MATERIALS AND METHODS: We have conducted the study to evaluate immunohistochemistry's performance in detecting the E746-A750 deletion in exon 19 of the EGFR gene in primary lung adenocarcinoma cases. This study examined 133 cases of primary lung adenocarcinoma for three years duration. The selected cases were tested for EGFR gene mutations by real-time PCR by a reference laboratory. Most cases (124) were diagnosed by tissue biopsy, though nine used cell block cytology. We performed an immunohistochemistry test on 75 cases that contained adequate diagnostic material in the paraffin block.
RESULTS: The test result was scored as 0 to 3+, based on the staining intensity and percentage of positive tumor cells. We evaluated the immunohistochemistry test's sensitivity and specificity compared to the EGFR gene mutations by real-time PCR. There was a significant association between gender, smoking status, and the EGFR gene mutations (P < 0.001). The overall sensitivity and specificity of the immunohistochemistry test were 40% and 100%, respectively. The positive predictive value and negative predictive values were 100% and 76.9%, each.
CONCLUSIONS: The immunohistochemistry has high specificity but low sensitivity in the detection of E746-A750 deletion in exon 19 of the EGFR gene. The mutation-specific antibody used in this study was unable to detect other uncommon variants of exon 19 deletions. With high specificity value, immunohistochemistry may provide an adjunct to molecular testing for detecting the most common EGFR gene mutations in cases of a low cellularity sample, financially-limited situations, or in critically ill cases where urgent targeted therapy is needed.
METHODS: This study was a single-blind, RCT conducted at Teaching Bay of Rehmatul-Lil-Alameen Post Graduate Institute of Cardiology between February and November 2020. 114 knee OA patients who were overweight and obese were randomly divided by a computer-generated number into the rehabilitation group with mHealth (RGw-mHealth) to receive LLRP + instructions of daily care (IDC) combined with mHealth intervention, rehabilitation group without mHealth (RGwo-mHealth) to receive LLRP + IDC intervention and control group (CG) to receive IDC intervention. All three groups were also provided leaflets explaining about their intervention. The primary outcome measure was knee pain measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score. The secondary outcome measures were mobility measured by the Timed up and go (TUG) test, functional activity measured by the patient-specific functional scale (PSFS), and ADL measured by the Katz Index of independence in ADL scores.
RESULTS: Among the 114 patients who were randomized (mean age, 53 years), 96 (84%) completed the trial. After 3-months of intervention, patients in all three groups had statistically significant knee pain reduction (RGw-mHealth: 2.54; RGwo-mHealth: 1.47; and CG: 0.37) within groups (P 0.05). As indicated in the overall analysis of covariance, there were statistically significant differences in the mean knee pain, mobility, functional activity, and ADL changes between groups after 3-months (p
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between August 2019 and November 2020, a total of 96 patients (42 males, 54 females; mean age; 52.9±4.8 years; range, 40 to 60 years) were randomized into either the rehabilitation group with mobile health (RGw-mHealth) receiving reminders by using mHealth to carry on the strengthening exercises of LLRP and instructions of daily care (IDC), the rehabilitation group without mobile health (RGwo-mHealth) following the strengthening exercises of LLRP and instructions of daily care (IDC) and control group (CG) only following the IDC for duration of 12 weeks. The reminders for using mHealth were provided two times a day for three days a week. Primary outcome measures were QoL assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index summary score, and functional strength by five-repetition sit-to-stand test. Secondary outcome measure was functional capacity assessed by the Gait Speed Test. The assessments of QoL, functional strength, and functional capacity were taken at baseline and post-test after 12 weeks of intervention.
RESULTS: After 12 weeks of intervention, the patients in all three groups had a statistically significant improvement in QoL within groups (p<0.05). Patients in the RGw-mHealth and RGwo-mHealth had a statistically significant improvement in functional strength and walking gait speed within groups (p<0.05). The pairwise between-group comparisons (Bonferroni post-hoc test) of the mean changes in QoL, functional strength, and functional capacity at post-test assessments revealed that patients in the RGw-mHealth had a statistically significant greater mean change in QoL, functional strength and functional capacity relative to both the RGwo-mHealth and CG (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: The improvement in QoL, functional strength, and functional capacity was greater among patients in the RGw-mHealth compared to the RGwo-mHealth or CG.