Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the diagnostic value of high-resolution melting (HRM) analysis for oncology-associated epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutations.

Methods

We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science for HRM and EGFR mutation detection studies published through September 2024. True and false positives and negatives were extracted to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of HRM to detect EGFR mutations. The study was registered at INPLASY (INPLASY202490062).

Results

Twenty-six articles were obtained from 416 references. The overall diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were high at 0.95 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.94–0.96] and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99–0.99), respectively. Other indicators, including the positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio, were 144.91 (95% CI: 69.07–304.04), 0.08 (95% CI: 0.04–0.13), and 2405.21 (95% CI: 1231.87–4696.13), respectively. The Q value of the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.979, and the area under the curve was 0.997.

Conclusion

As a pre-screening method, the high specificity, sensitivity, low cost, rapid turnaround, and simplicity of HRM make it a good alternative for clinical practice, but positive results must still be obtained for diagnostic confirmation. This study provides a transparent overview of relevant studies in design and conduct.

Keywords

High-resolution melting curve epidermal growth factor receptor mutation diagnostic accuracy oncology-associated disease systematically evaluate literature review

Introduction

The activation of signaling pathways by epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) plays an important role in the development of tumor-associated diseases. The EGFR gene, which has tyrosine kinase activity, is a member of the human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) family composed of HER1 (erbB1, EGFR), HER2 (erbB2, NEU), HER3 (erbB3), and HER4 (erbB4). Over-expression of EGFR is critical for lung, breast, and gastric cancer and squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.^1–3 Activation of EGFR launches a series of cellular signaling pathways that promote cancer proliferation, invasion, and metastasis and protects carcinoma cells from apoptosis via an anti-apoptosis pathway.^4,5 Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), such as gefitinib and erlotinib, can inhibit this pathway and consequently offer efficacy for patients with an EGFR mutation.^6–8 Therefore, EGFR gene mutational status is the most sensitive target for TKI therapy selection.

EGFR mutations are located on exons 18, 19, 20, and 21 of EGFR, and most include an in-frame deletion of codons 746 to 750 in exon 19 and a missense mutation at codon 858 in exon 21. An activating mutation in EGFR can be found in high incidence in non-smokers, women, those with adenocarcinoma, and individuals of Asian ethnic background.^9,10 Currently, several genotypic methods to screen gene mutations and expand the knowledge of drug-gene relationships have been developed, such as DNA sequencing,¹¹ single-strand conformation polymorphism analysis,¹² denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography,^13,14 allele-specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR),¹⁵ array analysis,¹⁶ pyrosequencing,¹⁷ and high-resolution melting (HRM) curve analysis.^18,19 Some of these methodologies require sample separation on a gel or matrix; others require expensive fluorescently labeled probes or special instruments. However, HRM analysis is performed in a closed-tube system that protects the amplified DNA from cross-contamination, which is the main advantage of HRM analysis, and it has been proven as a rapid, cost-effective method that uses few or no probes.²⁰ As an alternative molecular testing platform for genotyping of polymorphisms, HRM analysis has been applied to various diseases, such as oncological, infectious, and inherited diseases.^21–23

HRM curve analysis is a relatively mature method based on the melting profiles of double-stranded PCR products that is widely used in diagnostic laboratories for identification in disease-associated genotyping, sequence matching, methylation studies, single nucleotide polymorphism analysis, and mutation scanning.²⁴ It reveals a different melting curve based on DNA duplex melting temperature changes.²⁵ As the temperature rises, intercalating dye is released, and the fluorescence intensity decreases; then, mutations are distinguished by changes in melt curve shapes compared with a reference profile.²⁶ Compared with DNA sequencing, HRM analysis requires minimal investment, thus the technology is broadly available, but it also has high sensitivity, rapid turnaround, low cost, and nondestructive and closed tube operations.²⁷ In selecting a molecular testing platform for genotyping polymorphisms, an important consideration is the rapid delivery of genetic information to meet the need for increasing clinical treatment.

Since its first application for genotyping in 2003, HRM analysis has been extensively used to detect mutations such as KRAS, BRAF, EGFR, and TP53.^{7,18,19,28–30} A recent study suggested that HRM analysis is a promising method to detect EGFR mutations.³¹ However, its diagnostic accuracy for EGFR identification has not been systematically evaluated. It is essential to investigate the EGFR mutation signature in tumor-associated diseases, which leads to more suitable decision making for treatment by physicians. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of HRM analysis for EGFR mutation identification.

Materials and methods

We performed this meta-analysis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.³² Our research was registered at INPLASY, registration number INPLASY202490062 (DOI: 10.37766/inplasy2024.9.0062).

