↓ Skip to main content

Simultaneous VENTANA IHC and RT-PCR testing of ALK status in Chinese non-small cell lung cancer patients and response to crizotinib

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Simultaneous VENTANA IHC and RT-PCR testing of ALK status in Chinese non-small cell lung cancer patients and response to crizotinib
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12967-018-1468-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chun-wei Xu, Wen-xian Wang, Yan-ping Chen, Yu Chen, Wei Liu, Li-hua Zhong, Fang-fang Chen, Wu Zhuang, Zheng-bo Song, Xiao-hui Chen, Yun-jian Huang, Yan-fang Guan, Xin Yi, Tang-feng Lv, Wei-feng Zhu, Jian-ping Lu, Xiao-jiang Wang, Yi Shi, Xian-dong Lin, Gang Chen, Yong Song

Abstract

ALK rearrangement-advanced NSCLC patients respond to crizotinib. ALK rearrangement is currently determined with RT-PCR. VENTANA IHC is a standard method to identify ALK protein overexpression in NSCLC; however, VENTANA IHC has rarely been used to determine the response to crizotinib in Chinese patients with NSCLC and ALK overexpression. To better clarify the clinical implication of VENTANA IHC to detect ALK rearrangements, we conducted this study to analyze VENTANA IHC and RT-PCR in a large cohort of Chinese patients with NSCLC undergoing screening for ALK rearrangements. A total of 1720 patients with NSCLC who had ALK rearrangements detected by VENTANA IHC and/or RT-PCR were included in this analysis. We compared the efficacy and survival of ALK-positive patients detected by VENTANA IHC and RT-PCR. We used NGS to identify patients in whom the two methods were inconsistent. Among 1720 patients, 187 (10.87%) were shown to be ALK-positive by VENTANA IHC and/or RT-PCR, and 66 received crizotinib treatment. We identified 10.27% (172/1674) of patients as ALK-positive by the VENTANA IHC method, and 12.73% (41/322) of patients had ALK rearrangements by the RT-PCR method. Twenty-nine of 276 (10.51%) ALK-positive patients were simultaneously analyzed using VENTANA IHC and RT-PCR. The overall response rates were 65.90% (29/44) by VENTANA IHC and 55.88% (19/34) by RT-PCR. The disease control rates were 86.36% (38/44) by VENTANA IHC and 76.47% (26/34) by RT-PCR. In contrast, the median progression-free survival for VENTANA IHC and RT-PCR was 8.5 and 9.2 months, respectively. The VENTANA IHC and RT-PCR results obtained for 6 of 17 ALK-positive patients were inconsistent based on NGS; specifically, 4 patients had EML4-ALK fusions, 2 patients had non EML4-ALK fusions, 1 patient had a KCL1-ALK fusion, and one patient had a FBXO36-ALK fusion. VENTANA IHC is a reliable and rapid screening tool used in routine pathologic laboratories for the identification of suitable candidates for ALK-targeted therapy. VENTANA IHC has moderate sensitivity and a slightly higher association with response to therapy with ALK inhibitors, and some VENTANA IHC-positive, but RT-PCR-negative cases may benefit from crizotinib.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 12 55%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 13 59%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 June 2019.
All research outputs
#18,601,965
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#2,982
of 4,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,517
of 329,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#70
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,033 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,169 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.