Front. Oncol. Frontiers in Oncology Front. Oncol. 2234-943X Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fonc.2026.1790296 Review EGFRvIII expression in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: clinical significance and sources of frequency variation across studies JamesSherin 1 Formal analysis Investigation Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing Visualization Data curation Validation Conceptualization Methodology KastenBenjamin B. 1 Writing – original draft Methodology Formal analysis Data curation Writing – review & editing Validation Conceptualization Supervision ShiJackie 1 Visualization Writing – original draft Formal analysis Data curation Methodology Investigation Writing – review & editing WodeyarAkhilesh M. 1 Data curation Validation Formal analysis Methodology Conceptualization Writing – review & editing Writing – original draft BarnhillJulian 2 Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing Data curation Methodology ReapIvan 1 Writing – review & editing Writing – original draft Methodology Investigation ThomasCarissa M. 3 Supervision Writing – review & editing Visualization Formal analysis Validation Writing – original draft MorlandtAnthony B. 4 Writing – original draft Formal analysis Validation Project administration Writing – review & editing Supervision RosenthalEben L. 5 Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing Validation Supervision WarramJason M. 1 * Writing – original draft Formal analysis Validation Writing – review & editing Supervision Conceptualization Methodology Department of Otolaryngology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States Department of Biology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, United States Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, United States Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States Correspondence: Jason M. Warram, mojack@uab.edu 25 02 2026 2026 16 1790296 17 01 2026 10 02 2026 05 02 2026 Copyright © 2026 James, Kasten, Shi, Wodeyar, Barnhill, Reap, Thomas, Morlandt, Rosenthal and Warram. 2026 James, Kasten, Shi, Wodeyar, Barnhill, Reap, Thomas, Morlandt, Rosenthal and Warram https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

EGFRvIII is a tumor-specific, gain-of-function mutation of the EGFR gene that was first detected in 1990 in glioblastoma. For the past two decades, its significance in head and neck cancer has been intensely debated, both in terms of its clinical implications and its mere presence in the disease. This review aims to synthesize evidence on the prevalence, frequency, detection methods, and clinical significance of EGFRvIII in head and neck cancer studies. Our search included major databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science with keywords such as EGFRvIII, EGFR variants, and head and neck cancer, and stratified the results using Boolean logic to enhance relevance and specificity. Data extraction involved classifying studies by detection method, anatomic subsite, etiology, geography, and population size. The results revealed a frequency of EGFRvIII expression ranging from 0 to 75% across studies, with the major factors influencing this variation being technical sensitivity and specificity issues, primer set variability, sample type and quality heterogeneity, low prevalence and statistical power, and the lack of validation standards. There appears to be an association with a poorer clinical prognosis, though the association with survival remains inconsistent across studies. For future research, it is preferable to be informed about methodological rigor and orthogonal diagnostic assays with extensive prospective validation. Understanding EGFRvIII’s genuine frequency and prognostic utility in HNSCC will help guide biomarker development and targeted therapies.

 biomarker clinical significance detection methods EGFRvIII frequency variation head and neck squamous cell carcinoma therapeutic target National Cancer Institute 10.13039/100000054 The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This work was funded by National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute R37 CA245157 (JW). section-at-acceptance Head and Neck Cancer Introduction

The discovery of epidermal growth factor (EGF) in the early 1950’s by Levi-Montalcini and Cohen provided first answers to the fundamental question of how cells recognize and respond to external growth signals. This was further elucidated in the mid1970’s with the identification of a plasma membrane protein that binds EGF - the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR/Her1/ErbB1), a 170 kDa, membrane-spanning glycoprotein belonging to the receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) family of growth factor receptors (1, 2). Mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor occur frequently in a number of human cancers, including gliomas, non-small-cell lung carcinomas, breast and ovarian adenocarcinomas, prostate, and head and neck carcinomas (HNC) (1, 3). A commonly described EGFR mutation is type III (variously named EGFRvIII, truncated EGFR, de2–7 EGFR, EGFRvIII, or ΔEGFR), which lacks a portion of the extracellular ligand-binding domain (4).

EGFRvIII is a tumor-specific, extracellular, gain-of-function mutation of the EGFR gene detected in 1990 (5). It is commonly studied and characterized in glioblastoma (GBM) (6), where it is frequently found with EGFR amplification and is associated with enhanced proliferation, tumor growth, and resistance to therapies such as radiation and targeted therapy (cetuximab) (7–11). This mutation results from an intragenic in-frame deletion of exons 2–7 (267 AA) of the EGFR gene, creating a truncated, constitutively active receptor not bound by ligand (12) (Figure 1). The deletion removes ~801 bp, including almost all of domain I and half of domain II of the extracellular region, making the mutated protein (145 kDa) have a unique glycine codon at the exon 1–8 junction (13, 14). In contrast to wild-type (WT) EGFR, the deletion in EGFRvIII results in constitutive kinase signaling at relatively low levels. This ligand-independent activity acquires biological significance via resistance to degradation through increased membrane stability (3, 15). The mutant can form both homodimers and heterodimers with other receptors, potentially activating multiple signaling pathways even in the absence of ligands. Even though the receptor is constitutively active and exhibits less efficient internalization and prolonged surface retention, the oncogenic potential of the oncogene primarily stems from its exceptional membrane stability rather than its kinase activity (3). Free cysteine in EGFRvIII’s extracellular domain (due to deletion) allow disulfide-linked dimers/oligomers, which are important for signaling.

Molecular architecture and signaling differences between WT EGFR and EGFRvIII in HNSCC. WT EGFR is activated by the binding of various ligands whereas EGFRvIII exhibits truncations in its extracellular domain and is constitutively active. Both WT EGFR and EGFRvIII promote tumorigenesis via pathways initiated by the phosphorylation of certain effector proteins and their respective pathways. Additionally EGFRvIII exhibits unique downstream effectors separate from WT EGFR.

Side-by-side schematic comparing WT EGFR and EGFRvIII receptors. WT EGFR displays ligand-induced activation upon ligand binding, while EGFRvIII, with a deletion of exons 2-7, shows ligand-independent constitutive activation. Downstream pathways include RAS-RAF-MEK-MAPK, PI3K-AKT-mTOR, and others, contributing to angiogenesis, tumor proliferation, and altered metabolism.

Since EGFRvIII expression is exclusive to tumor cells and absent in normal tissue, it presents as an ideal therapeutic target for exploitation, despite incomplete understanding of its oncogenic role (10). In HNC, WT EGFR is overexpressed in 80 - 90% cases (16–18) and EGFRvIII is said to be expressed in a wide range of frequency from 0 to 75%, i.e. from not expressed (19) to very low (20) to high (21, 22), which is a dramatic distribution requiring further examination (7, 12, 19, 20, 22–27). Publications related to EGFR targeted therapies surged in the late 2000s to early 2010s due to clinical validation of EGFR as a pharmacologically targetable oncogene shown by the approval of cetuximab in 2006 (28). The following emergence of secondary resistance mutations and activation of alternative pathways, which limited the efficacy of EGFR-targeted therapy, led to the development of second and third-generation EGFR inhibitors (29). However, these targeted therapies still show limited benefit in some patients (30), and the presence of EGFRvIII was theorized to explain the observed resistance and tumor heterogeneity. The true clinical impact of EGFRvIII in HNSCC is in question. Hence the following sections will review reported EGFRvIII frequencies in HNSCC, dissect methodological and biological contributors to variability, and propose a path toward standardized detection and clinical implementation to pave the way for robust biomarker‐driven trials.

 Molecular mechanism

The general mechanism of EGFRvIII in HNSCC is different from GBM. Unlike GBM, HNSCC tumors exhibit co-expression of EGFRvIII with WT EGFR and express EGFRvIII in tumors with or without EGFR amplification (26). Multiple mechanisms like genomic deletion, intron rearrangements, and regulatory factors contribute to EGFRvIII expression in HNSCC (26). WT EGFR activates RAS–RAF–MEK–MAPK, PI3K/AKT, and JAK/STAT pathways, enhancing tumorigenic potential (31) (Figure 1). By comparison, EGFRvIII in HNC drives enhanced oncogenicity through selective activation of Src family kinases most notably Lyn, resulting in persistent PI3K/Akt, MAPK and STAT3 signaling which drives tumor-intrinsic aggressiveness like proliferation, migration, invasion, and MMP-mediated ECM remodeling (22, 23, 32) (Figure 1; Table 1). The downstream effects of EGFRvIII-expressing cells secrete IL-6 and LIF (leukemia inhibitory factor), and these cytokines activate gp130 signaling in neighboring cells (33) and contribute to a non-cell-autonomous effect of EGFRvIII signaling via autocrine and paracrine signaling. The tumorigenic signaling amplifies and diversifies EGFRvIII oncogenic signaling and interacts with other receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs), suggesting it acts not only as an autonomous receptor but also as a complex signaling hub (34). EGFRvIII forms ligand-independent dimers, including heterodimers with WT EGFR and other RTKs, leading to trans-phosphorylation of WT EGFR. The heterodimer potency seems to be greater than homodimers of EGFRvIII or WT EGFR. The exact mechanism of EGFRvIII activation whether mainly through covalent homodimers, heterodimers with WT EGFR, or potential cis-autophosphorylation is still debated (3). It is logical to consider that the failure to attenuate signaling due to inefficient receptor downregulation may be a mechanism by which EGFRvIII is oncogenic as it has impaired degradation, slower internalization, and is recycled efficiently. Studies show that the fully humanized monoclonal antibody panitumumab neutralizes both WT EGFR and EGFRvIII, unlike cetuximab (9, 35). Panitumumab has high binding affinity of ~0.05 nM (avidity effect) that causes bivalent crosslinking, forming stable inactive complexes which induce receptor recycling (re-adaptation) from endosomes to plasma membrane. It also crosslinks EGFRvIII into inactive dimers/oligomers (35). The validated role of this oncoprotein in GBM warrants addressing its biologically consequential and therapeutically tractable role in HNSCC.

Molecular features: EGFRvIII vs WT EGFR.