Literature search strategy

Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Medline (using PubMed as the search engine), and the Web of Science were searched to identify relevant publications in English until 12 September 2024, using the search strategy ‘epidermal growth factor receptor’ or ‘EGFR’ or ‘EGF-R’ or ‘EGF-receptor’ or ‘EGF receptor’ or ‘receptor, epidermal growth factor’ or ‘transforming growth factor alpha receptor’ or ‘ERBB-1 proto-oncogene protein’ or ‘receptor, transforming-growth factor alpha’ or ‘receptor, transforming growth factor alpha’ or ‘C-ERBB-1 protein’ or ‘receptors, epidermal growth factor’ or ‘receptor, EGF’ or ‘urogastrone receptor’ or ‘TGF-alpha receptor’ or ‘epidermal growth factor receptor kinase’ or ‘epidermal growth factor receptor protein–tyrosine kinase’ or ‘epidermal growth factor receptor protein tyrosine kinase’ AND ‘HRMA’ or ‘HRM’ or ‘HRMCA’ or ‘HRMC’ or ‘high resolution melting analysis’ or ‘high resolution melting’ or ‘high resolution melting curve analysis’ or ‘high resolution melting curve’. We also carried out manual searches for additional eligible studies.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies were included if HRM was used to study EGFR mutations in humans, DNA sequencing (including direct DNA sequencing and pyrosequencing) was used as a reference standard, and true and false positives and negatives (TP, TN, FP, FN) could be calculated from the provided information. The exclusion criteria included studies using only HRM, studies for which the reference standard was not direct DNA sequencing or pyrosequencing, studies for which only positive HRM samples were sequenced, studies examining methylation or epigenetic mechanisms rather than genetic mutations, or studies that were duplicated, a review, a conference abstract, a letter, or a comment.

Data extraction and quality assessment

We extracted the following data: author’s name, publication year, country of origin, specimen sources, mutation prevalence, instruments, disease types, sample number, amplicon length, dye types, and disease-associated mutations. Outcome parameters such as TN, FN, TP, and FP values were calculated based on PCR amplicons, not based on tissue or blood samples. Two authors performed data collection, and disagreements were resolved by discussion or consensus with a third author. We assessed the quality of each study based on the Quality Assessment for Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS-2),³³ which includes four primary domains to evaluate bias and applicability of included studies by assessing patient selection methods, an index test, reference standards, and patient flow through studies.³⁴

Statistical analysis

We determined the accuracy of each study with standard methods using Meta-Disc (version 1.4, http://www.hrc.es/investigacion/metadisc_en.htm) and STATA 12.1 software (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA). The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLRs, NLRs), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) from studies and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed using fixed or random effects models depending on the presence of significant heterogeneity. Degrees of heterogeneity were evaluated with a chi-square test of heterogeneity (Cochran’s Q statistical test) and an inconsistency index (I-square). Alternatively, to quantify the effect of heterogeneity, significant heterogeneity was defined as a Q test with p < 0.10 or I² > 50%. The threshold effect was performed using summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves for each study to ascertain the presence of a “shoulder-arm” pattern, which would suggest a threshold effect.³⁵ The Spearman correlation coefficient between the logit of sensitivity and logit of 1−specificity for each study was also calculated to assess any threshold effect. A positive correlation (p < 0.05) would suggest a threshold effect. Publication bias was determined using funnel plot analysis with STATA 12.1 software.

Meta-regression analysis and subgroup analysis

Meta-regression analysis was performed to explore heterogeneity sources using Meta-Disc (version 1.4) software. A multivariable regression model was applied, and a backward stepwise algorithm with covariates including disease type, specimen source, instruments, and dye type was used. Variables were retained in the regression model if p < 0.05. Subgroup analysis was performed if reasons for heterogeneity could be found.

Results

Literature search outcome

The results of the literature search and the stage-wise exclusion process are illustrated in Figure 1. All 416 references were found by searching multiple sources and databases. One hundred ninety-seven records were excluded because of duplicates. After reviewing the titles and abstracts, 182 records were eliminated, and 37 articles were deemed potentially relevant for the next detailed screening. Eleven records were excluded for reasons shown in Figure 1. Finally, 26 articles were retrieved in this meta-analysis and divided into 34 subsets for statistical analysis according to specimen sources.

Figure 1.

Flow chart of the literature search and study selection.

Characteristics of the studies

We found 26 eligible studies,^{11,18,20,29,36–57} that reported evaluations of diagnostic accuracy of HRM analysis for human disease-associated mutations, as detailed in Table 1. All samples screened by HRM were followed up with direct sequencing. The flow and timing domain was labeled as “unclear risk”. The patient selection, index test, and reference standard domains were labeled as “low risk” both for risk of bias and applicability concerns.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the 26 studies included in this meta-analysis.

