New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Lung Cancer in Nonsmokers Tied to Mutation

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Although lung cancer is predominantly a disease of smokers, about 10 percent of those suffering from it have no history of tobacco use. New research indicates that a distinct gene mutation is common in lung cancers of these so-called "never smokers" who have smoked fewer than 100 cigarettes in their lifetimes.

William Pao of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and his colleagues performed DNA testing on lung cancer tumors from patients given one of two drugs, gefitinib or erlotinib (brand names Iressa and Tarceva). The researchers found that 81 percent of those who had responded favorably to treatment had tumors with mutations in the gene for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), an enzyme that helps trigger DNA replication and cell division. Mutations in the EGFR gene have previously been implicated in other cancers and the results, published in this week's online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, confirm that gefitinib and erlotinib inhibit the activity of EGFR. "Lung cancers that respond to these drugs appear to be, for lack of a better word, addicted to EGFR," Pao says. Drugs that block EGFR are thus able to shrink tumors with this "Achilles' heel."

Patients in the study who responded well to the drugs included a large fraction of never smokers. To investigate this apparent correlation, the scientists tested an additional 96 tumors from patients who had yet to receive treatment. Out of 15 never smokers in this sample, seven exhibited the EGFR mutation in their tumors, whereas only four out of 81 smokers did. Pao stressed that these mutations are not found in the patients' normal tissues, so "one can't pass them on to one's children." Instead, people apparently acquire the mutation at some point in their lives.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Side effects from gefitinib and erlotinib are relatively minor compared to traditional cancer treatments. The drugs are usually given to patients that have already been through surgery and/or chemotherapy. Pao thinks that in the future, treatments will be tailored so that those who test positive for certain mutations can start on drugs that target the relevant biological pathways. Unfortunately, as of now, EGFR inhibitors are only effective for a limited time, as tumors eventually build up a resistance to the drugs.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe