↓ Skip to main content

EGFR Mutation Testing of non-squamous NSCLC: Impact and Uptake during Implementation of Testing Guidelines in a Population-Based Registry Cohort from Northern New Zealand

Overview of attention for article published in Targeted Oncology, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
EGFR Mutation Testing of non-squamous NSCLC: Impact and Uptake during Implementation of Testing Guidelines in a Population-Based Registry Cohort from Northern New Zealand
Published in
Targeted Oncology, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11523-017-0515-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark McKeage, Mark Elwood, Sandar Tin Tin, Prashannata Khwaounjoo, Phyu Aye, Angie Li, Karen Sheath, Phillip Shepherd, George Laking, Nicola Kingston, Christopher Lewis, Donald Love

Abstract

Since 2013, clinical practice guidelines recommend EGFR mutation testing of non-squamous NSCLC to select advanced-stage patients for first-line treatment using EGFR-TKIs. We aimed to determine population-based trends in the real-world uptake and impact in routine practice of these recently updated testing guidelines. A population-based observational study was conducted of notifications to the New Zealand Cancer Registry of patients eligible for EGFR testing diagnosed in northern New Zealand between January 2010 and April 2014. The main study variable was EGFR mutation testing. Main outcome measures (overall survival and dispensing of EGFR-TKIs) were extracted from prospectively archived electronic databases until October 2015. The population-based cohort of 1857 patients had an average age of 70 years. Most had adenocarcinoma and metastatic disease at diagnosis. EGFR testing was undertaken in 500 patients (27%) with mutations detected in 109 patients (22%). EGFR testing increased during the period of study from <5% to 67% of patients (P < 0.0001). Full uptake of testing by all eligible patients was limited by a lack of availability of specimens for testing and variable testing referral practices. The proportion of patients treated with EGFR-TKIs decreased during the same time period, both among untested patients (from 12.2% to 2.8% (P < 0.0001)) and in the population as a whole (from 13.7% to 10.6% (P < 0.05)). EGFR testing was associated with prolonged overall survival (Adjusted HR = 0.76 (95% CI, 0.65-0.89) Log-rank P < 0.0001) due at least in part to the much longer overall survival achieved by mutation-positive patients, of whom 79% received EGFR-TKIs. Compared to untested EGFR-TKI-treated patients, mutation-positive EGFR-TKI-treated patients received EGFR-TKIs for longer, and survived longer both from the start of EGFR-TKI treatment and date of their diagnosis. In this real world setting, high uptake of EGFR testing was achieved and associated with major changes in EGFR-TKI prescribing and improved health outcomes. Modifiable factors determined testing uptake. Study registration ACTRN12615000998549.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 6%
Professor 2 6%
Other 10 29%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 32%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 12%
Psychology 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 12 35%
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 13 July 2017.
All research outputs
#18,560,904
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from Targeted Oncology
#395
of 555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,211
of 312,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Targeted Oncology
#16
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 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 555 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 312,560 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.