Hirsch Fred R, Dziadziuszko Rafal, Thatcher Nick, Mann Helen, Watkins Claire, Parums Dinah V, Speake Georgina, Holloway Brian, Bunn Paul A, Franklin Wilbur A
Division of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado Cancer Center, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
Cancer. 2008 Mar 1;112(5):1114-21. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23282.
The ISEL (Iressa Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer) clinical trial evaluated the efficacy of gefitinib versus placebo in pretreated nonsmall-cell lung cancer patients. Two different antibodies, scoring systems, and cutoff points of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) protein expression were compared to predict response and survival of enrolled patients.
EGFR expression was assessed in tumor samples by immunohistochemistry using the Dako EGFR pharmDx kit (scoring percent of tumor cells with positive staining) and Zymed monoclonal antibody clone 31G7 (scoring staining index derived from proportion of positive cells times staining intensity).
Data for EGFR expression were available for 379 patients for Dako and 357 patients for Zymed antibody (22% and 21%, respectively, of trial population). Objective response rates in gefitinib-treated EGFR-positive patients defined with various cutpoints with Dako antibody varied between 8% and 12%, and with Zymed antibody between 10% and 13%. Lower cutoff points with Dako antibody provided the best discrimination between EGFR-positive and EGFR-negative patients for survival hazard ratios comparing gefitinib to placebo, with a significant treatment/cutoff point interaction for 10% cutoff point (P = .049). A similar but less apparent trend was noted for Zymed antibody, although the discrimination between hazard ratios was not significant for any cutoff point analyzed.
Assessment with the Dako PharmDx kit and percentage of cells with positive staining may provide more accurate prediction of differential effect on survival with gefitinib than assessment with Zymed antibody and staining index. Using higher cutpoints to define positivity does not improve test discrimination.
ISEL(肺癌中易瑞沙生存评估)临床试验评估了吉非替尼与安慰剂在经治非小细胞肺癌患者中的疗效。比较了两种不同的抗体、评分系统以及表皮生长因子受体(EGFR)蛋白表达的截断点,以预测入组患者的反应和生存情况。
使用Dako EGFR pharmDx试剂盒(对阳性染色的肿瘤细胞进行百分比评分)和Zymed单克隆抗体克隆31G7(根据阳性细胞比例乘以染色强度得出染色指数进行评分),通过免疫组织化学法评估肿瘤样本中的EGFR表达。
Dako法有379例患者的EGFR表达数据,Zymed抗体法有357例患者的数据(分别占试验人群的22%和21%)。使用Dako抗体以不同截断点定义的吉非替尼治疗的EGFR阳性患者的客观缓解率在8%至12%之间,使用Zymed抗体时在10%至13%之间。对于比较吉非替尼与安慰剂的生存风险比,Dako抗体较低的截断点能最好地区分EGFR阳性和EGFR阴性患者,10%截断点存在显著的治疗/截断点交互作用(P = 0.049)。Zymed抗体也有类似但不太明显的趋势,尽管在所分析的任何截断点,风险比之间的区分均无统计学意义。
与使用Zymed抗体和染色指数评估相比,使用Dako PharmDx试剂盒和阳性染色细胞百分比评估可能能更准确地预测吉非替尼对生存的差异影响。使用更高的截断点定义阳性并不能提高检测的区分度。