No.	Author	Year	Country	Diease	Number of amplicons	Prevalence	Specimen source	Instrument	Dye	Sequence analyzed	Amplicon size	TP^*	FP	FN	TN
1	Willmore-Payne, C.¹⁸	2006	America	Lung adenocarcino-ma	156	5%	FFPE	LightCycler	LCG1	Exons 18–21	186–248	6	0	1	149
2	Willmore-Payne, C.³⁶	2006	America	Squamous cell carcinoma	120	1.7%	FFPE	LightCycler	LCG1	Exons 18–21	186–259	2	0	0	118
3	Nomoto, K.³⁷	2006	Japan	NSCLC	74	28%	Cytologic slides	LightCycler	LCG1	Exon-21 L858R mutation/ -19 DEL	51–83	19	0	2	53
4	Takano, T.³⁸	2007	Japan	NSCLC	132	28%	Methanol-fixed	LightCycler	LCG1	Exon-21 L858R mutation/ -19 DEL	51–83	36	0	1	95
	Takano, T.³⁸	2007	Japan	NSCLC	56	28%	Cytologic slides	LightCycler	LCG1	Exon-21 L858R mutation/ -19 DEL	51–83	14	0	2	40
	Takano, T.³⁸	2007	Japan	NSCLC	126	29%	FFPE	LightCycler	LCG1	Exon-21 L858R mutation/ -19 DEL	51–83	34	0	3	89
5	Fukui, T.²⁰	2008	Japan	NSCLC	70	16%	Cytologic slides	HR-1	LCG1	Exon-21 L858R mutation/ -19 DEL	51–83	11	3	0	56
5	Fukui, T.²⁰	2008	Japan	NSCLC	276	16%	FFPE	HR-1	LCG1	Exon-21 L858R mutation/ -19 DEL	51–83	43	2	3	228
6	Do, H.³⁹	2008	Australia	NSCLC	800	11%	FFPE	Rotor-Gene 6000	SYTO9	Exons 18–21	121–250	84	70	0	646
7	Fassina, A.⁴⁰	2009	Italy	NSCLC	154	1.3%	FFPE	LightCycler 480	LCG1	Exon-21 L858R mutation/ -19 DEL	142, 190	2	0	1	151
8	Jacot, W.⁴¹	2011	France	TNBC	458	1%	Fresh frozen	Rotor-Gene 6000	SYTO9	Exon-21 L858R mutation/ -19 DEL	164, 182	3	0	0	455
9	Sriram, K.B.⁴²	2011	Austrilia	NSCLC	194	5%	Fresh frozen	Rotor-Gene 6000	SYTO9	Exon-21 L858R mutation/ -19 DEL	250, 210	9	0	0	185
10	Gonzalez-Bosquet, J.⁴³	2011	America	Breast cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer	216	2.8%	Fresh frozen	PTC 225 Thermal Cycler	LCG plus	Exon-23	213	6	0	0	210
10	Gonzalez-Bosquet, J.⁴³	2011	America	Breast cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer	172	4%	FFPE	PTC 225 Thermal Cycler	LCG plus	Exon-23	213	7	19	0	146
11	Hu, C.⁴⁵	2012	China	NSCLC	504	15%	FFPE	LightCycler 480	LCG1	Exons 18–21	183–236	74	4	0	426
11	Hu, C.⁴⁵	2012	China	NSCLC	188	12%	Fresh frozen	LightCycler 480	LCG1	Exons 18–21	183–236	23	2	0	163
12	Stigt, J.A.⁴⁶	2013	Netherlands	NSCLC	488	4%	FFPE	LightCycler 480II	LCG1	Exons 18–21	247	15	0	5	468
13	Jing, C.-W.¹¹	2013	China	NSCLC	480	9%	FFPE	LightCycler 480	LCG1	Exons 18–21	NA	45	3	0	432
13	Jing, C.-W.¹¹	2013	China	NSCLC	480	9%	Plasma	LightCycler 480	LCG1	Exons 18–21	NA	29	2	16	433
14	Lin, J.⁴⁷	2014	China	NSCLC	144	8%	Supernatant	LightCycler 480	LCG plus	Exons 18–21	NA	12	6	0	126
	Lin, J.⁴⁷	2014	China	NSCLC	144	13%	Cell pellets	LightCycler 480	LCG plus	Exons 18–21	NA	13	0	5	126
	Lin, J.⁴⁷	2014	China	NSCLC	144	9%	FFPE	LightCycler 480	LCG plus	Exons 18–21	NA	13	0	0	131
15	Sun, H.²⁹	2014	China	NSCLC	450	10.2%	FFPE	LightCycler 480II	LCG plus	L858R, T790M, 19DEL	NA	46	21	0	383
16	Clay, T.D.⁴⁸	2014	Australia	Lung adenocarcinoma	400	3.5%	FFPE	Rotor-Gene 6000	SYTO 9	Exons 18–21	NA	14	0	0	386
17	Papadopoulou, E.⁵¹	2015	Greece	NSCLC	5888	4%	FFPE	Rotor-Gene 6000	SYTO 9	Exons 18–21	99–156	233	3	0	5652
18	Oyaert, M.⁵⁰	2015	Belgium	NSCLC	1320	3%	FFPE	LightCycler 480	NA	Exons 18–21	NA	38	0	0	1282
19	Hinrichs, W.J.⁴⁹	2015	Netherlands	NSCLC	100	7%	FFPE	LightCycler 480II	NA	Exons 19–21	NA	6	1	1	92
20	Wayhelova, M.⁵³	2016	Czech Republic	Squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcino-ma	96	0	Fresh frozen	Qubit 1.0	NA	Exons 18–21	NA	0	0	0	96
21	Clay, T.D.⁵²	2016	Australia	Pulmonary adenocarcinoma	712	7%	FFPE	NA	NA	Exons 18–21	NA	53	0	0	659
22	Martínez-Carretero, C.⁵⁴	2017	Spain	NSCLC	492	1.8%	FFPE	LightCycler 480	LCG1	Exons 18–21	183–238	7	0	2	483
23	Lu, H.-Y.⁵⁵	2018	China	SCLC	2376	0.5%	Blood	LightCycler 480	LCG1	Exons 18–21	NA	12	0	0	2364
24	Frankel, D.⁵⁶	2018	France	Lung adenocarcino-ma	28	21%	Cell pellets	LightCycler 480	LCG1	Exons 18–21	NA	5	0	1	22
25	Borràs, E.⁴⁴	2011	Spain	Colorectal or lung cancer	108	4.6%	FFPE	LightCycler 480	NA	Exons 19–21	128–250	5	0	0	103
26	Joy, R.A.⁵⁷	2020	India	NSCLC	232	24.4%	FFPE	LightCycler 480	NA	Exon 19, exon 21	NA	67	0	8	157

