Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
Korean Journal of Clinical Laboratory Science · September 29, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Testing for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations is essential for selecting targeted therapy in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).This study evaluated the concordance between tissue-and plasma-based EGFR mutation testing and its association with testing interval.We retrospectively reviewed 233 patients with NSCLC who underwent both tests between January 2024 and February 2026.Overall agreement, positive percent agreement (PPA), negative percent agreement (NPA), and Cohen's kappa coefficient (κ) were calculated.The overall agreement was 68.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62.5~74.3),with a κ value of 0.310 (95% CI, 0.213~0.407).The PPA and NPA were 29.4% and 99.2%, respectively.Concordance decreased as the testing interval increased, and discordant cases were more frequently associated with stage I~II disease.Using tissue-based testing as the reference, plasma-based EGFR testing showed high negative but relatively low positive agreement.Plasma EGFR testing may serve as a complementary approach when tissue sampling is infeasible or repeat molecular testing is required.Negative plasma results should be interpreted cautiously in patients with early-stage disease or low tumor burden.Disease stage and clinical factors should be considered when interpreting the relationship between testing interval and concordance.