METHODS: A prospective study spanning 27 months was conducted at the University Hospital, Kuala Lumpur. Serum CEA (Abbott IMx) and serum squamous cell carcinoma antigen (Abbott IMx) from patients clinically suspected of having primary carcinoma of the lung, were assayed using the microparticle enzyme immunoassay method.
RESULTS: Thirty seven cases of histologically confirmed primary lung carcinoma were studied. Of these, 17 were squamous cell carcinomas, 10 adenocarcinomas, nine small cell carcinomas, and one large cell carcinoma. The patients' ages ranged from 34-82 years. The male:female ratio was 3.6:1. Squamous cell carcinoma antigen was raised above the cutoff value of 1.5 ng/ml in 94.1% of squamous cell carcinomas, 20.0% of adenocarcinomas, and 11.1% of small cell carcinomas. By comparison, CEA was raised above the cutoff value of 3.0 ng/ml in 70.6% of squamous cell carcinomas, 77.8% of small cell carcinomas, and 100% of adenocarcinomas. CEA and squamous cell carcinoma antigen were not raised in the patient with large cell carcinoma and in 14 healthy volunteers. None of 15 patients with a variety of benign lung diseases showed a rise of CEA, while two patients--a 25 year old Indian woman with pneumonia and a 64 year old Malay man with bronchial asthma--had raised squamous cell carcinoma antigen values above the cutoff. Serum CEA and squamous cell carcinoma antigen values did not seem to correlate with stage or degree of differentiation of the tumours.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that CEA is a good general marker for carcinoma, particularly adenocarcinoma. In contrast, squamous cell carcinoma antigen is more specific for squamous carcinoma.
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Tumor tissue EGFRm status was determined at screening using the central cobas tissue test or a local tissue test. Baseline circulating tumor (ct)DNA EGFRm status was retrospectively determined with the central cobas plasma test.
RESULTS: Of 994 patients screened, 556 were randomized (289 and 267 with central and local EGFR test results, respectively) and 438 failed screening. Of those randomized from local EGFR test results, 217 patients had available central test results; 211/217 (97%) were retrospectively confirmed EGFRm positive by central cobas tissue test. Using reference central cobas tissue test results, positive percent agreements with cobas plasma test results for Ex19del and L858R detection were 79% [95% confidence interval (CI), 74-84] and 68% (95% CI, 61-75), respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) superiority with osimertinib over comparator EGFR-TKI remained consistent irrespective of randomization route (central/local EGFRm-positive tissue test). In both treatment arms, PFS was prolonged in plasma ctDNA EGFRm-negative (23.5 and 15.0 months) versus -positive patients (15.2 and 9.7 months).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results support utility of cobas tissue and plasma testing to aid selection of patients with EGFRm advanced NSCLC for first-line osimertinib treatment. Lack of EGFRm detection in plasma was associated with prolonged PFS versus patients plasma EGFRm positive, potentially due to patients having lower tumor burden.