Histology | Ethnicity | Technique | Amplification classification | Amplification (%) | Amplification impact on prognosis | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GC | European | Southern Blot | Not documented | 2/30 (6.7 %) | Not assessed | Lemoine 1991 [23] |
GC | Chinese | FISH | ≥ 15 EGFR copies in ≥10 % tumour cells OR ≥40 % cells with ≥4 EGFR copies OR EGFR/CERP7 ratio ~ 1 but cluster of ≥4EGFR copies in ≥10 % cells OR EGFR/CERP7 ratio ≥2 and cluster of ≥4EGFR copies in ≥10 % cells | 20/69 (29 %) | Not assessed | YK 2011 [24] |
GC | European | FISH | EGFR/ CEP 7 ratio ≥ 2.0 | 4/82 (4.88 %) | Poorer survival of EGFR amplified cases in multivariate analysis (HR 4.82, 95 % CI 1.32-17.7, p = 0.0176) | Kandel 2014 [25] |
ESCC | Japanese | Southern Blot | EGFR/ CEP 7 ratio ≥ 2.0 | 9/42 (21.4 %) | Not assessed | Itakura 1994 [26] |
ESCC | Thai | FISH | Low level: ratio 1.3-2.0, High level: ratio >2.0 | 8/15 (49 %) | No significant difference in survival in EGFR amplified cases | Sunpaweravong 2005 [27] |
ESCC | Japanese | FISH/CGH | FISH: EGFR/CEP 7 ratio ≥ 2.0; CGH: >4 copies of EGFR gene | 16/244 (7 %) | No significant difference in survival in EGFR amplified cases | Kato 2013 [28] |
ESCC | Japanese | FISH | Low level: 3-10 EGFR signals/cell; High level: cluster of EGFR signals/>10 signals per cell | 15/83 (18.1 %) | No significant difference in survival in EGFR amplified cases | Hanawa 2006 [29] |
EA and ESCC | European | CISH | CISH + ve: >50 % cells with either tight EGFR clusters or > 4 EGFR copies per cell | 2/16 (12.5 %) | Not assessed | Janmaat 2006 [30] |
EA | European | FISH | Ratio ≥ 2.0 or presence of tight EGFR gene clusters | 7/112 (6.25 %) | Poorer survival of EGFR amplified cases in multivariate analysis (p = 0.0004) | Marx 2010 [31] |
EA | N. American NOS | Southern Blot | Ratio ≥ 2.0 | 7/87 (8.0 %) | Not assessed | Miller 2003 [32] |