast, ovary and oropharynx cancers as well as in early stage NSCLC [1114]. However, few studies investigate the relationship of between EGFR proteins and EGFR mutations [15, 16].

Since the clinical correlation of differentially located EGFR proteins in lung cancer has not been completely evaluated; therefore, we intended to investigate the relevance of differentially located EGFR expression in lung adenocarcinoma. This study retrospectively graded differentially located EGFR expressions in 161 lung adenocarcinoma specimens by using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and determined the association with demographic characteristics, stages, EGFR mutation status, and survival time.

Methods

Patients and tumor specimens

Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumors from 161 patients with lung adenocarcinoma diagnosed based on 2015 WHO classifications [17], who had undergone computed tomography-guided needle biopsies or wedge resections were collected from Taipei Medical University-Wan Fang Hospital between 2008 and 2014. The clinical parameters and follow-up data were obtained by reviewing medical records. The patients were followed until December 2016; the median follow-up period was 13.1 months (0.07–132.03). All survivors were followed for at least 12 months. This study was approved by the Joint Institutional Review Board of Taipei Medical University.

Immunohistochemistry

Four-micrometer sections of paraffin-embedded blocks were deparaffinized in xylene substitute, rehydrated with alcohol, and subjected to antigen retrieval. To detect EGFR proteins in the different cellular compartments of cancer cells, we used two types of primary EGFR antibodies to recognize EGFR proteins by the specific terminus. The mouse anti-EGFr antibody (clone 31G7, Invitrogen, Breda, the Netherlands) is raised against the NH2 terminus and recognizes membranous EGFR (mEGFR) and cytoplasmic EGFR [18]; the NCL-EGFR-384 antibody (clone EGFR.25, Novocastra, Newcastle, upon Tyne, UK) is raised against the COOH terminus and recognizes both mEGFR and nuclear EGFR (nEGFR) [11, 19]. Appropriate antigen retrieval protocols were used according to the specific primary antibodies. For mEGFR protein detection, we used the enzyme digestion method with pepsin (Digest-All™ 1, Thermo Fisher Scientific) for 10 min at 37 °C and for nEGFR protein detection, we used the double-antigen retrieval method, heat-induced epitope retrieval (boiling citrate buffer for 5 min) plus enzyme digestion with 0.025% trypsin (T4799, Sigma Aldrich) for 8 min at room temperature (RT). Slides were incubated at RT with the mouse anti-EGFr antibody overnight and at 4 °C with the NCL-EGFR-384 antibody overnight. The labeled streptavidin biotin method with horse radish peroxidase was used to achieve signal amplifications. Immunoreactions were visualized using 3.3′-diamino-benzidine-tetrahydrochloryte, then counterstained with hematoxylin.

IHC interpretation

mEGFR and nEGFR expression was interpreted as high and low expression from IHC images. We graded complete membranous staining with strong intensity in more than 10% of cancer cells as high mEGFR expression and others (incomplete membranous, weak or less than 10% of cancer cells staining) as low mEGFR expression. Nuclear staining with strong intensity in more than 10% of cancer cells was graded as high nEGFR expression and others were as low nEGFR expression. Lung squamous cell carcinoma tissue, known to have mEGFR overexpression, served as the positive control for mEGFR staining and hepatocellular carcinoma tissue served as the positive control for nEGFR staining. The negative controls of mEGFR and nEGFR comprised slides with the mouse IGG1 isotype antibody. The immunostain grading was done by two designated pathologists (C-L. F. and S-E. L.) with total agreement blindly. Figure 1 shows representative images for mEGFR and nEGFR expression.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Immunostaining for mEGFR and nEGFR proteins in lung adenocarcinoma tissues. a high mEGFR expression; b low mEGFR expression; c positive mEGFR control (lung squamous cell carcinoma); d high nEGFR expression; e low nEGFR expression; f positive nEGFR control (hepatocellular carcinoma). Original magnification × 400

Statistical analyses

The Pearson chi-squared test was performed to analyze the associations between differentially located EGFR proteins and clinical characteristics. The Kaplan-Meier estimate by using the log-rank test was employed to evaluate the survival distributions for differentially located EGFR proteins. OS was defined as the time between the date of diagnosis and that of death from any causes or the date of censorship (date of final follow-up). Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as the time between the date of treatment initiation to that of tumor progression, death from any causes, or censorship. To evaluate the mortality risk, the hazard ratio (HR) and corresponding confidence interval (CI) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models to identify potential prognostic factors. All statistical analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4 and as p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Distribution of differentially located EGFR proteins in cancer tissues

Among the 161 lung adenocarcinoma specimens, high mEGFR and nEGFR expression was observed in 69 (42.86%) and 63 (39.13%) specimens, respectively. The distribution of differentially located EGFR proteins in cancer tissues had shown 36 (22.36%) with high mEGFR and nEGFR staining, 33 (20.50%) with high mEGFR and low nEGFR staining, 27 (16.77%) with low mEGFR and high nEGFR staining, and 65 (40.37%) with low mEGFR and nEGFR staining. mEGFR expression significantly correlated with nEGFR expression (p = 0.0033, Additional file 1: Table S1). In addition, we found that morphologic characteristics were different in cancer tissues with high mEGFR expression, high nEGFR expression and EGFR mutations. The case numbers in certain subtypes of pathology were too small to draw definite conclusion. The detailed data was shown in Additional file 1: Table S2.

Clinical significance of different localizations of EGFR protein

A significantly high number of patients with low nodal stage had high mEGFR expression (odds ratio[OR, 95% CI] = 2.01[1.06–3.81], p = 0.031; adjusted OR[95% CI] = 3.92[1.25~ 12.27], p = 0.019, respectively, Table 1). Compared with those with low mEGFR expression, high mEGFR expression was significantly associated with low recurrence risk in patients without brain metastasis (in univariate analyses, HR[95% CI] = 0.63[0.40–0.99], p = 0.045; in multivariate analyses, HR[95% CI] = 0.56 [0.34~ 0.91], p = 0.018 in PFS) and was significantly associated with reduced mortality risk in older patients (> 70 years), those with a history of smoking, and those without brain metastasis (in univariate analyses, HR[95% CI] = 0.59[0.36–0.97], 0.54[0.30–0.99] and 0.56[0.34–0.91] in OS, respectively; in multivariate analyses, 0.55[0.32~ 0.92], 0.51[0.26~ 0.98] and 0.56[0.33~ 0.94] in OS, respectively). High nEGFR expression was significantly associated with recurrence risk (in univariate analyses, HR[95% CI] = 1.58[1.01–2.45] in PFS and in multivariate analyses, HR[95% CI] = 1.68[1.05~ 2.68] in PFS, respectively), but did not affect mortality risk (p = 0.677). Notably, patients with a history of smoking who had high nEGFR expression had a significantly lower mortality risk than those who had low nEGFR expression (in univariate analyses, HR[95% CI] = 0.55[0.30–0.99] in OS and in multivariate analyses, HR[95% CI] = 0.49[0.25~ 0.97] in OS, respectively). All data are presented in Tables 2 and 3. However, EGFR expressions (mEGFR and nEGFR) were not affected by EGFR mutations (p = 0.205 and p = 0.734, Table 1).
Table 1

Characteristics of high membranous and nuclear EGFR expression in lung adenocarcinoma

Characteristics

No

High membranous EGFR (N = 69)

OR (95% CI)

P value

High nuclear EGFR (N = 63)

OR (95% CI)

P value

Age (median = 71 yr)

   

0.423

  

0.966

 Younger

77

30 (39.0)a

1

 

30 (38.9)

1

 

 Older > 70 yr

84

39 (46.4)

1.36 (0.73~ 2.54)

 

33 (39.3)

1.01 (0.54~ 1.91)

 

Gender

   

0.436

  

0.692

 Female

90

41 (45.6)

1

 

34 (37.8)

1

 

 Male

71

28 (39.5)

0.78 (0.41~ 1.46)

 

29 (40.8)

1.14 (0.60~ 1.46)

 

Smoking

   

0.776

  

0.919

 Never

103

58 (56.3)

1

 

40 (38.8)

1

 

 Current or past

58

34 (58.6)

0.91 (0.47~ 1.75)

 

23 (39.7)

1.04 (0.54~ 1.20)

 

Tumor stage (2 missing)

   

0.584

  

0.455

 T1/T2

80

33 (41,3)

1

 

34 (42.5)

1

 

 T3/T4

79

36 (45.6)

1.19 (0.64~ 2.23)

 

29 (36.7)

0.78 (0.42~ 1.48)

 

Nodal stage (1 missing)

   

0.031

  

0.466

 L0/L1

68

36 (52.9)

2.01 (1.06~ 3.81)b

 

29 (42.6)

1.27 (0.67~ 2.41)

 

 L2/L3

92

33 (35.9)

1

 

34 (36.9)

1

 

Metastasis

   

0.090

  

0.118

 without

67

34 (50.7)

1

 

31 (46.3)

1

 

 with

94

35 (37.2)

0.58 (0.30~ 1.09)

 

32 (34.0)

0.60 (0.32~ 1.14)

 

TNM stage

   

0.045

  

0.247

 Localized (stage I/II)

43

24 (55.8)

2.05 (1.01~ 4.16)c

 

20 (46.5)

1.52 (0.75~ 3.08)

 

 Distant (stage III/IV)

118

45 (38.1)

1

 

43 (36.4)

1

 

Brain metastasis

   

0.515

  

0.890

 without

114

47 (41.2)

1

 

45 (39.5)

1

 

 with

47

22 (46.8)

1.25 (0.63~ 2.49)

 

18 (38.3)

0.95 (0.47~ 1.91)

 

EGFR mutationsd

   

0.205

  

0.634

 Wildtype

74

28 (37.8)

1

 

27 (36.5)

1

 

 Mutationse

77

37 (48.0)

1.52 (0.79~ 2.91)

 

31 (40.3)

1.17 (0.61~ 2.26)

 

Chi-squared test

aData are presented as n (%) of row

bAdjusted OR (95% CI) = 3.92 (1.25~ 12.27), p = 0.019

cAdjusted OR (95% CI) = 1.37 (0.32~ 5.98) p = 0.674

d10 missing

eIncluding 3 in exon 18, 37 in exon 19, 3 in exon 20, 33 in exon 21and 1 in exon 19/20

Note: Boldfaces as statistical significance

Table 2

Univariate analyses for progression-free and overall survival in lung adenocarcinoma

Variable

 

High membranous EGFR

High nuclear EGFR

Parameter

No

PFS

OS

 

PFS

OS

aHR (95%CI)

p

aHR (95%CI)

p

bHR (95%CI)

p

bHR (95%CI)

p

All patients

161

0.79 (0.56~ 1.13)

0.198

0.71 (0.49~ 1.03)

0.067

1.03 (0.73~ 1.46)

0.865

0.81 (0.56~ 1.17)

0.251

Older age (>  70 yr)

84

0.64 (0.39~ 1.04)

0.068

0.59 (0.36~ 0.97)

0.038

0.81 (0.50~ 1.31)

0.394

0.69 (0.40~ 1.10)

0.101

Smokers

58

0.62 (0.35~ 1.09)

0.092

0.54 (0.30~ 0.99)

0.046

0.61 (0.34~ 1.10)

0.102

0.55 (0.30~ 0.99)

0.043

Distant (metastasis)

94

1.01 (0.66~ 1.56)

0.954

0.83 (0.54~ 1.29)

0.403

1.58 (1.01~ 2.45)

0.043

1.10 (0.70~ 1.73)

0.677

No brain metastasis

114

0.63 (0.40~ 0.99)

0.045

0.56 (0.34~ 0.91)

0.019

1.01 (0.66~ 1.56)

0.953

0.78 (0.49~ 1.25)

0.297

Wildtype EGFR

74

0.60 (0.35~ 1.03)

0.059

0.64 (0.37~ 1.09)

0.094

0.84 (0.50~ 1.41)

0.506

0.74 (0.43~ 1.26)

0.265

Cox proportional hazards model

aLow membranous EGFR expression as a reference

bLow nuclear EGFR expression as a reference

Note: Boldfaces as statistical significance

Table 3

Multivariate analyses for progression-free and overall survival in lung adenocarcinoma

Variable

 

High membranous EGFR

High nuclear EGFR

Parameter

No

PFS

OS

 

PFS

OS

aHR (95%CI)

p

aHR (95%CI)

p

bHR (95%CI)

p

bHR (95%CI)

p

All patients

161

0.72 (0.50~ 1.04)

0.078

0.70 (0.47~ 1.03)

0.071

0.89 (0.61~ 1.29)

0.529

0.72 (0.49~ 1.07)

0.103

Older age (>  70 yr)

84

0.60 (0.36~ 0.99)

0.046

0.55 (0.32~ 0.92)

0.023

0.77 (0.47~ 1.27)

0.310

0.62 (0.37~ 1.05)

0.077

Smokers

58

0.63 (0.34~ 1.16)

0.135

0.51 (0.26~ 0.98)

0.045

0.64 (0.34~ 1.21)

0.166

0.49 (0.25~ 0.97)

0.041

Distant (metastasis)

94

1.20 (0.76~ 1.88)

0.434

1.00 (0.63~ 1.61)

0.985

1.68 (1.05~ 2.68)

0.030

1.27 (0.77~ 2.08)

0.350

No brain metastasis

114

0.56 (0.34~ 0.91)

0.018

0.56 (0.33~ 0.94)

0.028

0.86 (0.54~ 1.36)

0.521

0.72 (0.44~ 1.18)

0.186

Wildtype EGFR

74

0.49 (0.28~ 0.85)

0.012

0.51 (0.29~ 0.90)

0.019

0.73 (0.43~ 1.24)

0.240

0.62 (0.36~ 1.08)

0.092

Cox proportional hazards model after adjustment of other variables except distant

aLow membranous EGFR expression as a reference

bLow nuclear EGFR expression as a reference

Note: Boldfaces as statistical significance

Survival benefits of the combination of differentially located EGFR proteins

Since nEGFR proteins originate from the nuclear translocation of mEGFR proteins, we combined both immunostain types and divided them into four subgroups (mEGFR nEGFR, mEGFR+ nEGFR, mEGFR nEGFR+, and mEGFR+ nEGFR+), to investigate the synergistic effects on survival outcome. Although we did not find any survival differences among all patients (p = 0.112, data not shown), patients with low mEGFR and nEGFR expression had the lowest survival rate among patients without brain metastasis and with a history of smoking (p = 0.018 and 0.062, respectively, Fig. 2a and b).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Survival analyses. a patients without brain metastasis and b patients with a history of smoking, stratified by high mEGFR and nEGFR expression; c total patients stratified by tEGFR expression and EGFR mutations

Next, we considered high mEGFR and nEGFR expression together as total EGFR (tEGFR) expression, defined as either high mEGFR or nEGFR expression, to investigate the treatment response in patients receiving different anti-cancer therapies. tEGFR expression was significantly associated with a reduced mortality risk in patients with a history of smoking and without brain metastasis (HR[95% CI] = 0.24[0.07–0.81], p = 0.013; HR[95% CI] = 0.43 [0.18–1.06], p = 0.045, respectively) who were receiving platinum-based chemotherapy, as well as in patients without brain metastasis (HR [95% CI] = 0.45[0.20–0.98], p = 0.040) after EGFR TKI use. All data are shown in Table 4.
Table 4

Comparisons of treatment responses according to tEGFR expression

Parameters

No

tEGFR

Mediana (m)

HR (95%CI)

P value

Smokers

 Platinum

9

Positive

59.8

0.24 (0.07~ 0.81)

0.013

8

Negative

20.9

1

 

 TKIs

9

Positive

32.1

0.40 (0.12~ 1.33)

0.122

6

Negative

16.2

1

 

 Radiation

9

Positive

17.0

0.56 (0.21~ 1.53)

0.253

11

Negative

13.1

1

 

No brain metastasis

 Platinum

18

Positive

59.8

0.43 (0.18~ 1.06)

0.045

14

Negative

23.4

1

 

 TKIs

20

Positive

33.3

0.45 (0.20~ 0.98)

0.040

16

Negative

17.5

1

 

 Radiation

14

Positive

58.2

0.55 (0.20~ 1.48)

0.230

11

Negative

12.3

1

 

aMedian = median survival time

Note: Boldfaces as statistical significance

Synergistic effect of tEGFR protein and EGFR mutations on overall survival

Based on lung adenocarcinoma patients with EGFR mutations responsible to EGFR TKIs, we compared the combined effects of tEGFR protein and EGFR mutations on clinical benefits. Univariate analysis had shown the survival difference (p = 0.001, Fig. 2c) in four subgroups (tEGFR mutant, tEGFR+ mutant, tEGFR mutant+ and tEGFR+ mutant+). Then we examined the treatment response to platinum-based chemotherapy and found that comparing with patients without any biomarker (tEGFR mutant), tEGFR protein was significantly associated with low mortality risk (HR[95% CI] = 0.33[0.12~ 0.92], p = 0.029; adjusted HR[95% CI] = 0.36[0.13~ 1.02], p = 0.055, with the use of TKI). All data are shown in Table 5.
Table 5

Hazard ratios for overall survival in the joint subgroups with platinum-based chemotherapy

tEGFR/mutant

Number

Median (m)a

Unadjusted HR (95% CI)

p

Adjusted HRb (95%CI)

p

tEGFR mutant

11

18.2

1.0

 

1.0

 

tEGFR+ mutant

10

34.7

0.33 (0.12~ 0.92)

0.029

0.36 (0.13~ 1.02)

0.055

tEGFR mutant+

10

29.5

0.65 (0.41~ 1.04)

0.070

0.64 (0.39~ 1.05)

0.076

tEGFR+ mutant+

21

25.9

0.74 (0.56~ 0.97)

0.033

0.83 (0.59~ 1.15)

0.260

Cox proportional model

aMedian (m) = median survival time (month)

bAdjusted hazard ratio with TKI

Note: Boldfaces as statistical significance

Discussion

This study investigated differentially located EGFR expression in lung adenocarcinoma. Our data indicate that high mEGFR expression is a more favorable prognostic factor in older patients, those with a history of smoking, and those without brain metastasis. Moreover, high nEGFR expression predicts early relapse in patients with distant metastasis. Notably, the combination of mEGFR and nEGFR expression is associated with survival benefits and with a more favorable response to anti-cancer therapies in patients with a history of smoking and without brain metastasis. Therefore, we suggest that differentially located EGFR expression synergistically predict survival outcomes and treatment responses in lung adenocarcinoma patients.

In this study, a high number of patients with low nodal stage exhibited high mEGFR expression, possibly indicating the initial stage of lung carcinogenesis. These results are different from those obtained in previous studies, which have reported a higher prevalence of EGFR overexpression in tumors of advanced stage and with lymph node invasion in colon and pancreatic cancer as well as in early stage (IA to IIIA) NSCLC [5, 20, 21]. Nevertheless, we did not observe any clinical associations for nEGFR proteins, although nEGFR has been associated with higher-stage breast cancer and higher disease stage in early-stage NSCLC [14, 19]. Such differences might have been a result of most enrolled patients having advanced-stage lung adenocarcinoma.

In accordance with recent studies on breast, ovarian and head-and-neck cancers, which have reported the prognostic value of nEGFR proteins for survival outcomes [12, 13, 19], the role of nEGFR expression in predicting recurrence risk in the metastasis subgroup was addressed in this study. However, clinicians may provide multi-agent therapies to patients with lung cancer relapse; therefore, the survival outcomes in patients with metastasis exhibited no differences. Altogether, we suggest that adjusting clinical management according to nEGFR expression at initial diagnosis might reduce early recurrence risk in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma.

In contrast to previous studies that EGFR overexpression has been associated with poor survival prognosis [5, 6, 22], this study has determined the survival benefits of differentially located EGFR proteins in those who had a history of smoking and no brain metastasis by observing more favorable treatment responses in patients with tEGFR expression. Although we could not exclude the effects of EGFR mutations on anti-EGFR therapies, we had found that patients with tEGFR protein was responsible to platinum-based chemotherapy regardless of EGFR mutations by observing the tEGFR+ mutant subgroup with significantly less mortality risk than the tEGFR mutant subgroup. Our findings are in accordance with a recent Chinese study that IHC positive mEGFR expression is associated with responses to EGFR TKIs in NSCLC patients with wildtype EGFR status [23]. Targeting EGFR protein has been reported to be an important treatment option for NSCLC [24]; therefore, EGFR proteins might be an indicator for treatment responses in patients with lung adenocarcinoma. However, the true mechanism warrants further investigation.

Conclusions

This present study indicated that differentially located EGFR proteins might serve as a molecular marker of survival outcomes in patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Since EGFR proteins were responsible to platinum-based chemotherapy, treatment selection according to EGFR expression might be essential in the treatment of lung adenocarcinoma patients. Prospective studies are required to validate our theory.

Abbreviations

CI: 

Confidence interval

EGFR: 

Epidermal growth factor receptor

HR: 

Hazard ratio

IHC: 

Immunohistochemistry

NSCLC: 

Non-small cell lung cancer

OR: 

Odds ratio

OS: 

Overall survival

PFS: 

Progression-free survival

TKI: 

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the study participants, medical staff for patient’ care, and Prof. Mey Wang for statistical analyses. This study was supported in parts by the grants from Wan Fang Hospital (103-wf-phd-03 and 104-wf-phd-03), Taiwan. This manuscript was edited by Wallace Academic Editing.

Funding

103-wf-phd-03 and 104-wf-phd-03 from WanFang Hospital.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article (and its Additional files).

Authors’ contributions

JLW designed this study, analyzed the patient data, and wrote the manuscript; CLF and SEL interpreted and graded the IHC images; YTT, HLH, MCY, KJB and LSW collected the patient data; HEJ revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study had been approved by the Joint Institutional Review Board of Taipei Medical University.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Division of Hematology Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, No.111, Sec. 3, Xinglong Rd, Wenshan Dist, 11696 Taipei, Taiwan
(2)
Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, 250 Wuxing St. Taipei, 11031 Taipei, Taiwan
(3)
Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, Collage of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, 250 Wuxing St. Taipei, 11031 Taipei, Taiwan
(4)
Department of Pathology, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, No.111, Sec. 3, Xinglong Rd, Wenshan Dist, 11696 Taipei, Taiwan
(5)
Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, 250 Wuxing St. Taipei, 11031 Taipei, Taiwan
(6)
Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, No.111, Sec. 3, Xinglong Rd, Wenshan Dist, 11696 Taipei, Taiwan
(7)
Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, 250 Wuxing St. Taipei, 11031 Taipei, Taiwan
(8)
Division of Thoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei Medical University, No.291, Zhongzheng Rd., Zhonghe District, New Taipei City, 23561, Taiwan
(9)
Division of Hematology Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, No.111, Sec. 3, Xinglong Rd, Wenshan Dist, 11696 Taipei, Taiwan

