Relationship between EGFR expression, EGFR mutation status, and the efficacy of chemotherapy plus cetuximab in FLEX study patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION: The phase III FLEX study (NCT00148798) in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer indicated that the survival benefit associated with the addition of cetuximab to cisplatin and vinorelbine was limited to patients whose tumors expressed high levels of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) (immunohistochemistry score of >/=200; scale 0-300). We assessed whether the treatment effect was also modulated in FLEX study patients by tumor EGFR mutation status. METHODS: A tumor mutation screen of EGFR exons 18 to 21 included 971 of 1125 (86%) FLEX study patients. Treatment outcome in low and high EGFR expression groups was analyzed across efficacy endpoints according to tumor EGFR mutation status. RESULTS: Mutations in EGFR exons 18 to 21 were detected in 133 of 971 tumors (14%), 970 of which were also evaluable for EGFR expression level. The most common mutations were exon 19 deletions and L858R (124 of 133 patients; 93%). In the high EGFR expression group (immunohistochemistry score of >/=200), a survival benefit for the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy was demonstrated in patients with EGFR wild-type (including T790M mutant) tumors. Although patient numbers were small, those in the high EGFR expression group whose tumors carried EGFR mutations may also have derived a survival benefit from the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy. Response data suggested a cetuximab benefit in the high EGFR expression group regardless of EGFR mutation status. CONCLUSIONS: The survival benefit associated with the addition of cetuximab to first-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer expressing high levels of EGFR is not limited by EGFR mutation status.

Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660. Findings Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3–33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6–12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1–11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57–0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9–15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1–13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58–0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. Interpretation Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population.

Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials

Background We aimed to assess the effect of afatinib on overall survival of patients with EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma through an analysis of data from two open-label, randomised, phase 3 trials. Methods Previously untreated patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIB or IV lung adenocarcinoma were enrolled in LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) and LUX-Lung 6 (n=364). These patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive afatinib or chemotherapy (pemetrexed-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 3] or gemcitabine-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 6]), stratified by EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion [del19], Leu858Arg, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only). We planned analyses of mature overall survival data in the intention-to-treat population after 209 (LUX-Lung 3) and 237 (LUX-Lung 6) deaths. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00949650 and NCT01121393. Findings Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 3 was 41 months (IQR 35–44); 213 (62%) of 345 patients had died. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 6 was 33 months (IQR 31–37); 246 (68%) of 364 patients had died. In LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 28·2 months (95% CI 24·6–33·6) in the afatinib group and 28·2 months (20·7–33·2) in the pemetrexed-cisplatin group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·66–1·17, p=0·39). In LUX-Lung 6, median overall survival was 23·1 months (95% CI 20·4–27·3) in the afatinib group and 23·5 months (18·0–25·6) in the gemcitabine-cisplatin group (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·72–1·22, p=0·61). However, in preplanned analyses, overall survival was significantly longer for patients with del19-positive tumours in the afatinib group than in the chemotherapy group in both trials: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 33·3 months (95% CI 26·8–41·5) in the afatinib group versus 21·1 months (16·3–30·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·36–0·79, p=0·0015); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 31·4 months (95% CI 24·2–35·3) versus 18·4 months (14·6–25·6), respectively (HR 0·64, 95% CI 0·44–0·94, p=0·023). By contrast, there were no significant differences by treatment group for patients with EGFR Leu858Arg-positive tumours in either trial: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 27·6 months (19·8–41·7) in the afatinib group versus 40·3 months (24·3–not estimable) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1·30, 95% CI 0·80–2·11, p=0·29); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 19·6 months (95% CI 17·0–22·1) versus 24·3 months (19·0–27·0), respectively (HR 1·22, 95% CI 0·81–1·83, p=0·34). In both trials, the most common afatinib-related grade 3–4 adverse events were rash or acne (37 [16%] of 229 patients in LUX-Lung 3 and 35 [15%] of 239 patients in LUX-Lung 6), diarrhoea (33 [14%] and 13 [5%]), paronychia (26 [11%] in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5%] in LUX-Lung 6 only). In LUX-Lung 3, neutropenia (20 [18%] of 111 patients), fatigue (14 [13%]) and leucopenia (nine [8%]) were the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events, while in LUX-Lung 6, the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (30 [27%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19%]), and leucopenia (17 [15%]). Interpretation Although afatinib did not improve overall survival in the whole population of either trial, overall survival was improved with the drug for patients with del19 EGFR mutations. The absence of an effect in patients with Leu858Arg EGFR mutations suggests that EGFR del19-positive disease might be distinct from Leu858Arg-positive disease and that these subgroups should be analysed separately in future trials.

The positive impact of cytological specimens for EGFR mutation testing in non-small cell lung cancer:a single South East Asian laboratory's analysis of 670 cases

To compare the rejection rates of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) samples obtained by differing sampling methods for testing by Sanger sequencing for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations. To assess the association between unsatisfactory outcomes and the quantity of DNA extracted from cytological versus histological samples.

Variation in pre-PCR processing of FFPE samples leads to discrepancies in BRAF and EGFR mutation detection: a diagnostic RING trial.

AIMS: Mutation detection accuracy has been described extensively; however, it is surprising that pre-PCR processing of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples has not been systematically assessed in clinical context. We designed a RING trial to (i) investigate pre-PCR variability, (ii) correlate pre-PCR variation with EGFR/BRAF mutation testing accuracy and (iii) investigate causes for observed variation. METHODS: 13 molecular pathology laboratories were recruited. 104 blinded FFPE curls including engineered FFPE curls, cell-negative FFPE curls and control FFPE tissue samples were distributed to participants for pre-PCR processing and mutation detection. Follow-up analysis was performed to assess sample purity, DNA integrity and DNA quantitation. RESULTS: Rate of mutation detection failure was 11.9%. Of these failures, 80% were attributed to pre-PCR error. Significant differences in DNA yields across all samples were seen using analysis of variance (p

A new generation of companion diagnostics: cobas BRAF, KRAS and EGFR mutation detection tests

The cobas® (Roche) portfolio of companion diagnostics in oncology currently has three assays CE-marked for in vitro diagnostics. Two of these (EGFR and BRAF) are also US FDA-approved. These assays detect clinically relevant mutations that are correlated with response (BRAF, EGFR) or lack of response (KRAS) to targeted therapies such as selective mutant BRAF inhibitors in malignant melanoma, tyrosine kinases inhibitor in non-small cell lung cancer and anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies in colorectal cancer, respectively. All these assays are run on a single platform using DNA extracted from a single 5 µm section of a formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue block. The assays provide an ‘end-to-end’ solution from extraction of DNA to automated analysis and report on the cobas z 480. The cobas tests have shown robust and reproducible performance, with high sensitivity and specificity and low limit of detection, making them suitable as companion diagnostics for clinical use.

Establishing an EGFR mutation screening service for non-small cell lung cancer - sample quality criteria and candidate histological predictors.

INTRODUCTION: EGFR screening requires good quality tissue, sensitivity and turn-around time (TAT). We report our experience of routine screening, describing sample type, TAT, specimen quality (cellularity and DNA yield), histopathological description, mutation result and clinical outcome. METHODS: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) sections were screened for EGFR mutations (M+) in exons 18-21. Clinical, pathological and screening outcome data were collected for year 1 of testing. Screening outcome alone was collected for year 2. RESULTS: In year 1, 152 samples were tested, most (72%) were diagnostic. TAT was 4.9 days (95%confidence interval (CI)=4.5-5.5). EGFR-M+ prevalence was 11% and higher (20%) among never-smoking women with adenocarcinomas (ADCs), but 30% of mutations occurred in current/ex-smoking men. EGFR-M+ tumours were non-mucinous ADCs and 100% thyroid transcription factor (TTF1+). No mutations were detected in poorly differentiated NSCLC-not otherwise specified (NOS). There was a trend for improved overall survival (OS) among EGFR-M+ versus EGFR-M- patients (median OS=78 versus 17 months). In year 1, test failure rate was 19%, and associated with scant cellularity and low DNA concentrations. However 75% of samples with poor cellularity but representative of tumour were informative and mutation prevalence was 9%. In year 2, 755 samples were tested; mutation prevalence was 13% and test failure only 5.4%. Although samples with low DNA concentration (2.2 ng/μL), the mutation rate was 9.2%. CONCLUSION: Routine epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) screening using diagnostic samples is fast and feasible even on samples with poor cellularity and DNA content. Mutations tend to occur in better-differentiated non-mucinous TTF1+ ADCs. Whether these histological criteria may be useful to select patients for EGFR testing merits further investigation.

Refining the diagnosis and EGFR status of non-small cell lung carcinoma in biopsy and cytologic material, using a panel of mucin staining, TTF-1, cytokeratin 5/6, and P63, and EGFR mutation analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The dichotomization of non-small cell carcinoma (NSCLC) subtype into squamous (SQCC) and adenocarcinoma (ADC) has become important in recent years and is increasingly required with regard to management. The aim of this study was to determine the utility of a panel of commercially available antibodies in refining the diagnosis on small biopsies and also to determine whether cytologic material is suitable for somatic EGFR genotyping in a prospectively analyzed series of patients undergoing investigation for suspected lung cancer. METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive cases of NSCLC were first tested using a panel comprising cytokeratin 5/6, P63, thyroid transcription factor-1, 34betaE12, and a D-PAS stain for mucin, to determine their value in refining diagnosis of NSCLC. After this test phase, two further pathologists independently reviewed the cases using a refined panel that excluded 34betaE12 because of its low specificity for SQCC, and refinement of diagnosis and concordance were assessed. Ten cases of ADC, including eight derived from cytologic samples, were sent for EGFR mutation analysis. RESULTS: There was refinement of diagnosis in 65% of cases of NSCLC to either SQCC or ADC in the test phase. This included 10 of 13 cases where cell pellets had been prepared from transbronchial needle aspirates. Validation by two further pathologists with varying expertise in lung pathology confirmed increased refinement and concordance of diagnosis. All samples were adequate for analysis, and they all showed a wild-type EGFR genotype. CONCLUSION: A panel comprising cytokeratin 5/6, P63, thyroid transcription factor-1, and a D-PAS stain for mucin increases diagnostic accuracy and agreement between pathologists when faced with refining a diagnosis of NSCLC to SQCC or ADC. These small samples, even cell pellets derived from transbronchial needle aspirates, seem to be adequate for EGFR mutation analysis.

Phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin plus pemetrexed in patients with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations

Purpose The LUX-Lung 3 study investigated the efficacy of chemotherapy compared with afatinib, a selective, orally bioavailable ErbB family blocker that irreversibly blocks signaling from epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR/ErbB1), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2/ErbB2), and ErbB4 and has wide-spectrum preclinical activity against EGFR mutations. A phase II study of afatinib in EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma demonstrated high response rates and progression-free survival (PFS). Patients and Methods In this phase III study, eligible patients with stage IIIB/IV lung adenocarcinoma were screened for EGFR mutations. Mutation-positive patients were stratified by mutation type (exon 19 deletion, L858R, or other) and race (Asian or non-Asian) before two-to-one random assignment to 40 mg afatinib per day or up to six cycles of cisplatin plus pemetrexed chemotherapy at standard doses every 21 days. The primary end point was PFS by independent review. Secondary end points included tumor response, overall survival, adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Results A total of 1,269 patients were screened, and 345 were randomly assigned to treatment. Median PFS was 11.1 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.78; P = .001). Median PFS among those with exon 19 deletions and L858R EGFR mutations (n = 308) was 13.6 months for afatinib and 6.9 months for chemotherapy (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.65; P = .001). The most common treatmentrelated adverse events were diarrhea, rash/acne, and stomatitis for afatinib and nausea, fatigue, and decreased appetite for chemotherapy. PROs favored afatinib, with better control of cough, dyspnea, and pain. Conclusion Afatinib is associated with prolongation of PFS when compared with standard doublet chemotherapy in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma and EGFR mutations.

