Table 4 Prognostic significance of PIK3CA alterations in esophageal cancer
Author | Sample size (N) | Histology | Type of PIK3CA alterations | Frequency (%) | Prognostic effect | HR (95% CI) | Material | Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Maeng et al. (2012) [17] | 80 | ESCC | Exon 9 and 20 mutations | 11.5 | N.S. | NA | Primary& Metastatic sites FFPE | Mass-spectrometry based assay |
Shigaki et al. (2013) [19] | 219 | ESCC | Exon 9 and 20 mutations | 21 | Favorable OS | 0.35 (0.10–0.90) | Surgically resected FFPE | Pyrosequencing |
Hou et al. (2014) [16] | 96 | ESCC | Exon 9 and 20 mutations | 12.5 | Trend towards favorable OS | NA | Surgically resected FFPE | Mutant enriched PCR method |
Wang et al. (2014) [21] | 406 | ESCC | Exon 9 mutations | 7.4 | N.S. | 1.256 (0.748–2.108) | Surgically resected FFPE | Direct sequencing |
Kim et al. (2016) [23] | 534 | ESCC | Amplification | 10.5 | Trend towards unfavorable OS | 1.21 (0.83–1.77) | Surgically resected FFPE | Fluorescent in situ hybridization |
388 | Exon 9 and 20 mutations | 1.5 | N.S. | NA | Direct sequencing | |||
Liu et al. (2017) [22] | 210 | ESCC | Exon 9 mutations | 22.9 | Favorable OS | NA | Surgically resected FFPE | Pyrosequencing |
Current study | 126 | Mostly ESCC | Exon 9 and 20 mutations | 11.1 | Favorable OS | 0.34 (0.12–0.96) | Surgically resected FFPE | MPS with TSACP |
Amplification | 2.4 | N.S. | 2.66 (0.64–11.05) |