Category WT EGFR EGFRvIII
Structural Features Full-length receptor with intact extracellular ligand-binding domain In-frame deletion of exons 2–7; unique glycine codon at exon 1–8 junction; lacks ligand-binding domain
Tumor Specificity Expressed in both normal and malignant tissues Tumor restricted expression
Dimerization Behavior Ligand-dependent dimerization Ligand-independent homodimers and heterodimers via free extracellular cysteines
Ligand Binding Requires EGF (or other ligands) for activation Cannot bind EGF (lacks binding domain)
Activation Ligand binding → dimerization → phosphorylation → signaling Constitutively (“always”) active, ligand-independent
Kinase Activity High when activated Lower than ligand-activated WT EGFR
Signaling Pathways Activated RAS–RAF–MEK–MAPK; PI3K–AKT; JAK–STAT Constitutive PI3K–AKT and STAT3; gp130 activation via IL-6/LIF secretion
Signaling Output Strong but transient Weak but persistent
Internalization Rapid internalization and lysosomal degradation Impaired internalization; prolonged surface retention; efficient recycling
Degradation Ubiquitinated and degraded via Cbl protein Impaired degradation; remains longer on membrane
Stability on Membrane Moderate; undergoes degradation after activation Highly stable; resists degradation
Reported EGFRvIII frequencies

Multiple studies have surveyed the incidence of the EGFRvIII deletion mutant in HNSCC using diverse methods. Table 2 summarizes 19 peer-reviewed reports of EGFRvIII expression in HNSCC across years, noting sample size, anatomic subsites, and the detection techniques (IHC, RT-PCR, NGS, etc.) used. It also lists the reported frequency of EGFRvIII and any clinical associations. For example, Chau et al. used quantitative RT-PCR and reported EGFRvIII in ~42% of recurrent/metastatic HNSCC samples, whereas McIntyre et al. developed a hydrolysis-probe qRT-PCR assay validated in GBM to rigorously assess treatment in naïve, site homogenous OSCC and found EGFRvIII in only 2% (25, 39). In contrast, larger studies (e.g. Koch et al., 2017) using multiple primer RT-PCR and sequencing found EGFRvIII to be very rare (<1%) (7). Notably, Melchers et al. (2014) optimized L8A4-antibody IHC and RT-PCR on 531 HNSCCs and detected 0% EGFRvIII (19). The following sections further discuss these vastly differing results regarding EGFRvIII expression and their implications for HNSCC.

Summary of EGFRvIII detection in HNSCC.

No Study Year No of patient Country Subsite Material Detection method Antibody/Primer Frequency (%) Positive threshold Clinical correlation
1. Jungbluth (36) 2003 10 USA Metastatic HNSCC Fresh frozen IHC DH8.3 0/10 (0) Focal: <5%+: >5-25%++: >25-50%+++: >50-75%++++: >75% DH8.3 reactivity was restricted exclusively to glioblastomas
2. Sok et al. (12) 2006 33 USA Mixed HNSCC RT-PCR: Fresh frozen; IHC: FFPE IHC + RT-PCR IHC: L8A4 EGFRvIII-specific antibody + specific primers 42% (14/33) IHC: Strong staining; RT-PCR: Specific amplification Resistance to cetuximab; increased proliferation
3. Eriksen et al. (37) 2009 681 Denmark Locally advanced SCCHN FFPE IHC EGFRvIII antibody 40% (267/675) Strong immunostaining Associated with increased tumor size
4. Yang et al. (24) 2009 39 China Larynx Fresh frozen qRT-PCR (TaqMan) EGFR and EGFRvIII TaqMan probes F: 5′-GGGCTCTGGAGGAAAAGAAAGG-3′R: 5′-TCCGTTACACACTTTGCGGC-3′Probe: 5′FAM-CGACAGCTATGAGATGGAGGAAGACGGCGT-TAMRA3′ 15% (6/39) Relative EGFRvIII mRNA ≥0.025 More frequent in high-EGFR, poorly differentiated
5. Hama et al. (38) 2009 82 Japan Various HNSCC sites (oral cavity 26.8%, other sites not specified Fresh frozen Sequencing of full-length RT-PCR product Not specified (full-length EGFR sequencing including extracellular domain) 0% (0/82) No EGFRvIII variants detected by RT-PCR Not applicable
6. Keller (27) 2010 60 USA Oropharynx (68.3%), Larynx (31.7%) Fresh frozen RT-PCR + DNA sequencing Set 1: 5’-GGCGAGTCGGGCTCTGGAGGAAAAG-3’ and 5’-GGCCCTTCGCACTTCTTACACTTG-3’ (exons 1-8) 23% In-frame deletion confirmed by sequencing Significant association with advanced tumor and nodal stage when combined with phosphorylated EGFR
7. Chau et al. (39) 2011 53 Canada Mixed R/M HNSCC FFPE Quantitative RT-PCR Exon 4 vs Exon 9 ratio Primers not mentioned 42% (22/53) Fold change ≥7 vs normal control Better disease control. but no difference in outcome between erlotinib-treated vs non-erlotinib groups; EGFRvIII not associated with TTP or OS in this cohort.
8. Tinhofer et al. (8) 2011 47 Germany R/M HNSCC FFPE IHC: L8A4 + RT-PCR validation IHC: EGFRvIII-specific antibody L8A4 (recognizes junction of exons 1–8 fusion)RT-PCR validation: Yoshimoto protocol for EGFRvIII transcripts 80% (37/46) (any positive expression), 17% (high expression - IHC score ≥7) IHC score ≥7 for “high” expression (semiquantitative scoring: intensity × extent, max score 12)RT-PCR: 80% concordance with IHC results. RT-PCR confirmed 3/4 IHC + cases, also 1/4 of IHC− cases was RT+Primers according to Yoshimoto/Mellinghof:5′-CTTCGGGGAGCAGCGATGCGAC-3′5′-ACCAATACCTATTCCGTTACAC-3′These primers generate a 1044-bp PCR product for the wild-type EGFR transcript, compared with a 243-bp PCR product for the EGFRvIII transcript High EGFRvIII expression associated with reduced disease control rate (DCR): 13% vs 65% in low expression group (p=0.02)Significantly shorter progression-free survival (PFS): HR 3.3, mean PFS 2.0 vs 5.4 months (p=0.005)No significant association with overall survivalIndependent predictor of reduced treatment efficacy with cetuximab-docetaxel therapyMultivariate analysis confirmed EGFRvIII as independent predictor for PFS but not OS
9. Szabo et al. (40) 2011 71 Hungary Hypopharynx (19), Base of tongue (6), Tonsils (10), Glottis (20), Supraglottic (16) FFPE IHC Mouse monoclonal antibody L8A4 (recognizes junction of exons 1–8 fusion) 21% (15/71) Positive if cell membrane of tumor cells was stained Associated with increased EGFR gene copy number (p<0.0001); independent prognostic factor for poor outcome (p=0.041); most mutations affected laryngeal region (8/15)
10. Smilek et al. (41) 2012 29 Czech Republic Oral cavity (6.9%), Oropharynx (65.5%), Hypopharynx (17.3%), Larynx (10.3%) Fresh frozen RT-PCR EGFRvIII-fw 5’-AGTCGGGCTCTGGAGGAA3’, EGFRvIII-rev 5’-GCCGTCTTCCTCCATCTCATA-3’, EGFRvIII-probe 5’-ATCACGGCTCGTGCGTCCG-3’ BHQ1-HEX (102 bp) 20.7% (6/29) Not specified No significant association with treatment response to cetuximab + radiotherapy; not found in women; no correlation with clinical characteristics except gender
11. McIntyre et al. (25) 2012 50 Canada OSCC FFPE Real-time PCR (hydrolysis probe) + fluorescent IHC Novel hydrolysis probe RT-PCR (AQUA® IHC for EGFR) 2% (1/50) Specific amplification; EGFRvIII only in high-EGFR cases. F: 5′-TCTGCCCGGCGAGTC-3′R: 5′-GCCGTGATCTGTCACCACATAATT-3′FAM-labeled probe: 5′-TTTCTTTTCCTCCAGAGCCC-3′ None reported (1 EGFRvIII case in very high EGFR expressors), EGFRvIII-directed therapies are not suitable as first-line options, but may hold value in recurrent or therapy-resistant disease
12. Wheeler SE et al. (32) 2012 human 52 HNSCC tumor specimens USA Oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, larynx human tumor tissues, HNSCC cell lines (Cal33, UMSCC1, FaDu) transfected with EGFRvIII; ~8 xenograft mice per group; RT-PCR and sanger sequencing for EGFRvIII, immunoprecipitation and Western blot for Lyn activation (pY416), siRNA inhibition, xenograft tumor volume EGFRvIII-specific primers; anti-EGFRvIII antibody 4–5H; Lyn, p-Src (Y416), Fyn, Yes antibodies (Cell Signaling) 12/52 (23%) Detection of EGFRvIII transcript by RT-PCR (gel band confirmed by sequencing) EGFRvIII expression correlates with increased Lyn activation, tumor motility, and growth. Dasatinib (Src-family kinase inhibitor) significantly reduced proliferation, migration, invasion, and xenograft tumor volume in EGFRvIII-positive HNSCC. Lyn identified as the primary activated SFK in EGFRvIII+ tumors. Suggests clinical potential of SFK inhibition (e.g., dasatinib) for EGFRvIII+ and cetuximab-resistant HNSCC.
13. Chang (21) 2013 108 Taiwan Oral cavity 32.4% tongue, 43.5% buccal mucosa, remaining unspecified oral sites. FFPE IHC WT EGFR (Novocastra RTU-EGFR-384), EGFRvIII (4-5H), PTEN (138G8), pAKT (Ser473 D9E) 75% (31.5% high expression) >5% membranous (WT EGFR), >5% cytoplasmic (EGFRvIII, PTEN, pAKT); EGFRvIII scored 0–4+Classified into five groups according to the extent of moderate to strong cytoplasmic reactivity: 0, (none); 1+, (1 ~ 24%); 2+, (25 ~ 49%); 3+, (50 ~ 74%); and 4+, (75 ~ 100%) EGFRvIII correlated with tumor T classification and TNM stage; EGFRvIII and pAKT were independent predictors of patient survival
14. Boeckx et al(42) 2014 52 Belgium Oropharynx (27 patients), Larynx (25 patients) FFPE One-step real-time RT-PCR EGFRe1-F: 5’-GAGTCGGGCTCTGGAGGAA-3’, EGFRe8-R: 5’-GGCCCTTCGCACTTCTTACA-3’, EGFRe1/8-TM probe: 6-FAM-AAAGGTAATTATGTGGTGACAGATCACGGCTC-BHQ-1 0% (0/44 evaluable samples) Not specified No EGFRvIII mutations detected; study concludes EGFRvIII unlikely to play major role in predicting anti-EGFR therapy response in Belgian HNSCC population
15. Melchers et al. (19) 2014 531 Netherlands Oral cavity 272 (52%)Oropharynx 205 (39%)Hypopharynx 8 (2%)Larynx 37 (7%) FFPE IHC (L8A4) + RT-PCR EGFRvIII antibody L8A4; EGFRvIII RT-PCR primers 0% (0/531) – (no true positives) EGFRvIII absent – no impact on prognosis
16. Khattri et al. (20) 2015 638 USA Mixed HNSCC FFPE; OCT frozen qRT-PCR (108 samples), RNA-seq (432 samples), IHC (105 samples) Multiple EGFRvIII breakpoint PCR sets (L8A4 IHC) 0.31% (2/638) Varies by assay Very rare – clinical significance unclear
17. Wheeler et al. (26) 2015 25 (subset of a 154-case TMA cohort) USA Various HNSCC and glioma tissues Fresh frozen FFPE RT-PCR, IHC, Exon junction sequencing, Long-range PCR, RNAseq EGFRvIII-specific primers; IHC antibodies 9/25 (36%) Confirmed by sequencing (exon 1–8 joining) EGFRvIII expression independent of EGFR amplification; low expression; potential negative predictive biomarker for cetuximab, EGFRvIII detection depends strongly on assay design and tissue coverage and that RNAseq/automated fusion callers may miss EGFRvIII.
18. TCGA Comprehensive genomic characterization of HNSCC (43) 2015 279 International Mixed HNSCC Fresh frozen Whole-genome + RNA sequencing Hybrid capture exome libraries and random priming 0.4% (1/279 q < 0.1 used for significantly mutated genes Rare structural evidence of EGFRvIII by WGS/RNA-Seq analyses
19. Koch et al. (7) 2017 149 Germany Mixed HNSCC (Oral cavity 13.4%, Oropharynx 36.2%, Hypopharynx 8.7%, Larynx 17.4%, Sinonasal 24.2%) RT-PCR: Fresh frozen; IHC: FFPE RT-PCR + Sequencing + IHC Five EGFRvIII primer sets in parallel:Primer 1: 5′-GGCTCTGGAGGAAAAGAAAG-3′/5′-TCCTCCATCTCATAGCTGTCG-3′Primer 2: 5′-TGCTGGCTGCGCTCTGC-3′/5′-CACAGGCTCGGACGCAC-3′Primer 3: 5′-GGAGCAGCGATGCGACCCTC-3′/5′-ACACTTGCGGACGCCGTCTT-3′Primer 4: 5′-ATGCGACCCTCCGGGACG-3′/5′-ATTCCGTTACACACTTTGCGGC-3′Primer 5: 5′-GAGCTCTTCGGGGAGCAG-3′/5′-GTGATCTGTCACCACATAATTACCTTTCT-3′L8A4 EGFRvIII-specific antibody for IHC ~0.7% (1/149) PCR: Multi-primer confirmation required; IHC: Strong staining; Sequencing: Confirmation of exon 2–7 deletion No significant difference in overall survival between EGFRvIII-positive and negative cases (p = 0.618). Study concluded EGFRvIII is not relevant for targeted therapy and radiation in HNSCC. In vitro experiments showed similar response rates between EGFRvIII-transfected and wild-type cells to EGFR inhibitors and radiation.
20. Peng et al. (22) 2025 7 Taiwan OSCC specimen samples, cell lines FFPE, OSCC cell cultures; mice xenografts RT-PCR, Sanger sequencing, Western blot, qPCR EGFRvIII-specific primers/antibody 70%(5/7) Presence of 128-bp PCR product or protein band EGFRvIII expression associated with tumor aggressiveness, fibroblast activation, increased migration/invasion
Sources of heterogeneity in EGFRvIII literature Detection strategies and technical pitfalls

The dramatic variation in reported EGFRvIII frequencies across HNSCC studies stems from multiple interconnected sources of heterogeneity that confound direct comparisons and clinical interpretation. Technical variability represents a primary source of discordance. Different detection techniques have been used in the past for EGFRvIII, such as western blot analysis, immunohistochemistry (IHC), immunofluorescence (IF), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and flow cytometry analysis (FACS). Among these, IHC and RT-PCR (conventional or qPCR) were most common (7, 8, 12, 19, 20, 25, 26, 39). Real-time PCR appears to be a very specific and sensitive method of EGFRvIII detection, while IHC analyses returned a number of false positives when using L8A4 antibody (44) highlighting how detection methodology fundamentally impacts reported frequencies and emphasizing the critical need for standardized protocols and antibody validation. Although EGFRvIII mutation has been detected at the mRNA level using quantitative real-time PCR in several studies, no significant association with treatment response to anti-EGFR therapy was found (41). This may reflect the limitation that mRNA expression is not a reliable proxy for the presence or functionality of therapeutically relevant EGFRvIII protein. No HNSCC-specific ddPCR or NGS-panel study has reported high EGFRvIII rates, and a recent large NGS survey found EGFRvIII almost exclusively in GBMs and not in head and neck tumors (11). Koch’s study screened 149 HNSCC specimens for EGFRvIII using RT-PCR with five different primers, sequencing, and immunohistochemical staining. The primers produced highly inconsistent results likely from nonspecific off-target amplification and tissue age effects, and only one sample was positive by all methods. Using a less stringent criterion (positivity by any method), EGFRvIII was detected in 13 of 149 cases, with rates of 4.4% in older formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE), 19.2% in recent FFPE, and 30% in fresh-frozen specimens (7). The studies above illustrate the technical challenges (antibody specificity, primer design, and tissue quality) and the resulting frequency discrepancies (7, 39). Koch et al. and Khattri et al. reinforced that EGFRvIII is extremely rare in HNSCC when using multiple primers or sequencing (7, 20). The Chau et al. study used a quantitative RT-PCR approach measuring exon ratios, which is more standardized than earlier methods (39). Using one-step real-time PCR on FFPE material, no EGFRvIII mutations could be detected (42). The probe-based real-time PCR detection of EGFRvIII was found in approximately 70% of OSCC (25). Wheeler et al. found that accurate detection requires multiplex PCR with specific primers, Sanger sequencing confirmation, and manual review of RNAseq when applicable (26). Emerging assays like targeted hybrid-capture NGS and digital PCR can in principle detect the exon 2–7 fusion, but so far, have confirmed that EGFRvIII is infrequent in HNSCC compared to GBM (45, 46).

The temporal evolution of EGFRvIII detection methodologies in HNSCC reveals a striking inverse correlation between methodological rigor and reported frequency, fundamentally challenging the clinical significance of this variant in head and neck malignancies (Figure 2). Early studies (2006-2011) predominantly employed single detection techniques with commercially available but inadequately validated antibodies, consistently reporting high EGFRvIII frequencies ranging from 17% to 42% (Sok et al. 42%, Eriksen et al. 34%, Chau et al. 42%) (12, 37, 39). These pioneering investigations, while groundbreaking in identifying potential EGFRvIII expression in HNSCC, were methodologically limited by reliance on single-platform detection approaches with the use of antibodies that subsequent validation studies have demonstrated to produce significant false-positive results. In stark contrast, later studies (2012-2025) implemented increasingly rigorous methodological approaches incorporating multiple orthogonal detection platforms, stringent validation protocols, and enhanced primer specificity, resulting in dramatically reduced reported frequencies ranging from 2% to complete absence (Wheeler et al. 0.31%, Melchers et al. 0%, Boeckx et al. 0%) (19, 26, 42). This temporal shift in methodology coincided with improved understanding of EGFRvIII biology, enhanced antibody specificity testing, and the recognition that authentic EGFRvIII detection requires multiple confirmatory approaches to distinguish true variants from technical artifacts.

Temporal relationship between EGFRvIII detection rates and methodological rigor in HNSCC studies.

Infographic illustrating advancements in EGFRvIII detection methodologies from 2006 to 2025, showing a shift from IHC and RT-PCR to multiplex PCR and NGS/ddPCR, with methodological rigor increasing and detection rates decreasing over time. Key detection rates range from 42 percent in 2006 to 0.7 percent in 2017, with associated researchers and years indicated.

When looking at each detection method’s variability, real-time PCR methodologies demonstrated significant variability depending on primer design, amplification conditions, and detection chemistry. Simple RT-PCR approaches using basic primer sets (as employed in early studies) lack the specificity and sensitivity required for reliable EGFRvIII detection. While quantitative real-time PCR with validated TaqMan probes (24) or hydrolysis probe systems (25) provides enhanced specificity, it requires careful optimization for the unique amplification characteristics of EGFRvIII transcripts. Different primer sets spanning the deletion junction produce discordant results due to differences in amplicon size, melting temperature, and specificity (20). No consensus primer set has been validated across multiple independent laboratories for HNSCC (7), in contrast to GBM where standardized primer sequences are widely adopted. Yang et al’s study (24) represents a technically refined approach to EGFRvIII detection by using a validated real-time qPCR assay with mutation-specific probes and a recombinant positive control, thereby improving reliability over earlier immunohistochemical or conventional PCR-based reports. However, the absence of protein-level verification, RNA instability, and tumor heterogeneity remain key pitfalls that may explain the variable and often low detection rate of EGFRvIII in HNSCC. Low and unstable EGFRvIII mRNA in archival or frozen samples, unreported RNA integrity, and signal dilution from homogenized RNA samples likely contribute to underestimation of prevalence. Given high cycle numbers (35 cycles) (24) and construction of plasmid controls (key quality control step), there’s potential for carryover contamination if strict PCR hygiene isn’t maintained. The critical technical challenge lies in primer design that specifically amplifies the exon 2–7 deletion junction without cross-reactivity to WT EGFR or other EGFR variants, necessitating multiple primer set validation and orthogonal confirmation.

IHC detection of EGFRvIII faces substantial technical obstacles, primarily centered on antibody specificity and availability. The widely used L8A4 antibody has demonstrated significant cross-reactivity issues leading to false-positive results (9), with many EGFRvIII-specific antibodies utilized in early studies no longer commercially available, preventing reproducibility and validation of historical findings. Even though several monoclonal antibodies specific for EGFRvIII have been described, their availability is limited by licensing and patent issues (47). The commonly used antibodies like DH8.3, 528, and 806 showed high off-target binding, were not tumor-specific, and some were limited to brain tumors (DH8.3) (36). Comparatively, mAb 806 recognizes conformationally exposed EGFR epitope in amplified/overexpressed/mutant EGFR, which are strongly positive in SCCs of head, neck, lung, esophagus, and bladder (36). McIntyre coupled RT-PCR with quantitative AQUA® IHC, that establishes a gold-standard, automated, observer independent framework for accurate EGFR/EGFRvIII assessment that yields highly reproducible protein expression data on a continuous scale in clinical diagnostics over conventional semi quantitative IHC (25). Furthermore, IHC interpretation requires careful distinction between membrane staining intensity and non-specific cytoplasmic reactivity, with inconsistent scoring systems and intra/inter observer variability across studies contributing to frequency discrepancies. Even though IHC is a very common protein based method for spatial information and direct protein detection and validation, the use of only a single method for EGFRvIII detection and failure in the technical implementation are met with criticism. This explains why more recent studies have concluded that EGFRvIII is extremely rare in HNSCC and the clinical significance remains unclear. Another important root cause for detection controversy is the absence of validation standards. Unlike p16 for HPV status (48) or PD-L1 scoring (49), there are no equivalent consensus guidelines that exist for EGFRvIII detection in HNSCC.

EGFRvIII detected by RT-PCR does not always show corresponding protein expression by IHC (8, 12). Conversely, the positive EGFRvIII positive Immunohistochemical expression without detection of the mRNA transcript can also occur (9). Because of this inconsistency, the most methodologically robust studies employed combined detection approaches utilizing both IHC and RT-PCR platforms to provide orthogonal validation of EGFRvIII expression (9). Therefore, integrating transcript and protein assays remains essential for definitive EGFRvIII characterization in HNC. TCGA HNSCC comprehensively profiled somatic mutations, structural alterations etc. in 279 tumors, and the low prevalence of EGFRvIII reported (1/279) reflects the sensitivity and broad scope of unbiased whole genome and transcriptome approaches (43). These multi-platform studies consistently report the lowest frequencies, suggesting that single-platform approaches may overestimate true EGFRvIII prevalence due to technical artifacts. RNA sequencing and targeted sequencing approaches represent the most definitive detection methods, providing sequence-level confirmation of the specific exon 2–7 deletion, but remain limited in clinical application due to cost and technical complexity. Use of positive and negative controls with objective quantification based on cycle threshold (Ct) values in real time qPCR, reduces subjective interpretation and inter observer errors inherent to IHC. The detection of EGFRvIII demonstrates significant sensitivity to sample preparation and preservation methods, with FFPE tissues showing reduced detection sensitivity compared to fresh-frozen samples due to RNA degradation and cross-linking artifacts. This preservation dependent detection variability may contribute to frequency discrepancies between studies utilizing different tissue processing protocols, particularly when considering that EGFRvIII often requires concurrent EGFR gene amplification to achieve detectable expression levels which makes the variant particularly susceptible to sample quality-related detection failures. FFPE yields dramatically different RNA quality due to fragmentation, chemical modification, and reduced amplifiable template (50). This issue with archival blocks of uncertain age and storage conditions in many of the retrospective HNSCC studies underscores an important need for standard operating procedures (SOPs) across labs which could otherwise lead to uncontrolled pre-analytical variables. Table 2 presents the diagnostic techniques addressed in each article.

 Anatomical subsite and etiological and tumor biological features of EGFRvIII expression in HNSCC:

The level of EGFR protein expression in HNSCC varies considerably across anatomical subsites. For example, carcinomas of the pharynx and oral cavity generally exhibit higher EGFR expression compared with those arising from the larynx (51). Given this subsite-dependent variability in EGFR expression, it is plausible that the frequency of EGFRvIII also differs among distinct HNSCC subsites (Figure 3). However, despite extensive investigation of EGFR alterations in HNSCC, there remains no consensus on the prevalence of EGFRvIII expression (52). To date, only very few studies have systematically evaluated EGFRvIII frequency across specific subsites, including malignancies of the oral cavity, pharynx, and larynx. Considering that the head and neck region comprises several biologically distinct mucosal sites such as the oral cavity, pharynx, paranasal sinuses, and larynx, the limited availability of subsite-stratified data represents a critical gap in the literature. This marked intraregional heterogeneity within HNSCC may partially account for the conflicting EGFRvIII frequency data reported across different studies. Melchers et al. have assessed the prevalence of EGFRvIII in three well defined cohorts of HNSCC of OSCC, oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC), and various other locations which are a POSTOP cohort (19) and concluded EGFRvIII is not usable as a prognostic marker due to its lack of presence.

Site-specific distribution of reported EGFRvIII detection rates across HNSCC.

Illustration showing the locations and percentages of reported EGFRvIII frequencies in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma by region: sinonasal 0 percent, nasopharynx unreported, oral 0–9 percent, oropharynx 0–11 percent, hypopharynx 0–4 percent, larynx 0–15 percent, mixed or unspecified HNSCC 0–80 percent. Icons represent predominant etiologies including alcohol, tobacco, HPV, occupational or chemical exposure, and areca nut.

Oral cavity and larynx cancers are generally associated with tobacco consumption, alcohol abuse or both, whereas oropharynx cancers are increasingly attributed to infection with human papillomavirus (HPV), primarily HPV-16 (53). This etiological distinction is crucial for EGFRvIII analysis, as the molecular landscape differs significantly between HPV-positive and HPV-negative tumors. HPV-driven carcinogenesis fundamentally alters the molecular landscape of OPSCC, which may be relevant to EGFRvIII analysis of OPSCC. The 8th edition UICC/AJCC staging system (54) now separates HPV+ OPSCC from HPV-negative disease, formally recognizing these as distinct clinical entities that likely require separate molecular and clinical characterization as it is one of the most rapidly increasing incidences of any cancer in high-income countries (55).

Peng et al. (22) showed that environmental carcinogen interaction like NNK (nicotine-derived nitrosamine ketone) and arecoline increase EGFRvIII expression and downstream oncogenic signaling, enhancing tumor aggressiveness. The influence of regional carcinogen exposure patterns, including tobacco use profiles, areca nut chewing, alcohol consumption patterns, HPV prevalence, and occupational or environmental exposures, may further contribute to geographic clustering of EGFRvIII frequencies through differential selective pressure on EGFR pathway alterations during carcinogenesis (56). Chang et al. (21) investigated OSCC in a betel nut prevalent population, demonstrating how etiological exposures contribute to regional heterogeneity in tumor biology. Their study showed that EGFRvIII drives tumor cell proliferation while concurrently remodeling the tumor microenvironment through secretion of lipocalin-2 (LCN2), which activates surrounding fibroblasts via STAT3 signaling to establish a tumor-supportive niche. Notably, environmental carcinogens such as nicotine derivatives and arecoline were found to upregulate EGFRvIII expression, underscoring the therapeutic potential of targeting EGFRvIII and its downstream pathways in aggressive OSCC (22).

The anatomical subsite distribution of EGFRvIII expression in HNSCC reveals significant heterogeneity–yet robust data are largely lacking in existing studies. Within available studies, 15.4% (6/39) of laryngeal carcinoma cases demonstrated EGFRvIII mRNA expression that correlated with EGFR overexpression and poor differentiation (24), while OSCC showed markedly higher prevalence with approximately 70% of tumor samples demonstrating high EGFRvIII expression (22, 57). This striking subsite-specific variation, combined with the distinct molecular profiles of HPV-positive versus HPV-negative oropharyngeal cancers along with the different etiological backgrounds across oral cavity, laryngeal, and hypopharyngeal tumors, underscores the critical need for anatomical and etiological stratification in EGFRvIII analysis to avoid obscuring important biological relationships when pooling heterogeneous HNSCC data (58). Thus the scarcity of subsite-specific EGFRvIII data represents a critical knowledge gap. EGFR is overexpressed in up to 90% of HNC (59), yet EGFRvIII expression patterns across these anatomically and etiologically distinct tumor types remain poorly characterized. It is also observed that nasopharyngeal carcinoma and other less common HNSCC subsites are completely absent from EGFRvIII literature. Considering the distinct etiologies of these tumors (EBV association in nasopharyngeal cancer, occupational exposures in sinonasal cancers) relative to other HNC subsites highlights an urgent need for systematic subsite-stratified analysis of EGFRvIII expression in future research endeavors.

Tumor biology introduces additional complexity through significant intra-tumor heterogeneity and clonal evolution (60). GBM exhibits subpopulations with heterogeneous EGFRvIII expression that cooperate to drive tumor progression and treatment resistance (61), a phenomenon likely extending to HNSCC. Despite the conflicting opinions regarding EGFRvIII’s biological significance ranging from negligible functional importance to a marker of advanced malignancy, preclinical data shows that EGFRvIII expressing cells promote proliferation, invasion, angiogenesis, stemness, and therapy resistance – many of the hallmarks of cancer – suggesting EGFRvIII may represent a late evolutionary event whose prevalence varies with disease progression and stage (3, 10). Consequently, single-site or single-time point sampling may inadequately capture the true EGFRvIII status of heterogeneous tumors, potentially missing EGFRvIII-positive clones and underestimating their role in disease progression and treatment failure.

 Geographical and population basis for variation

Geographic variations may reflect different populations and methodologies of EGFRvIII analysis. Hama et al. (38) focused on full-length EGFR sequencing rather than specific EGFRvIII detection methods and notes the contrast with previous reports of EGFRvIII mutation rate in HNSCC, suggesting most EGFR mutations in Japanese HNSCC patients lie within kinase domains (E709K, V765G, Ins770G, and G1022S) rather than the extracellular domain (38). Population and environmental factors add additional variability, as the frequency of EGFRvIII in specific subsites of HNSCC is disputed and may vary across different geographic or ethnic populations (56, 58). The data presented in Table 2 and Figure 4 demonstrates striking geographic clustering where Asian studies predominantly report either very high frequencies (70%-75%) or complete absence (0%), while European (Germany, Denmark, Hungary, Czechia), studies show intermediate frequencies (20-40%) and North American studies display a broad range (0-42%), indicating that geographic, ethnic, and anatomical variations require systematic stratification in study design. The established pattern of ethnic variation in EGFR mutations, where Asian populations demonstrate markedly different mutation frequencies compared to Caucasian populations (1% of Caucasians versus 7% of Asians with HNSCC EGFR mutations) (58), extends to EGFRvIII variants and may reflect underlying genetic polymorphisms, environmental exposures, or gene-environment interactions that differentially predispose certain populations to specific EGFR alterations. Yang et al. used a validated specific and sensitive real-time quantitative PCR assay with TaqMan probe on 39 Chinese patient samples and confirmed the expression of EGFRvIII in a few laryngeal carcinoma tissues (24).

Reported EGFRvIII frequencies across geographic regions.

Infographic map showing reported EGFRvIII frequencies across regions: North America—Canada two to forty-two percent, USA zero to forty-two percent; Europe—Germany zero point seven to eighty percent, Denmark forty percent, Hungary twenty-one percent, Czechia twenty-one percent, Belgium zero percent, Netherlands zero percent; Asia—Taiwan seventy to seventy-five percent, China fifteen percent, Japan zero percent. A note explains the USA range covers multiple study frequencies.

Notable heterogeneity has been reported within European populations, as EGFR overexpression was frequently and consistently noted in Austrian, Spanish, and Dutch cohorts, while it was infrequent in Swedish, French, and Italian populations, suggesting that continental-level genetic stratification may be insufficient and that more granular population-specific analyses are necessary to understand the true distribution of EGFRvIII variants (58).

Finally, study design limitations significantly contribute to heterogeneity through retrospective designs with inherent selection biases, variable sample sizes that may inadequately power subgroup analyses, inconsistent cohort composition regarding disease stage and treatment history, and lack of standardized outcome definitions, collectively creating a literature landscape where methodological differences may be as influential as biological factors in determining reported EGFRvIII frequencies and clinical associations. When true prevalence is below 5%, even cohorts of 100–200 patients lack adequate power to detect meaningful clinical associations (20).

 Clinical and prognostic implications

The clinical and prognostic significance of EGFRvIII expression in HNSCC presents a complex landscape of mixed results that reflects both the biological heterogeneity of HNSCC and methodological variations across studies. EGFRvIII expression has been observed in poorly and moderately differentiated tumors rather than in well differentiated tumors, showing its relevance in the aggressiveness of cancer (24). Chang et al. (2013) showed a significant association between EGFRvIII & tumor stage (T) (P<0.001) where high expression is more frequent in stage 3/4 (40.7%) vs stage 1/2 (22.2%) (21). Tinhofer et al. (8) detected high EGFRvIII (IHC score ≥7) expression in 17% of HNSCC cases and used cetuximab-docetaxel therapy to demonstrate significant association with reduced disease control and shorter progression-free survival (PFS), where patients with low EGFRvIII immunohistochemical scores achieved a better disease control rate (DCR) of 65% compared to only 13% in patients with high EGFRvIII scores (p=0.02). This suggests that EGFRvIII expression may serve as a negative predictive biomarker for conventional therapy response in recurrent/metastatic HNSCC. Their findings are among the few studies that found a significant clinical correlation between EGFRvIII expression and treatment outcomes, specifically showing worse response to cetuximab-based therapy in patients with high EGFRvIII expression. Contrastingly, in a study of 149 HNSCC patients (7), patients with EGFRvIII detection showed no significant difference in overall survival compared to those without EGFRvIII detection (p = 0.618), indicating that EGFRvIII expression is not associated with prognosis in HNSCC. This is confirmed by a review done by Bossi et al. (62) in 2016 that concluded EGFRvIII showed no value under prognostic or predictive categories as there was no correlation with overalll survival, disease free survival (DFS) or recurrence. Sok et al. detected EGFRvIII in 17–42% of HNSCC cases, which predicted resistance to cetuximab and increased tumor cell proliferation in mixed head and neck cohorts (12). Co-expression of EGFRvIII and phosphorylated EGFR correlated with advanced T and N stage (27), and EGFRvIII immuno-positivity served as an independent poor prognostic factor in laryngeal cancers (40). In OSCC, EGFRvIII associated with higher TNM stage and inferior patient survival (21) which is a finding reinforced by preclinical data linking EGFRvIII to stromal activation and enhanced invasion (22). Although EGFRvIII shows a relatively low positivity rate in laryngeal carcinoma, its expression in Yang et al’s study appears tumor-specific and is more frequently observed in EGFR-overexpressing, poorly differentiated tumors. This suggests a potential association between EGFRvIII and aggressive or less differentiated phenotypes in HNSCC (24, 39). In the study by Smilek et al. (41), EGFRvIII was detected in approximately 20% of HNSCC cases, but no association was found between EGFRvIII expression and response to cetuximab combined with radiotherapy. Interestingly, higher EGFR mRNA copy number correlated with complete response, suggesting that elevated EGFR expression rather than EGFRvIII mutation predicts sensitivity to EGFR-targeted therapy. These results contrast with earlier studies linking EGFRvIII to therapeutic resistance, emphasizing that EGFRvIII’s clinical significance may depend on tumor subsite, disease stage, and detection method. Together with evidence from other cohorts, these findings support the notion that EGFRvIII is biologically relevant but not uniformly predictive of treatment outcomes in HNSCC.

An interesting paper from Chau et al. (39) was the first study to evaluate EGFRvIII in recurrent/metastatic (R/M) HNSCC patients treated with or without EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and showed EGFRvIII in 42% of 53 R/M HNSCC along with unexpected association with better disease control regardless of treatment type. This contradicted the hypothesis that EGFRvIII would predict poor outcomes as no association with overall survival or time to progression was observed (39). This is also similar to GBM, where the role of EGFRvIII as a prognostic or predictive biomarker for EGFR inhibitor response remains controversial. While EGFRvIII and PTEN co-expression has been linked to improved response to EGFR TKIs in some glioma cohorts (63), other studies have reported EGFRvIII as a marker of poorer survival (64, 65) or found no prognostic significance (66). Associations with traditional clinicopathological features including tumor size, nodal status, stage, and grade remain inconsistently reported across studies. Nevertheless, EGFRvIII contributes to enhanced tumor growth and resistance to WT EGFR targeting, indicating that the antitumor efficacy of EGFR targeting strategies may be enhanced by the addition of EGFRvIII-specific blockade (18) which has particular relevance for panitumumab treatment outcomes in the recurrent and metastatic setting.

 Therapeutic potential and challenges

In addressing EGFRvIII as a precision‐oncology target in HNSCC, implementing ultrasensitive assays such as digital droplet PCR and liquid biopsy based ctDNA monitoring is essential to capture its low‐abundance expression and clonal dynamics under therapeutic pressure (67). Despite the ability of modern RNA-seq platforms to robustly detect EGFRvIII in glioblastoma, its low abundance, subclonal architecture, and exon-skipping configuration in HNSCC likely constrain reliable detection by conventional bulk RNA-seq pipelines, even at current sequencing depths, thereby necessitating junction-focused or targeted assays for accurate identification (26, 45, 68, 69). While it is beyond the scope of this review to comprehensively assess the therapeutic potential and challenges of EGFRvIII, its clinical utility in other tumors should not be overlooked. Emerging bispecific antibodies (70) and antibody drug conjugates (71) that exploit the shared cryptic epitope on EGFRvIII and overexpressed WT EGFR are currently entering early‐phase HNSCC trials, achieving selective cytotoxicity while sparing normal tissues. Quantitative flow cytometry estimates of receptor density per cell in native tumors measured 2.7–6.8 × 105 EGFRvIII receptors per cell (72), which established that native tumor cells express enough receptor density for effective antibody-based targeting in vivo. The identification of antibody 806 – a reagent that recognizes a tumor-specific conformational epitope on amplified or mutant EGFR but spares normal tissues – provides a compelling rationale for selective EGFR-targeted immunotherapy (36). Since EGFRvIII shares similar conformational alterations and membrane exposure patterns, mAb806 and its derivatives may offer a strategy to selectively target EGFRvIII-positive or EGFR-overexpressing HNSCC while minimizing systemic toxicity. Liquid biopsies enable real‐time surveillance of EGFRvIII‐positive subclones and guide rational combination regimens designed to thwart bypass signaling through MET or PDGFR pathways. Armored CAR T cells engineered with dominant‐negative TGFβR or IL-12 expression demonstrate enhanced tumor infiltration and persistence in solid tumor microenvironments (73), though cytokine‐related toxicities and immunogenicity require vigilant monitoring. Finally, neo-antigen vaccines, when combined with immune checkpoint blockade directed against the EGFRvIII junctional peptide, hold promise for overcoming intratumoral heterogeneity and achieving durable remissions (74, 75). Recent preclinical work with the recombinant immunotoxin DT390-BiscFv806 demonstrated picomolar‐level cytotoxicity against EGFRvIII cells while sparing normal EGFR, and its antitumor efficacy increased with greater total EGFR expression, supporting a dual-targeting EGFR/EGFRvIII strategy in HNSCC despite low EGFRvIII prevalence (76). Monoclonal antibody mAb806 binds a cryptic epitope exposed on both EGFRvIII and overexpressed WT EGFR, preferentially recognizing immature high-mannose forms and highlighting structural vulnerabilities from aberrant glycosylation and mislocalization (77, 78). Targeting the EGFRvIII–LCN2–STAT3 axis offers a dual approach to disrupt tumor‐intrinsic signaling and the supportive microenvironment by which OSCC progression can be mitigated with improved therapeutic outcome (22). EGFRvIII expression increased class IVa beta-tubulin mRNA by 2.5-fold and class IVb by 3.1-fold while conferring paclitaxel resistance, suggesting that inhibition of EGFRvIII kinase activity could partially reverse drug resistance and enhance chemotherapy efficacy in EGFRvIII-expressing malignancies (79).

EGFR806-CAR T cells successfully targeted a tumor-restricted EGFR epitope (the mAb806 epitope exposed on untethered EGFR and EGFRvIII) with selectivity for GBM cells while sparing normal tissues expressing WT EGFR, achieving 50-100% survival in orthotopic glioma models without toxicity to EGFR+ normal tissues. CARv3-TEAM-E T cells targeting both EGFRvIII and WT EGFR through a secreted T-cell engaging molecule produced dramatic and rapid tumor regression within days in all three recurrent GBM patients without grade 3+ toxicity, though responses were transient in two of three patients (80, 81). EGFR806-CAR approach would be especially attractive for HNSCC since it could target tumor cells with aberrant EGFR conformations while potentially sparing normal epithelial tissues that express properly tethered WT EGFR, addressing a major toxicity concern in treating epithelial-rich tissues of the head and neck region. Prognostic associations with OS and DFS remain inconsistent, underscoring the need for standardized detection and patient stratification. Mechanistically, EGFRvIII stability or dimerization, not merely kinase activity, alongside cross-activation of HGFR/PDGFR, PI3K/AKT, SRC kinases, and MAPK cascades drives resistance (3, 9, 82), necessitating combination regimens that simultaneously inhibit EGFRvIII and compensatory pathways (83).