Symptom control and quality of life in lux-lung 3 : a phase III study of afatinib or cisplatin/pemetrexed in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations

Purpose Patient-reported symptoms and health-related quality of life (QoL) benefits were investigated in a randomized, phase III trial of afatinib or cisplatin/pemetrexed. Patients and Methods Three hundred forty-five patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned 2:1 to afatinib 40 mg per day or up to six cycles of cisplatin/pemetrexed. Lung cancer symptoms and health-related QoL were assessed every 21 days until progression using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 and Lung Cancer-13 questionnaires. Analyses of cough, dyspnea, and pain were preplanned, including percentage of patients who improved on therapy, time to deterioration of symptoms, and change in symptoms over time. Results Questionnaire compliance was high. Compared with chemotherapy, afatinib significantly delayed the time to deterioration for cough (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.87; P = .007) and dyspnea (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.93; P = .015), but not pain (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.10; P = .19). More patients on afatinib (64%) versus chemotherapy (50%) experienced improvements in dyspnea scores (P lt; .010). Differences in mean scores over time significantly favored afatinib over chemotherapy for cough (P lt; .001) and dyspnea (P = .001). Afatinib showed significantly better mean scores over time in global health status/QoL (P = .015) and physical (P = .001), role (P = .004), and cognitive (P lt; .007) functioning compared with chemotherapy. Fatigue and nausea were worse with chemotherapy, whereas diarrhea, dysphagia, and sore mouth were worse with afatinib (all P = .01). Conclusion In patients with lung adenocarcinoma with EGFR mutations, first-line afatinib was associated with better control of cough and dyspnea compared with chemotherapy, although diarrhea, dysphagia, and sore mouth were worse. Global health status/QoL was also improved over time with afatinib compared with chemotherapy.

Dacomitinib versus erlotinib in patients with EGFR-mutated advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Pooled subset analyses from two randomized trials

Background: The irreversible epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy in NSCLC patients with activating EGFR mutations, but it is unknown if they are superior to the reversible inhibitors. Dacomitinib is an oral, small-molecule irreversible inhibitor of all enzymatically active HER family tyrosine kinases. Methods: The ARCHER 1009 (NCT01360554) and A7471028 (NCT00769067) studies randomized patients with locally advanced/metastatic NSCLC following progression with one or two prior chemotherapy regimens to dacomitinib or erlotinib. EGFR mutation testing was performed centrally on archived tumor samples. We pooled patients with exon 19 deletion and L858R EGFR mutations from both studies to compare the efficacy of dacomitinib to erlotinib. Results: One hundred twenty-one patients with any EGFR mutation were enrolled; 101 had activating mutations in exon 19 or 21. For patients with exon19/21 mutations, the median progression-free survival was 14.6 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.0–18.2] with dacomitinib and 9.6 months (95% CI 7.4–12.7) with erlotinib [unstratified hazard ratio (HR) 0.717 (95% CI 0.458–1.124), two-sided log-rank, P = 0.146]. The median survival was 26.6 months (95% CI 21.6–41.5) with dacomitinib versus 23.2 months (95% CI 16.0–31.8) with erlotinib [unstratified HR 0.737 (95% CI 0.431–1.259), two-sided log-rank, P = 0.265]. Dacomitinib was associated with a higher incidence of diarrhea and mucositis in both studies compared with erlotinib. Conclusions: Dacomitinib is an active agent with comparable efficacy to erlotinib in the EGFR mutated patients. The subgroup with exon 19 deletion had favorable outcomes with dacomitinib. An ongoing phase III study will compare dacomitinib to gefitinib in first-line therapy of patients with NSCLC harboring common activating EGFR mutations (ARCHER 1050; NCT01774721). Clinical trials number: ARCHER 1009 (NCT01360554) and A7471028 (NCT00769067).

EGFR exon-level biomarkers of the response to bevacizumab/erlotinib in non-small cell lung cancer

Activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations are recognized biomarkers for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). EGFR TKIs can also have activity against NSCLC without EGFR mutations, requiring the identification of additional relevant biomarkers. Previous studies on tumor EGFR protein levels and EGFR gene copy number revealed inconsistent results. The aim of the study was to identify novel biomarkers of the response to TKIs in NSCLC by investigating whole genome expression at the exon-level. We used exon arrays and clinical samples from a previous trial (SAKK19/05) to investigate the expression variations at the exon-level of 3 genes potentially playing a key role in modulating treatment response: EGFR, V-Ki-ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGFA). We identified the expression of EGFR exon 18 as a new predictive marker for patients with untreated metastatic NSCLC treated with bevacizumab and erlotinib in the first line setting. The overexpression of EGFR exon 18 in tumor was significantly associated with tumor shrinkage, independently of EGFR mutation status. A similar significant association could be found in blood samples. In conclusion, exonic EGFR expression particularly in exon 18 was found to be a relevant predictive biomarker for response to bevacizumab and erlotinib. Based on these results, we propose a new model of EGFR testing in tumor and blood.

Bevacizumab, Pemetrexed, and Cisplatin, or Bevacizumab and Erlotinib for Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Stratified by Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Mutation: Phase II Trial SAKK19/09

Treatment allocation by epidermal growth factor receptor mutation status is a new standard in patients with metastatic nonesmall-cell lung cancer. Yet, relatively few modern chemotherapy trials were conducted in patients characterized by epidermal growth factor receptor wild type. We describe the results of a multicenter phase II trial, testing in parallel 2 novel combination therapies, predefined molecular markers, and tumor rebiopsy at progression. Objective: The goal was to demonstrate that tailored therapy, according to tumor histology and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation status, and the introduction of novel drug combinations in the treatment of advanced nonesmall-cell lung cancer are promising for further investigation. Methods: We conducted a multicenter phase II trial with mandatory EGFR testing and 2 strata. Patients with EGFR wild type received 4 cycles of bevacizumab, pemetrexed, and cisplatin, followed by maintenance with bevacizumab and pemetrexed until progression. Patients with EGFR mutations received bevacizumab and erlotinib until progression. Patients had computed tomography scans every 6 weeks and repeat biopsy at progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) ≥ 35% at 6 months in stratum EGFR wild type; 77 patients were required to reach a power of 90% with an alpha of 5%. Secondary end points were median PFS, overall survival, best overall response rate (ORR), and tolerability. Further biomarkers and biopsy at progression were also evaluated. Results: A total of 77 evaluable patients with EGFR wild type received an average of 9 cycles (range, 1-25). PFS at 6 months was 45.5%, median PFS was 6.9 months, overall survival was 12.1 months, and ORR was 62%. Kirsten rat sarcoma oncogene mutations and circulating vascular endothelial growth factor negatively correlated with survival, but thymidylate synthase expression did not. A total of 20 patients with EGFR mutations received an average of 16.

Circulating tumour cells, their role in metastasis and their clinical utility in lung cancer

Circulating tumour cells (CTCs) have attracted much recent interest in cancer research as a potential biomarker and as a means of studying the process of metastasis. It has long been understood that metastasis is a hallmark of malignancy, and conceptual theories on the basis of metastasis from the nineteenth century foretold the existence of a tumour "seed" which is capable of establishing discrete tumours in the "soil" of distant organs. This prescient "seed and soil" hypothesis accurately predicted the existence of CTCs; microscopic tumour fragments in the blood, at least some of which are capable of forming metastases. However, it is only in recent years that reliable, reproducible methods of CTC detection and analysis have been developed. To date, the majority of studies have employed the CellSearch™ system (Veridex LLC), which is an immunomagnetic purification method. Other promising techniques include microfluidic filters, isolation of tumour cells by size using microporous polycarbonate filters and flow cytometry-based approaches. While many challenges still exist, the detection of CTCs in blood is becoming increasingly feasible, giving rise to some tantalizing questions about the use of CTCs as a potential biomarker. CTC enumeration has been used to guide prognosis in patients with metastatic disease, and to act as a surrogate marker for disease response during therapy. Other possible uses for CTC detection include prognostication in early stage patients, identifying patients requiring adjuvant therapy, or in surveillance, for the detection of relapsing disease. Another exciting possible use for CTC detection assays is the molecular and genetic characterization of CTCs to act as a "liquid biopsy" representative of the primary tumour. Indeed it has already been demonstrated that it is possible to detect HER2, KRAS and EGFR mutation status in breast, colon and lung cancer CTCs respectively. In the course of this review, we shall discuss the biology of CTCs and their role in metastagenesis, the most commonly used techniques for their detection and the evidence to date of their clinical utility, with particular reference to lung cancer.