P1.08-034 Prognostic Impact of EGFR Mutation in ...

34 downloads 0 Views 196KB Size Report
Sachio Maehara, Maeda Junichi, Koichi Yoshida,. Masaru Hagiwara, Masatoshi Kakihana,. Naohiro Kajiwara, Tatsuo Ohira, Norihiko Ikeda. General Thoracic ...
January 2017

P1.08-033 Effect of EGFR Mutations on Survival in Patients following Surgical Resection of Lung Adenocarcinoma Topic: Translational Studies Grace Laidlaw,1 Rebecca Gao,1 Kelsey Ayers,2 Leah Backhus,2 Mark Berry,2 Joseph Shrager2 1 Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford/CA/ United States of America, 2Cardiothoracic Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford/United States of America Background: While numerous trials have evaluated the effects of EGFR mutations on survival in patients undergoing treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), research on the influence of EGFR mutations in patients undergoing surgical resection as their primary intervention is limited and conflicting. We hypothesized that patients with resectable EGFR-mutant tumors have a better postoperative prognosis than those with wild-type (WT) tumors, as EGFRmutant tumors often include an in-situ component that portends an improved prognosis. We further hypothesized that the two most common EGFR mutations may impact post-resection prognosis differentially. Methods: We carried out a single-center, retrospective study evaluating the influence of EGFR mutation status on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after resection, adjusting for tumor stage and ethnicity. Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox proportional hazard models were used to generate crude and adjusted hazard ratios. Results: 249 patients underwent lung adenocarcinoma resection and had mutational analysis and 1 year of follow-up at our institution between 2008 and 2015. These resections included 200 lobectomies, 12 segmentectomies, and 32 wedge resections. Ninety-three (37.3%) patients had EGFR-mutant tumors. Relative to WT tumors, EGFRmutant tumors were more likely to exhibit well-differentiated (44.0% vs 29.0%, p¼0.009) or lepidic (61.3% vs 36.5%, p