References

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:7–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Paez JG, Janne PA, Lee JC, Tracy S, Greulich H, Gabriel S, et al. EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science. 2004;304:1497–500.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Maemondo M, Inoue A, Kobayashi K, Sugawara S, Oizumi S, Isobe H, et al. Gefitinib or chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer with mutated EGFR. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:2380–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bethune G, Bethune D, Ridgway N, Xu Z. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in lung cancer: an overview and update. J Thoracic Dis. 2010;2:48–51.Google Scholar
  5. Selvaggi G, Novello S, Torri V, Leonardo E, De Giuli P, Borasio P, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor overexpression correlates with a poor prognosis in completely resected non-small-cell lung cancer. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:28–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ohsaki Y, Tanno S, Fujita Y, Toyoshima E, Fujiuchi S, Nishigaki Y, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor expression correlates with poor prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer patients with p53 overexpression. Oncol Rep. 2000;7:603–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gupta R, Dastane AM, McKenna R Jr, Marchevsky AM. The predictive value of epidermal growth factor receptor tests in patients with pulmonary adenocarcinoma: review of current “best evidence” with meta-analysis. Hum Pathol. 2009;40:356–65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Douillard JY, Pirker R, O'Byrne KJ, Kerr KM, Storkel S, von Heydebreck A, et al. Relationship between EGFR expression, EGFR mutation status, and the efficacy of chemotherapy plus cetuximab in FLEX study patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2014;9:717–24.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cappuzzo F, Hirsch FR, Rossi E, Bartolini S, Ceresoli GL, Bemis L, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor gene and protein and gefitinib sensitivity in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:643–55.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Brand TM, Iida M, Li C, Wheeler DL. The nuclear epidermal growth factor receptor signaling network and its role in cancer. Discov Med. 2011;12:419–32.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Lo HW, Xia W, Wei Y, Ali-Seyed M, Huang SF, Hung MC. Novel prognostic value of nuclear epidermal growth factor receptor in breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2005;65:338–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Xia W, Wei Y, Du Y, Liu J, Chang B, Yu YL, et al. Nuclear expression of epidermal growth factor receptor is a novel prognostic value in patients with ovarian cancer. Mol Carcinog. 2009;48:610–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Psyrri A, Yu Z, Weinberger PM, Sasaki C, Haffty B, Camp R, et al. Quantitative determination of nuclear and cytoplasmic epidermal growth factor receptor expression in oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer by using automated quantitative analysis. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:5856–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Traynor AM, Weigel TL, Oettel KR, Yang DT, Zhang C, Kim K, et al. Nuclear EGFR protein expression predicts poor survival in early stage non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer. 2013;81:138–41.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Helfrich BA, Raben D, Varella-Garcia M, Gustafson D, Chan DC, Bemis L, et al. Antitumor activity of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib (ZD1839, Iressa) in non-small cell lung cancer cell lines correlates with gene copy number and EGFR mutations but not EGFR protein levels. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:7117–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Xu JM, Han Y, Duan HQ, Gao EM, Zhang Y, Liu XQ, et al. EGFR mutations and HER2/3 protein expression and clinical outcome in Chinese advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with gefitinib. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2009;135:771–82.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Inamura K. Lung Cancer: understanding its molecular pathology and the 2015 WHO classification. Front Oncol. 2017;7:193.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Schrevel M, Gorter A, Kolkman-Uljee SM, Trimbos JB, Fleuren GJ, Jordanova ES. Molecular mechanisms of epidermal growth factor receptor overexpression in patients with cervical cancer. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:720–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hadzisejdic I, Mustac E, Jonjic N, Petkovic M, Grahovac B. Nuclear EGFR in ductal invasive breast cancer: correlation with cyclin-D1 and prognosis. Mod Pathol. 2010;23:392–403.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lockhart AC, Berlin JD. The epidermal growth factor receptor as a target for colorectal cancer therapy. Semin Oncol. 2005;32:52–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Mahipal A, McDonald MJ, Witkiewicz A, Carr BI. Cell membrane and cytoplasmic epidermal growth factor receptor expression in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Med Oncol. 2012;29:134–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Psyrri A, Kassar M, Yu Z, Bamias A, Weinberger PM, Markakis S, et al. Effect of epidermal growth factor receptor expression level on survival in patients with epithelial ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:8637–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Xu N, Fang W, Mu L, Tang Y, Gao L, Ren S, et al. Overexpression of wildtype EGFR is tumorigenic and denotes a therapeutic target in non-small cell lung cancer. Oncotarget. 2016;7:3884–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Al Olayan A, Al Hussaini H, Jazieh AR. The roles of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors in the management of lung cancer. J Infect Public Health. 2012;5(Suppl 1):S50–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

Advertisement