NSCLC: Non-small cell lung carcinoma; SCLC: Small cell lung cancer; TNBC: Triple-negative breast cancer; FFPE: Formalin-fixed and paraffin embedded; TP: True positive; FP: False positive; FN: False negative; TN: True negative; NA: Not available.

: Outcome parameters were calculated on the basis of “PCR amplicons”, not on the basis of tissue or blood samples.

Diagnostic accuracy

The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were 0.95 [95% CI: 0.94–0.96] and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.99–0.99), respectively (Figure 2(a) and 2(b)). As shown in Figure 2(c) and 2(d), a high PLR of 144.91 (95% CI: 69.07–304.04) and a low NLR of 0.08 (95% CI: 0.04–0.13) indicated that HRM analysis had an excellent ability to identify the presence of EGFR mutations. Additionally, the DOR supported that HRM analysis was effective for EGFR mutation screening (Figure 3(a)). Chi-square and I2 tests for heterogeneity confirmed significant heterogeneity for the specificity and sensitivity of the pooled results. The SROC curve is shown in Figure 3(b). The SROC curve from our data showed a Q value of 0.979, while the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.997, further indicating a high overall accuracy of HRM analysis.

Figure 2.

Forest plot estimates of the sensitivity (a), specificity (b), positive likelihood ratio (LR) (c), and negative LR (d) for high-resolution melting with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Each solid circle represents a subset.

Figure 3.

Forest plot estimates of the diagnostic odds ratio (a) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve (b) for high-resolution melting. Each solid circle represents a subset.

Threshold effect and publication bias

Although the Spearman correlation coefficient between the log (sensitivity) and the log (1−specificity) was 0.092, p = 0.605, the typical “shoulder-arm” pattern in the SROC curve suggested a threshold effect. A funnel plot was applied to determine the presence of publication bias, which demonstrated that publication bias was not significant (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Funnel plot to assess potential publication bias. Each circle is a subset. Publication bias was not significant.

Meta-regression analysis and subgroup analysis

Multivariate meta-regression analysis with covariates, including instruments, dyes, specimen sources, and disease types, was performed to investigate the source of heterogeneity. The regression analysis results showed no statistical significance between studies, and subgroup analysis indicated no source of heterogeneity, but a threshold effect was present (data not shown).

Discussion

EGFR mutations predict TKI sensitivity, thus knowing this status could improve chemotherapy selection and patient outcome. Specific mutations in oncology-associated proteins respond to certain drugs and correlate with increased sensitivity, suggesting personalized therapeutics based on genotype.²⁴ Takano’s group reported that advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients with EGFR mutations had poorer overall survival, but gefitinib improved the treatment response.⁵⁸ Because it is part of the HER gene family, EGFR, known as HER-1, is relevant to breast cancer, and there has been ongoing interest in the EGFR gene-associated-oncology status. Therefore, a reliable method of screening EGFR mutations for therapeutic and prognostic triage may be needed to assess the accuracy in a range of tumor samples.

Thirty-four subsets from 26 published studies and 17,778 samples were assayed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of HRM analysis to identify EGFR mutations. Although the data show high overall diagnostic accuracy, there was substantial heterogeneity among eligible studies. Exploration of the reasons for heterogeneity rather than computation of a single summary measure has emerged as a main goal of meta-analyses. Thus, it is critical to investigate the sources of heterogeneity to determine whether they alter the appropriateness of statistical pooling of accuracy estimates. The threshold effect is a typical source of heterogeneity that arises when differences in specificities and sensitivities occur because different thresholds are used to define a positive (or negative) result.⁵⁹ A “shoulder-arm” shape of the points in the ROC curve indicates a threshold effect in our study, which may partially account for the heterogeneity observed. We performed meta-regression and subgroup analyses to explore further heterogeneity sources, including disease type, specimen source, distribution, instruments, and dye type. However, the heterogeneity source was not found. We also tried excluding the studies of Jacot and Gonzalez^41,43 on breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancer to reduce heterogeneity. However, the heterogeneities found before and after exclusion were similar, which may be the main reason for heterogeneities not resulting from the two studies. The DOR and SROC curve are considered when there is substantial heterogeneity,⁶⁰ as the DOR indicates accuracy when combining sensitivity and specificity data into a single ratio of a positive test result.⁶¹ DOR values range from 0 to infinity, with higher values indicating better discriminatory test performances.⁶¹ Our DOR was 2405.21 (95% CI: 1231.87–4696.13). As a global indicator for assessing diagnostic performance, the SROC AUC also indicated a high accuracy of HRM analysis, with a Q value of 0.979 and an AUC close to 1 (0.997). The DOR and AUC data indicated high overall accuracy of HRM analysis for EGFR mutation screening. However, the accuracy of HRM analysis could be affected by sample types, amplicon length, dyes, instruments, PCR specificity, GC content, and melting analysis software.

Although formalin fixation and paraffin-embedding is a commonly used method in EGFR mutation detection, low yields of RNA/DNA are extracted from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues, and they are often degraded or may contain modifications that inhibit polymerase reactions, which can bias results. Additionally, the detection accuracy is critically dependent on the dye type, instrument resolution, PCR product length, and PCR specificity.^62,63 LCGreen Plus dye detects heterozygotes better than SYTO 9, which is better than EvaGreen.⁶⁴ Some of the latest real-time thermal cyclers modified to incorporate HRM can yield quality high-resolution data by melting 18 times slower than the HR-1 instrument.^24,65 Melting determination is performed immediately after PCR, and different heterozygotes may produce melting curves so similar that, although they vary from those of homozygous variants, they are not different.⁶⁶ Therefore, specific amplification of the target of interest is critical, requiring careful choices of primers and optimized temperature cycling.

HRM analysis has been used to discriminate many tumor variants, such as BRAF mutations in colorectal tumors, KIT (the c-kit gene) in gastrointestinal stromal tumors, EGFR, and AKTI in non-small cell lung cancer.^9,17 Driver oncogenes, including EGFR, KRAS, and BRAF, activated by deletion and/or missense/insertion mutations, drive the critical step toward developing non-small cell lung cancer. EGFR, BRAF, and KRAS mutation sensitivities in anti-EGF-receptor therapies are mutually exclusive. Recently published studies reported that HRM analysis is a specific and sensitive method for testing various samples, and a low quantity of DNA is needed for BRAF and KRAS mutation screening.^67,68 We noted that the SROC AUC was accurate for HRM scanning of the EGFR mutation. Therefore, HRM analysis may be a promising method to detect a series of driver oncogene mutations, including EGFR, KRAS, and BRAF mutations, but confirmation by direct sequencing or other methods is necessary, especially in a diagnostic context.

Our study has several limitations, such as substantial heterogeneity across all included studies. Although meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed, the sources of heterogeneity were undetermined except for a threshold effect. Additionally, inherent discord was observed between HRM and DNA sequencing. There were 136 FPs and 51 FNs. Mutations found by HRM analysis should always be confirmed with DNA sequencing so that FPs are not an issue (they will be wild type afterward). FNs are relatively serious because they cannot be sequenced, and this may cause mutations in patients to be misclassified as wild type by HRM analysis. Therefore, these patients would be denied TKI therapy. However, the proportion of FNs is very low (approximately 0.29%). Thus, HRM analysis offers appropriate diagnostic performance for EGFR mutation screening in oncology-associated diseases and represents a method with high throughput, low labor, low cost, simplicity, and rapid turnaround, but positive results must be sequenced for diagnostic confirmation. Although our meta-analysis focused on the use of HRM analysis to detect EGFR gene exon mutations, we recognize the significant roles that EGFR gene methylation and epigenetic regulation play in tumorigenesis. At present, there are relatively few studies on EGFR methylation status using HRM techniques, and these studies did not meet the criteria for our analysis. Therefore, our analysis does not encompass these areas. Future research may consider applying HRM analysis to detect EGFR methylation status, which could offer new insights into the role of EGFR in tumors.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all researchers involved in the study.

Author contributions

Shu Yu and Yue-Ping Liu conceptualized and designed the experiments. Yan Cheng analyzed the data. Shu Yu and Yue-Ping Liu wrote the manuscript. Chen-Cheng Tang conducted the investigation and revised the manuscript.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Funding

This work was supported in part by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81702096), the Self-Topic Fund of the State Key Laboratory of Military Stomatology (No. 2017ZB06), and the Chongqing Science and Health joint project (No. 2022MSXM042).

ORCID iD

Shu Yu

References

Ozanne

Richards

Hendler

, et al. Over-expression of the EGF receptor is a hallmark of squamous cell carcinomas. J Pathol 1986; 149: 9–14.

Wirth

Haddad

Lindeman

, et al. Phase I study of gefitinib plus celecoxib in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 6976–6981.

Sharma

Bell

Settleman

, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in lung cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2007; 7: 169–181.

Mendelsohn

Baselga

The EGF receptor family as targets for cancer therapy. Oncogene 2000; 19: 6550–6565.

Scaltriti

Baselga

The epidermal growth factor receptor pathway: a model for targeted therapy. Clin Cancer Res 2006; 12: 5268–5272.

Pérez-Ramírez

Cañadas-Garre

Jiménez-Varo

, et al. MET: a new promising biomarker in non-small-cell lung carcinoma. Pharmacogenomics 2015; 16: 631–647.

Boeckx

Weyn

Vanden Bempt

, et al. Mutation analysis of genes in the EGFR pathway in head and neck cancer patients: implications for anti-EGFR treatment response. BMC Res Notes 2014; 7: 337.

Paez

Jänne

Lee

, et al. EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science 2004; 304: 1497–1500.

Takano

Ohe

Kusumoto

, et al. Risk factors for interstitial lung disease and predictive factors for tumor response in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer treated with gefitinib. Lung Cancer 2004; 45: 93–104.

10.

Sequist

Joshi

Jänne

, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutation testing in the care of lung cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 2006; 12: 4403s–4408s.

11.

Jing

Wang

Cao

, et al. High resolution melting analysis for epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue and plasma free DNA from non-small cell lung cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014; 14: 6619–6623.

12.

Orita

Iwahana

Kanazawa

, et al. Detection of polymorphisms of human DNA by gel electrophoresis as single-strand conformation polymorphisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1989; 86: 2766–2770.

13.

Chin

Anuar

Soo

, et al. Detection of epidermal growth factor receptor variations by partially denaturing HPLC. Clin Chem 2007; 53: 62–70.

14.

Russell

, et al. EGFR gene copy number alterations are not a useful screening tool for predicting EGFR mutation status in lung adenocarcinoma. Pathology 2014; 46: 32–36.

15.

Sakairi

Sato

Itoga

, et al. Transbronchial biopsy needle rinse solution used for comprehensive biomarker testing in patients with lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2014; 9: 26–32.

16.

Nahta

Trent

Yang

, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor expression is a candidate target of the synergistic combination of trastuzumab and flavopiridol in breast cancer. Cancer Res 2003; 63: 3626–3631.

17.

Takano

Ohe

Sakamoto

, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations and increased copy numbers predict gefitinib sensitivity in patients with recurrent non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 6829–6837.

18.

Willmore-Payne

Holden

Layfield

LJ.

Detection of epidermal growth factor receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 activating mutations in lung adenocarcinoma by high-resolution melting amplicon analysis: correlation with gene copy number, protein expression, and hormone receptor expression. Hum Pathol 2006; 37: 755–763.

19.

Wright

Weiss

, et al. Mapping of actionable mutations to histological subtype domains in lung adenocarcinoma: implications for precision medicine. Oncotarget 2014; 5: 2107–2115.

20.

Fukui

Ohe

Tsuta

, et al. Prospective study of the accuracy of EGFR mutational analysis by high-resolution melting analysis in small samples obtained from patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14: 4751–4757.