 Overarching perspectives & future directions

The EGFRvIII saga in HNSCC embodies the challenges of rare biomarker validation. There was initial optimism fueled by inadequate methodology, subsequent skepticism as technical limitations surfaced, and ongoing uncertainty due to lack of definitive studies. This trajectory is not unique as similar arcs have characterized other rare oncogenic drivers before either validation (NTRK fusions) or abandonment (initial MET exon 14 skipping reports in various cancers prior to rigorous validation in lung cancer) (84–86). From the results above, it is clear that the controversy around EGFRvIII in HNSCC stems from multiple interconnected factors like technical sensitivity and specificity issues, primer set variability, sample type and quality heterogeneity, low prevalence and statistical power, and absence of validation standards. Considering these variables across the entirety of HNSCC literature calls into question the early reports of high EGFRvIII prevalence (20, 38). It is important to remember that HER2 amplification in HNSCC was initially considered rare and inconsistently detected, but later (87), emerged as an actionable target following rigorous validation and the availability of effective HER2-directed agents. This emphasizes that dismissing rare variants without definitive negative evidence may prematurely close therapeutic avenues; the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (88), particularly when detection methods remain unstandardized. This indicates the need for further definitive validation studies employing state-of-the-art methods before abandoning EGFRvIII as a target in HNSCC. Rather than large-scale screening evidence, we ask for a targeted investigation in the contexts that merits exploration like cases with cetuximab refractory, chemo-resistant HNSCC patients.

In comparison with the GBM detection standards, there is a stark difference in EGFRvIII validation, as GBM had robust validation achieved through orthogonal detection platforms that cross validate one another with high concordance rates in quality controlled studies (66, 89). The infrastructure for standard sample processing including the GBM tissue banks by TCGA with rigorous quality control metrics (RNA integrity number >7), standard nucleic acid extraction protocols, development of real time RT-PCR assays for detection from FFPE samples (47) and systematic documentation of ischemic time has been largely absent in HNSCC cohorts (90). Multiple clinical trials were done to provide clinical relevance of EGFRvIII positive GBM (91).

The path forward demands methodological reproducibility and scientific rigor. Paradoxical correlations such as improved disease control in Chau et al.’s cohort underscore how technical artifacts can skew clinical interpretation (39). EGFRvIII-targeted strategies should be reserved for the rare patients whose tumors truly harbor this variant, confirmed through orthogonal, state-of-the-art detection methods. Only through such disciplined investigation can we avoid the twin perils of premature dismissal of a potentially actionable target and over-interpretation of technical artifacts in this molecularly diverse disease. The stakes are high as patients with rare oncogenic drivers deserve the same precision medicine advances as those with common alterations, but only if our detection methods and clinical validation are equal to the challenge.

 Proposed consensus to be considered

To resolve controversies surrounding EGFRvIII detection in HNC, the field requires stringent consensus standards for future studies. We propose implementation of the guidelines required for GBM tissues: all putative EGFRvIII-positive cases must be confirmed using at least two independent detection platforms, including nucleic acid methods like digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) with 0.01% sensitivity or next-generation sequencing with a minimum 1000× coverage, plus protein-level confirmation through immunohistochemistry with validated EGFRvIII-specific antibodies. Sample quality control is essential, requiring RNA integrity numbers ≥7, a minimum 30% tumor cellularity, documented ischemic time under one hour, and at least 20 ng DNA input. Detection thresholds should be harmonized with a minimum variant allele frequency of 1% to distinguish true signals from background noise, alongside standardized reporting of all technical parameters including VAF (Variant Allele Frequency), tumor cellularity, and detection methods. Every experimental run must include both EGFRvIII-positive cell line controls and WT EGFR controls to validate assay performance.

Future studies should be prospective (39) rather than retrospective, with predefined detection protocols registered before patient enrollment and coordinated across at least three independent institutions to avoid site-specific artifacts and selection bias. Clinical validation requires clearly defined endpoints established prior, with overall survival and progression-free survival as primary endpoints for prognostic studies, while predictive studies should compare response rates between EGFRvIII-positive and negative subgroups. Therapeutic trials testing EGFRvIII-directed agents should enroll only patients with orthogonally confirmed positive tumors, using objective response rates and safety as primary endpoints with adequate statistical power calculations. This multi-platform concordance approach mirrors established practices in HER2 testing and addresses the technical artifacts that have plagued previous single-method studies. These rigorous standards, incorporating lessons from failed GBM vaccine trials and successful HPV biomarker validations, provide the necessary framework for definitive resolution of EGFRvIII’s role in HNSCC. A multi-phase consortium should establish standardized EGFRvIII detection protocols and conduct prospective studies (n=500-750) to definitively determine prevalence, clinical associations, and potential therapeutic relevance in HNSCC over 5–7 years. If prevalence is confirmed <1% without clinical significance, the field should formally abandon EGFRvIII as a biomarker and redirect resources to more promising targets.

 Conclusion

As shown in this review of literature reporting EGFRvIII expression in HNSCC, early reports of high frequency, aggressive disease associations have given way to ultra-sensitive assays revealing the true rarity and questionable significance of EGFRvIII in this malignancy. To avoid perpetuating the confusion of the past two decades, the field needs to employ tools validated for this biomarker in other cancers like digital PCR, next-generation sequencing, standardized IHC, and multi-institutional collaborative networks to definitively answer whether EGFRvIII is a needle worth finding in the HNSCC haystack. What remains is the collective will to execute adequately powered, methodologically sound studies that will either validate EGFRvIII as a bona fide clinical target in HNSCC or close this chapter definitively. In summary, EGFRvIII in HNSCC teaches us that biology and methodology are inseparable and EGFRvIII-targeted strategies should be reserved for the rare patients whose tumors truly harbor this variant.

 Author contributions

SJ: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Data curation, Validation, Conceptualization, Methodology. BK: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Data curation, Writing – review & editing, Validation, Conceptualization, Supervision. JS: Visualization, Writing – original draft, Formal Analysis, Data curation, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. AW: Data curation, Validation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. JB: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Data curation, Methodology. IR: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Investigation. CT: Supervision, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Formal Analysis, Validation, Writing – original draft. AM: Writing – original draft, Formal Analysis, Validation, Project administration, Writing – review & editing, Supervision. ER: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision. JW: Writing – original draft, Formal Analysis, Validation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Conceptualization, Methodology.

 Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Prof. Sooryanarayana Varambally and Dr. Anna G. Sorace for insightful discussions and for inspiring the conceptual framework that motivated this review.

 Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

 Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

 Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

 References Pedersen MW Meltorn M Damstrup L Poulsen HS . The type III epidermal growth factor receptor mutation. Biological significance and potential target for anti-cancer therapy. Ann Oncol. (2001) 12:745–60. doi: 10.1023/A:1011177318162, PMID: 11484948 Kalra S Baruah MP Unnikrishnan AG . Celebrating life with Rita Levi-Montalcini: A hundred years and more. Indian J Endocrinol Metab. (2012) 16:327–8. doi: 10.4103/2230-8210.95657, PMID: 22629493 Rutkowska A Stoczyńska-Fidelus E Janik K Włodarczyk A Rieske P . EGFR(vIII): an oncogene with ambiguous role. J Oncol. (2019) 2019:1092587. doi: 10.1155/2019/1092587, PMID: 32089685 Camorani S Crescenzi E Colecchia D Carpentieri A Amoresano A Fedele M . Aptamer targeting EGFRvIII mutant hampers its constitutive autophosphorylation and affects migration, invasion and proliferation of glioblastoma cells. Oncotarget. (2015) 6:37570–87. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.6066, PMID: 26461476 Li L Chakraborty S Yang CR Hatanpaa KJ Cipher DJ Puliyappadamba VT . An EGFR wild type-EGFRvIII-HB-EGF feed-forward loop regulates the activation of EGFRvIII. Oncogene. (2014) 33:4253–64. doi: 10.1038/onc.2013.400, PMID: 24077285 Wei JW Cui JQ Zhou X Fang C Tan YL Chen LY . F25P preproinsulin abrogates the secretion of pro-growth factors from EGFRvIII cells and suppresses tumor growth in an EGFRvIII/wt heterogenic model. Cancer Lett. (2016) 380:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2016.06.006, PMID: 27317648 Thomas Koch D Pickhard A Gebel L Buchberger AMS Bas M Mogler C . Epidermal growth factor receptor variant III in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma is not relevant for targeted therapy and irradiation. Oncotarget. (2017) 8:32668–82. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.15949, PMID: 28427242 Tinhofer I Klinghammer K Weichert W Knödler M Stenzinger A Gauler T . Expression of amphiregulin and EGFRvIII affect outcome of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck receiving cetuximab-docetaxel treatment. Clin Cancer Res. (2011) 17:5197–204. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-3338, PMID: 21653686 Gan HK Cvrljevic AN Johns TG . The epidermal growth factor receptor variant III (EGFRvIII): where wild things are altered. FEBS J. (2013) 280:5350–70. doi: 10.1111/febs.12393, PMID: 23777544 An Z Aksoy O Zheng T Fan QW Weiss WA . Epidermal growth factor receptor and EGFRvIII in glioblastoma: signaling pathways and targeted therapies. Oncogene. (2018) 37:1561–75. doi: 10.1038/s41388-017-0045-7, PMID: 29321659 Zheng L Luthra R Alvarez HA San Lucas FA Duose DY Wistuba II . Intragenic EGFR::EGFR.E1E8 fusion (EGFRvIII) in 4331 solid tumors. Cancers (Basel). (2023) 16:6. doi: 10.3390/cancers16010006, PMID: 38201434 Sok JC Coppelli FM Thomas SM Lango MN Xi S Hunt JL . Mutant epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFRvIII) contributes to head and neck cancer growth and resistance to EGFR targeting. Clin Cancer Res. (2006) 12:5064–73. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0913, PMID: 16951222 Macdonald-Obermann JL Pike LJ . Extracellular domain mutations of the EGF receptor differentially modulate high-affinity and low-affinity responses to EGF receptor ligands. J Biol Chem. (2024) 300:105763. doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2024.105763, PMID: 38367671 Bagchi A Stayrook SE Xenaki KT Starbird CA Doulkeridou S El Khoulati R . Structural insights into the role and targeting of EGFRvIII. Structure. (2024) 32:1367–80.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.str.2024.05.018, PMID: 38908376 Greenall SA Johns TG . EGFRvIII: the promiscuous mutation. Cell Death Discov. (2016) 2:16049. doi: 10.1038/cddiscovery.2016.49, PMID: 27551537 Ozanne B Richards CS Hendler F Burns D Gusterson B . Over-expression of the EGF receptor is a hallmark of squamous cell carcinomas. J Pathol. (1986) 149:9–14. doi: 10.1002/path.1711490104, PMID: 2425067 Grandis JR Tweardy DJ . TGF-alpha and EGFR in head and neck cancer. J Cell Biochem Suppl. (1993) 17f:188–91. doi: 10.1002/jcb.240531027, PMID: 8412192 Fasano M Della Corte CM Viscardi G Di Liello R Paragliola F Sparano F . Head and neck cancer: the role of anti-EGFR agents in the era of immunotherapy. Ther Adv Med Oncol. (2021) 13:1758835920949418. doi: 10.1177/1758835920949418, PMID: 33767760 Melchers LJ Clausen MJ Mastik MF Slagter-Menkema L Langendijk JA van der Laan BF . Head and neck squamous cell carcinomas do not express EGFRvIII. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. (2014) 90:454–62. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.06.035, PMID: 25304797 Khattri A Zuo Z Brägelmann J Keck MK El Dinali M Brown CD . Rare occurrence of EGFRvIII deletion in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol. (2015) 51:53–8. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2014.08.014, PMID: 25255959 Chang KY Tsai SY Chen SH Tsou HH Yen CJ Liu KJ . Dissecting the EGFR-PI3K-AKT pathway in oral cancer highlights the role of the EGFR variant III and its clinical relevance. J BioMed Sci. (2013) 20:43. doi: 10.1186/1423-0127-20-43, PMID: 23806066 Peng HY Chang KY Chang WM Wu CY Lee HL Chang YC . EGFRvIII-driven microenvironmental fibroblast activation and transformation accelerate oral cancer progression via lipocalin-2/STAT3 axis. Neoplasia. (2025) 66:101193. doi: 10.1016/j.neo.2025.101193, PMID: 40472740 Wheeler SE Suzuki S Thomas SM Sen M Leeman-Neill RJ Chiosea SI . Epidermal growth factor receptor variant III mediates head and neck cancer cell invasion via STAT3 activation. Oncogene. (2010) 29:5135–45. doi: 10.1038/onc.2009.279, PMID: 20622897 Yang B Chen J Zhang X Cao J . Expression of Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor variant III in laryngeal carcinoma tissues. Auris Nasus Larynx. (2009) 36:682–7. doi: 10.1016/j.anl.2009.03.002, PMID: 19427146 McIntyre JB Bose P Klimowicz AC Brockton NT Petrillo S Matthews W . Specific and sensitive hydrolysis probe-based real-time PCR detection of epidermal growth factor receptor variant III in oral squamous cell carcinoma. PloS One. (2012) 7:e31723. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031723, PMID: 22359620 Wheeler SE Egloff AM Wang L James CD Hammerman PS Grandis JR . Challenges in EGFRvIII detection in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. PloS One. (2015) 10:e0117781. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117781, PMID: 25658924 Keller J Shroyer KR Batajoo SK Zhao HL Dong LM Hayman MJ . Combination of phosphorylated and truncated EGFR correlates with higher tumor and nodal stage in head and neck cancer. Cancer Invest. (2010) 28:1054–62. doi: 10.3109/07357907.2010.512602, PMID: 20873989 Bou-Assaly W Mukherji S . Cetuximab (erbitux). AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. (2010) 31:626–7. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A2054, PMID: 20167650 Chhouri H Alexandre D Grumolato L . Mechanisms of acquired resistance and tolerance to EGFR targeted therapy in non-small cell lung cancer. Cancers (Basel). (2023) 15:504. doi: 10.3390/cancers15020504, PMID: 36672453 Rehmani HS Issaeva N . EGFR in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: exploring possibilities of novel drug combinations. Ann Transl Med. (2020) 8:813. doi: 10.21037/atm.2020.04.07, PMID: 32793658 Li Q Li Z Luo T Shi H . Targeting the PI3K/AKT/mTOR and RAF/MEK/ERK pathways for cancer therapy. Mol Biomed. (2022) 3:47. doi: 10.1186/s43556-022-00110-2, PMID: 36539659 Wheeler SE Morariu EM Bednash JS Otte CG Seethala RR Chiosea SI . Lyn kinase mediates cell motility and tumor growth in EGFRvIII-expressing head and neck cancer. Clin Cancer Res. (2012) 18:2850–60. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2486, PMID: 22490227 Inda MM Bonavia R Mukasa A Narita Y Sah DW Vandenberg S . Tumor heterogeneity is an active process maintained by a mutant EGFR-induced cytokine circuit in glioblastoma. Genes Dev. (2010) 24:1731–45. doi: 10.1101/gad.1890510, PMID: 20713517 Yeo AT Jun HJ Appleman VA Zhang P Varma H Sarkaria JN . EGFRvIII tumorigenicity requires PDGFRA co-signaling and reveals therapeutic vulnerabilities in glioblastoma. Oncogene. (2021) 40:2682–96. doi: 10.1038/s41388-021-01721-9, PMID: 33707748 Greenall SA McKenzie M Seminova E Dolezal O Pearce L Bentley J . Most clinical anti-EGFR antibodies do not neutralize both wtEGFR and EGFRvIII activation in glioma. Neuro Oncol. (2019) 21:1016–27. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noz073, PMID: 31002307 Jungbluth AA Stockert E Huang HJ Collins VP Coplan K Iversen K . A monoclonal antibody recognizing human cancers with amplification/overexpression of the human epidermal growth factor receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. (2003) 100:639–44. doi: 10.1073/pnas.232686499, PMID: 12515857 Eriksen J Lassen P Overgaard J . 8507 The EGFRvIII variant in squamous cell carcinomas of the head and neck: Expression and correlation with clinico-pathological parameters in 675 patients from the randomised DAHANCA 6/7 study. Eur J Cancer Suppl. (2009) 7:472. doi: 10.1016/S1359-6349(09)71598-8 Hama T Yuza Y Saito Y Ou J Kondo S Okabe M . Prognostic significance of epidermal growth factor receptor phosphorylation and mutation in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oncologist. (2009) 14:900–8. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2009-0058, PMID: 19726454 Chau NG Perez-Ordonez B Zhang K Pham NA Ho J Zhang T . The association between EGFR variant III, HPV, p16, c-MET, EGFR gene copy number and response to EGFR inhibitors in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Head Neck Oncol. (2011) 3:11. doi: 10.1186/1758-3284-3-11, PMID: 21352589 Szabó B Nelhubel GA Kárpáti A Kenessey I Jóri B Székely C . Clinical significance of genetic alterations and expression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Oral Oncol. (2011) 47:487–96. doi: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2011.03.020, PMID: 21498106 Smilek P Neuwirthova J Jarkovsky J Dusek L Rottenberg J Kostrica R . Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression and mutations in the EGFR signaling pathway in correlation with anti-EGFR therapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Neoplasma. (2012) 59:508–15. doi: 10.4149/neo_2012_065, PMID: 22668015 Boeckx C Weyn C Vanden Bempt I Deschoolmeester V Wouters A Specenier P . Mutation analysis of genes in the EGFR pathway in Head and Neck cancer patients: implications for anti-EGFR treatment response. BMC Res Notes. (2014) 7:337. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-337, PMID: 24899223 Comprehensive genomic characterization of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Nature. (2015) 517:576–82. doi: 10.1038/nature14129, PMID: 25631445 Kriegs M Clauditz TS Hoffer K Bartels J Buhs S Gerull H . Analyzing expression and phosphorylation of the EGF receptor in HNSCC. Sci Rep. (2019) 9:13564. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-49885-5, PMID: 31537844 Saxena D Sheikh S Kao G Binder ZA Alonso-Basanta M O’Rourke DM . Rapid and ultrasensitive digital PCR (dPCR) profiling of EGFRvIII in tumor cells and tissues. Neurooncol Adv. (2019) 1:vdz030. doi: 10.1093/noajnl/vdz030, PMID: 31807732 Miller ML Tome-Garcia J Waluszko A Sidorenko T Kumar C Ye F . Practical bioinformatic DNA-sequencing pipeline for detecting oncogene amplification and EGFRvIII mutational status in clinical glioblastoma samples. J Mol Diagn. (2019) 21:514–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2019.02.001, PMID: 31000415 Yoshimoto K Dang J Zhu S Nathanson D Huang T Dumont R . Development of a real-time RT-PCR assay for detecting EGFRvIII in glioblastoma samples. Clin Cancer Res. (2008) 14:488–93. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1966, PMID: 18223223 Gallus R Nauta IH Marklund L Rizzo D Crescio C Mureddu L . Accuracy of p16 IHC in classifying HPV-driven OPSCC in different populations. Cancers (Basel). (2023) 15:656. doi: 10.3390/cancers15030656, PMID: 36765613 Al-Azzawi HMA Hamza SA Paolini R Lim M Patini R Celentano A . PD-L1/PD-1 expression in the treatment of oral squamous cell carcinoma and oral potentially Malignant disorders: an overview of reviews. J Pers Med. (2025) 15:126. doi: 10.3390/jpm15040126, PMID: 40278305 Levin Y Talsania K Tran B Shetty J Zhao Y Mehta M . Optimization for sequencing and analysis of degraded FFPE-RNA samples. J Vis Exp. (2020) 160:10–3791. doi: 10.3791/61060-v, PMID: 32568231 Takes RP Baatenburg de Jong RJ Schuuring E Litvinov SV Hermans J Van Krieken JH . Differences in expression of oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes in different sites of head and neck squamous cell. Anticancer Res. (1998) 18:4793–800., PMID: 9891559 Leemans CR Braakhuis BJ Brakenhoff RH . The molecular biology of head and neck cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. (2011) 11:9–22. doi: 10.1038/nrc2982, PMID: 21160525 Johnson DE Burtness B Leemans CR Lui VWY Bauman JE Grandis JR . Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers. (2020) 6:92. doi: 10.1038/s41572-020-00224-3, PMID: 33243986 Machczyński P Majchrzak E Niewinski P Marchlewska J Golusiński W . A review of the 8th edition of the AJCC staging system for oropharyngeal cancer according to HPV status. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. (2020) 277:2407–12. doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-05979-9, PMID: 32342197 Lechner M Liu J Masterson L Fenton TR . HPV-associated oropharyngeal cancer: epidemiology, molecular biology and clinical management. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. (2022) 19:306–27. doi: 10.1038/s41571-022-00603-7, PMID: 35105976 Barsouk A Aluru JS Rawla P Saginala K Barsouk A . Epidemiology, risk factors, and prevention of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Med Sci (Basel). (2023) 11:42. doi: 10.3390/medsci11020042, PMID: 37367741 Machiels JP René Leemans C Golusinski W Grau C Licitra L Gregoire V . Squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, larynx, oropharynx and hypopharynx: EHNS-ESMO-ESTRO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. (2020) 31:1462–75. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2020.07.011, PMID: 33239190 Michmerhuizen NL Birkeland AC Bradford CR Brenner JC . Genetic determinants in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and their influence on global personalized medicine. Genes Cancer. (2016) 7:182–200. doi: 10.18632/genesandcancer.110, PMID: 27551333 Kalyankrishna S Grandis JR . Epidermal growth factor receptor biology in head and neck cancer. J Clin Oncol. (2006) 24:2666–72. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.8306, PMID: 16763281 Singh S Dey D Barik D Mohapatra I Kim S Sharma M . Glioblastoma at the crossroads: current understanding and future therapeutic horizons. Signal Transduct Target Ther. (2025) 10:213. doi: 10.1038/s41392-025-02299-4, PMID: 40628732 Furnari FB Cloughesy TF Cavenee WK Mischel PS . Heterogeneity of epidermal growth factor receptor signalling networks in glioblastoma. Nat Rev Cancer. (2015) 15:302–10. doi: 10.1038/nrc3918, PMID: 25855404 Bossi P Resteghini C Paielli N Licitra L Pilotti S Perrone F . Prognostic and predictive value of EGFR in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oncotarget. (2016) 7:74362–79. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.11413, PMID: 27556186 Mellinghoff IK Wang MY Vivanco I Haas-Kogan DA Zhu S Dia EQ . Molecular determinants of the response of glioblastomas to EGFR kinase inhibitors. New Engl J Med. (2005) 353:2012–24. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa051918, PMID: 16282176 Pelloski CE Ballman KV Furth AF Zhang L Lin E Sulman EP . Epidermal growth factor receptor variant III status defines clinically distinct subtypes of glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol. (2007) 25:2288–94. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.0705, PMID: 17538175 Shinojima N Tada K Shiraishi S Kamiryo T Kochi M Nakamura H . Prognostic value of epidermal growth factor receptor in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Cancer Res. (2003) 63:6962–70., PMID: 14583498 Heimberger AB Hlatky R Suki D Yang D Weinberg J Gilbert M . Prognostic effect of epidermal growth factor receptor and EGFRvIII in glioblastoma multiforme patients. Clin Cancer Res. (2005) 11:1462–6. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-1737, PMID: 15746047 Nassar SI Suk A Nguyen SA Adilbay D Pang J Nathan CO . The role of ctDNA and liquid biopsy in the diagnosis and monitoring of head and neck cancer: towards precision medicine. Cancers (Basel). (2024) 16:3129. doi: 10.3390/cancers16183129, PMID: 39335101 Rutkowska A Strózik T Jędrychowska-Dańska K Zamerska A Jesionek-Kupnicka D Kowalczyk T . Immunohistochemical detection of EGFRvIII in glioblastoma - Anti-EGFRvIII antibody validation for diagnostic and CAR-T purposes. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. (2023) 685:149133. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2023.149133, PMID: 37918325 Batool SM Muralidharan K Hsia T Falotico S Gamblin AS Rosenfeld YB . Highly sensitive EGFRvIII detection in circulating extracellular vesicle RNA of glioma patients. Clin Cancer Res. (2022) 28:4070–82. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-22-0444, PMID: 35849415 Iurlaro R Waldhauer I Planas-Rigol E Bonfill-Teixidor E Arias A Nicolini V . A novel EGFRvIII T-cell bispecific antibody for the treatment of glioblastoma. Mol Cancer Ther. (2022) 21:1499–509. doi: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-22-0201, PMID: 35915983 Kirshner JR MacDonald D Thurston G Martin JH Delfino F Kelly M . inventors; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, assignee. Anti-EGFRvIII antibodies and uses thereof. United States patent US. (2016) 9:475–875. Wikstrand CJ McLendon RE Friedman AH Bigner DD . Cell surface localization and density of the tumor-associated variant of the epidermal growth factor receptor, EGFRvIII. Cancer Res. (1997) 57:4130–40., PMID: 9307304 Li X Chen T Li X Zhang H Li Y Zhang S . Therapeutic targets of armored chimeric antigen receptor T cells navigating the tumor microenvironment. Exp Hematol Oncol. (2024) 13:96. doi: 10.1186/s40164-024-00564-w, PMID: 39350256 Virgil H . Adjuvant neoantigen peptide vaccine PGV-001 shows promise in multiple Malignancies. OncLive (2021). Cranbury (NJ): MJH Life Sciences. Available online at: https://www.onclive.com/view/adjuvant-neoantigen-peptide-vaccine-pgv-001-shows-promise-in-multiple-malignancies (Accessed February 16, 2026). Liu X Harbison RA Varvares MA Puram SV Peng G . Immunotherapeutic strategies in head and neck cancer: challenges and opportunities. J Clin Invest. (2025) 135. doi: 10.1172/JCI188128, PMID: 40231472 Meng J Liu Y Gao S Lin S Gu X Pomper MG . A bivalent recombinant immunotoxin with high potency against tumors with EGFR and EGFRvIII expression. Cancer Biol Ther. (2015) 16:1764–74. doi: 10.1080/15384047.2015.1095403, PMID: 26467217 Johns TG Mellman I Cartwright GA Ritter G Old LJ Burgess AW . The antitumor monoclonal antibody 806 recognizes a high-mannose form of the EGF receptor that reaches the cell surface when cells over-express the receptor. FASEB J. (2005) 19:780–2. doi: 10.1096/fj.04-1766fje, PMID: 15774576 Gan HK Burgess AW Clayton AH Scott AM . Targeting of a conformationally exposed, tumor-specific epitope of EGFR as a strategy for cancer therapy. Cancer Res. (2012) 72:2924–30. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-3898, PMID: 22659454 Montgomery RB Guzman J O’Rourke DM Stahl WL . Expression of oncogenic epidermal growth factor receptor family kinases induces paclitaxel resistance and alters beta-tubulin isotype expression. J Biol Chem. (2000) 275:17358–63. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M000966200, PMID: 10749863 Ravanpay AC Gust J Johnson AJ Rolczynski LS Cecchini M Chang CA . EGFR806-CAR T cells selectively target a tumor-restricted EGFR epitope in glioblastoma. Oncotarget. (2019) 10:7080–95. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.27389, PMID: 31903167 Choi BD Gerstner ER Frigault MJ Leick MB Mount CW Balaj L . Intraventricular CARv3-TEAM-E T cells in recurrent glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. (2024) 390:1290–8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2314390, PMID: 38477966 Puliyappadamba VT Chakraborty S Chauncey SS Li L Hatanpaa KJ Mickey B . Opposing effect of EGFRWT on EGFRvIII-mediated NF-κB activation with RIP1 as a cell death switch. Cell Rep. (2013) 4:764–75. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2013.07.025, PMID: 23972990 Huang L Fu L . Mechanisms of resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Acta Pharm Sin B. (2015) 5:390–401. doi: 10.1016/j.apsb.2015.07.001, PMID: 26579470 Fujino T Suda K Mitsudomi T . Lung cancer with MET exon 14 skipping mutation: genetic feature, current treatments, and future challenges. Lung Cancer (Auckl). (2021) 12:35–50. doi: 10.2147/LCTT.S269307, PMID: 34295201 Solomon JP Hechtman JF . Detection of NTRK fusions: merits and limitations of current diagnostic platforms. Cancer Res. (2019) 79:3163–8. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-19-0372, PMID: 31196931 Cocco E Scaltriti M Drilon A . NTRK fusion-positive cancers and TRK inhibitor therapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. (2018) 15:731–47. doi: 10.1038/s41571-018-0113-0, PMID: 30333516 Birkeland AC Yanik M Tillman BN Scott MV Foltin SK Mann JE . Identification of targetable ERBB2 aberrations in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. (2016) 142:559–67. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2016.0335, PMID: 27077364 Altman DG Bland JM . Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Bmj. (1995) 311:485. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7003.485, PMID: 7647644 Brennan CW Verhaak RG McKenna A Campos B Noushmehr H Salama SR . The somatic genomic landscape of glioblastoma. Cell. (2013) 155:462–77. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.09.034, PMID: 24120142 Comprehensive genomic characterization defines human glioblastoma genes and core pathways. Nature. (2008) 455:1061–8. doi: 10.1038/nature07385, PMID: 18772890 Weller M Butowski N Tran DD Recht LD Lim M Hirte H . Rindopepimut with temozolomide for patients with newly diagnosed, EGFRvIII-expressing glioblastoma (ACT IV): a randomised, double-blind, international phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. (2017) 18:1373–85. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30517-X, PMID: 28844499

Edited by: Jan Baptist Vermorken, University of Antwerp, Belgium

Reviewed by: Baris Ertugrul, Istanbul University, Türkiye

Shiting Li, University of Michigan, United States

NGS, next generation sequencing, Extracellular Matrix; FFPE, Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded; GBM, Glioblastoma; HNC, Head and neck cancer; HNSCC, Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma; IHC, Immunohistochemistry; MMP, Matrix metalloproteinase; qPCR, Quantitative PCR; RT-PCR, Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction; R/M SCCHN, Recurrent/Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Head and Neck.