21.

Yin

Zheng

Liu

, et al. High-resolution melting curve analysis for rapid detection of rifampin resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis: a meta-analysis. J Clin Microbiol 2013; 51: 3294–3299.

22.

Hamzehzadeh

Khadangi

Ghayoor Karimiani

, et al. Common KRAS and NRAS gene mutations in sporadic colorectal cancer in Northeastern Iranian patients. Curr Probl Cancer 2018; 42: 572–581.

23.

Chambliss

Resnick

Petrides

, et al. Rapid screening for targeted genetic variants via high-resolution melting curve analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017; 55: 507–516.

24.

Montgomery

Sanford

Wittwer

CT.

High-resolution DNA melting analysis in clinical research and diagnostics. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 2010; 10: 219–240.

25.

Taylor

CF.

Mutation scanning using high-resolution melting. Biochem Soc Trans 2009; 37: 433–437.

26.

Erali

Voelkerding

Wittwer

CT.

High resolution melting applications for clinical laboratory medicine. Exp Mol Pathol 2008; 85: 50–58.

27.

Wang

, et al. Is high resolution melting analysis (HRMA) accurate for detection of human disease-associated mutations? A meta analysis. PLoS One 2011; 6: e28078.

28.

Chevrier

Arnould

Ghiringhelli

, et al. Next-generation sequencing analysis of lung and colon carcinomas reveals a variety of genetic alterations. Int J Oncol 2014; 45: 1167–1174.

29.

Sun

Yang

, et al. Snapback primer mediated clamping PCR for detection of EGFR and KRAS mutations in NSCLC patients by high resolution melting analysis. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014: 407537.

30.

Bennani

Gilles

Fina

, et al. Mutation analysis of BRAF exon 15 and KRAS codons 12 and 13 in Moroccan patients with colorectal cancer. Int J Biol Markers 2010; 25: 179–184.

31.

Obradovic

Todosijevic

Jurisic

Application of the conventional and novel methods in testing EGFR variants for NSCLC patients in the last 10 years through different regions: a systematic review. Mol Biol Rep 2021; 48: 3593–3604.

32.

Page

Moher

Bossuyt

, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372: n160.

33.

Whiting

Rutjes

Westwood

; QUADAS-2 Groupet al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 529–536.

34.

Cheung

Greene

Leypoldt

; HEMO Study Groupet al. Association between serum 2-microglobulin level and infectious mortality in hemodialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008; 3: 69–77.

35.

Moses

Shapiro

Littenberg

Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med 1993; 12: 1293–1316.

36.

Willmore-Payne

Holden

Layfield

LJ.

Detection of EGFR- and HER2-activating mutations in squamous cell carcinoma involving the head and neck. Mod Pathol 2006; 19: 634–640.

37.

Nomoto

Tsuta

Takano

, et al. Detection of EGFR mutations in archived cytologic specimens of non-small cell lung cancer using high-resolution melting analysis. Am J Clin Pathol 2006; 126: 608–615.

38.

Takano

Ohe

Tsuta

, et al. Epidermal growth factor receptor mutation detection using high-resolution melting analysis predicts outcomes in patients with advanced non small cell lung cancer treated with gefitinib. Clin Cancer Res 2007; 13: 5385–5390.

39.

Krypuy

Mitchell

, et al. High resolution melting analysis for rapid and sensitive EGFR and KRAS mutation detection in formalin fixed paraffin embedded biopsies. BMC Cancer 2008; 8: 142.

40.

Fassina

Gazziero

Zardo

, et al. Detection of EGFR and KRAS mutations on trans-thoracic needle aspiration of lung nodules by high resolution melting analysis. J Clin Pathol 2009; 62: 1096–1102.

41.

Jacot

Lopez-Crapez

Thezenas

, et al. Lack of EGFR-activating mutations in European patients with triple-negative breast cancer could emphasise geographic and ethnic variations in breast cancer mutation profiles. Breast Cancer Res 2011; 13: R133.

42.

Sriram

Tan

Savarimuthu

, et al. Screening for activating EGFR mutations in surgically resected nonsmall cell lung cancer. Eur Respir J 2011; 38: 903–910.

43.

Gonzalez-Bosquet

Calcei

Wei

, et al. Detection of somatic mutations by high-resolution DNA melting (HRM) analysis in multiple cancers. PLoS One 2011; 6: e14522.

44.

Borràs

Jurado

Hernan

, et al. Clinical pharmacogenomic testing of KRAS, BRAF and EGFR mutations by high resolution melting analysis and ultra-deep pyrosequencing. BMC Cancer 2011; 11: 406.

45.

Liu

Chen

, et al. Direct serum and tissue assay for EGFR mutation in non-small cell lung cancer by high-resolution melting analysis. Oncol Rep 2012; 28: 1815–1821.

46.

Stigt

tHart

Knol

, et al. Pyrosequencing analysis of EGFR and KRAS mutations in EUS and EBUS-derived cytologic samples of adenocarcinomas of the lung. J Thorac Oncol 2013; 8: 1012–1018.

47.

Lin

, et al. Detection of EGFR mutation in supernatant, cell pellets of pleural effusion and tumor tissues from non-small cell lung cancer patients by high resolution melting analysis and sequencing. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2014; 7: 8813–8822.

48.

Clay

Sundararajan

, et al. The clinical relevance of pathologic subtypes in metastatic lung adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol 2014; 9: 654– 663.

49.

Hinrichs

Van Blokland

Moons

, et al. Comparison of next-generation sequencing and mutation-specific platforms in clinical practice. Am J Clin Pathol 2015; 143: 573–578.

50.

Oyaert

Demedts

Boone

, et al. Antitumoral activity of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with non-small cell lung cancer harbouring rare epidermal growth factor receptor mutations. Mol Diagn Ther 2015; 19: 267–272.

51.

Papadopoulou

Tsoulos

Tsirigoti

, et al. Determination of EGFR and KRAS mutational status in Greek non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Oncol Lett 2015; 10: 2176–2184.

52.

Clay

Russell

, et al. Associations between the IASLC/ATS/ERS lung adenocarcinoma classification and EGFR and KRAS mutations. Pathology 2016; 48: 17–24.

53.

Wayhelova

Mikulasova

Smetana

, et al. Detection of oncogenic mutations in cervical carcinoma using method high resolution melting (HRM). Neoplasma 2016; 63: 779–788.

54.

Martínez-Carretero

Pascual

Rus

, et al. Detection of EGFR mutations in patients with non-small cell lung cancer by high resolution melting. Comparison with other methods. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017; 55: 1970–1978.

55.

Qin

Han

, et al. EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, PTEN, and PIK3CA mutation in plasma of small cell lung cancer patients. Onco Targets Ther 2018; 11: 2217–2226.

56.

Frankel

Nanni-Metellus

Robaglia-Schlupp

, et al. Detection of EGFR, KRAS and BRAF mutations in metastatic cells from cerebrospinal fluid. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018; 56: 1970–1978.

57.

Joy

Thelakkattusserry

Vikkath

, et al. Somatic mutation detection efficiency in EGFR: a comparison between high resolution melting analysis and Sanger sequencing. BMC Cancer 2020; 20: 902.

58.

Takano

Fukui

Ohe

, et al. EGFR mutations predict survival benefit from gefitinib in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma: a historical comparison of patients treated before and after gefitinib approval in Japan. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26: 5589–5595.

59.

Zamora

Abraira

Muriel

, et al. Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; 6: 31.

60.

Chen

Zhang

, et al. Meta-analysis of quantitative diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions. BMC Cancer 2010; 10: 693.

61.

Cleophas

Zwinderman

AH.

Meta-analyses of diagnostic studies. Clin Chem Lab Med 2009; 47: 1351–1354.

62.

Herrmann

Durtschi

Bromley

, et al. Amplicon DNA melting analysis for mutation scanning and genotyping: cross-platform comparison of instruments and dyes. Clin Chem 2006; 52: 494–503.

63.

Herrmann

Durtschi

Bromley

, et al. Instrument comparison for heterozygote scanning of single and double heterozygotes: a correction and extension of Herrmann et al., Clin Chem 2006;52:494-503. Clin Chem 2007; 53: 150–152.

64.

Wittwer

CT.

High-resolution DNA melting analysis: advancements and limitations. Hum Mutat 2009; 30: 857–859.

65.

Erali

Wittwer

CT.

High resolution melting analysis for gene scanning. Methods 2010; 50: 250–261.

66.

Von Ahsen

Oellerich

Schütz

Limitations of genotyping based on amplicon melting temperature. Clin Chem 2001; 47: 1331–1332.

67.

Chen

Wang

Chuai

, et al. High-resolution melting analysis for accurate detection of BRAF mutations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2014; 4: 4168.

68.

Liu

Yang

, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of high resolution melting analysis for detection of KRAS mutations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2014; 4: 7521.

Diagnostic accuracy of high-resolution melting curve analysis for discrimination of oncology-associated EGFR mutations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Introduction

Materials and methods

Literature search strategy

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Data extraction and quality assessment

Statistical analysis

Meta-regression analysis and subgroup analysis

Results

Literature search outcome

Characteristics of the studies

Diagnostic accuracy

Threshold effect and publication bias

Meta-regression analysis and subgroup analysis

Discussion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Author contributions

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References