Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26882436›Full record

ArticleCancer cytopathology2016

FNA smears as a potential source of DNA for targeted next-generation sequencing of lung adenocarcinomas.

Amanda L Treece, Nathan D Montgomery, Nirali M Patel, Chris J Civalier, Leslie G Dodd, Margaret L Gulley, Jessica K Booker, Karen E Weck

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer cytopathology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. The utilization of cytologic and small biopsy samples for ancillary molecular testing.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2019
    Review
  14. Salvaging the supernatant: next generation cytopathology for solid tumor mutation profiling.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2018
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Amanda L TreecePathology and Laboratory Medicine, Children's Hospital Colorado, Aurora, Colorado.
Nathan D MontgomeryPathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Nirali M PatelPathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Chris J CivalierPathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Leslie G DoddPathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Margaret L GulleyPathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Jessica K BookerPathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Karen E WeckPathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Funding

Re-Entry Supplement: Investigation of Oral Microbial Enzymes for the Detection and Treatment of Periodontal DiseaseUL1TR002489 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BUSE, JOHN BERNARD, SHAHEEN, NICHOLAS J · 2018 to 2022
$48.6M
North Carolina Translational & Clinical Sciences Institute (NC TraCS)UL1TR001111 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BUSE, JOHN BERNARD, CAREY, TIMOTHY S · 2013 to 2017
$43.9M
North Carolina Translational & Clinical Sciences Institute (NC TraCS)KL2TR001109 · NCATS · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI BUSE, JOHN BERNARD, CAREY, TIMOTHY S · 2013 to 2017
$5.7M
Network Group Integrated Translational Science Centers ApplicationU10CA181009 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI HAYES, DAVID N, PEROU, CHARLES M · 2014 to 2018
$3.4M
Enhanced Formalin Fixation to Improve Tests on Solid TissuesR21CA155543 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI GULLEY, MARGARET L · 2011 to 2012
$312k
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR001109NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001111NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002489NCI NIH HHS R21 CA155543NCI NIH HHS U10 CA181009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiff-Quik-stained fine-needle aspiration (FNA) smears and touch preparations from biopsies represent alternative specimens for molecular testing when cell block or biopsy material is insufficient. This study describes the use of these samples for targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) of primary and metastatic lung adenocarcinoma and reports the DNA quality and success rates of FNA smears versus other specimens from 1 year of clinical use.

methodsA validation set of 10 slides from 9 patients with prior clinical epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) Sanger sequencing and KRAS pyrosequencing (5 KRAS-positive/EGFR-negative and 4 KRAS-negative/EGFR-negative) underwent DNA extraction, quality assessment, and targeted NGS. Subsequently, lung adenocarcinoma specimens submitted for NGS solid tumor mutation panel testing in 1 calendar year (60 biopsies, 57 resections, 33 FNA cell blocks, 12 FNA smears, and 10 body fluid cell blocks) were reviewed for specimen adequacy, sequencing success, and DNA quality.

resultsAll 10 validation samples met the DNA quality threshold (delta Ct threshold < 8; range, -2.2 to 4.9) and yielded 0.5 to 22 μg of DNA. The KRAS and EGFR mutation status from FNA smears according to NGS was concordant with previous clinical testing for all 10 samples. In the 1-year review, FNA smears were 100% successful, and this suggested a performance equivalent to or better than the performance of established specimen types, including FNA cell blocks. DNA quality according to ΔCt was significantly better with FNA smears versus biopsies, resections, and FNA cell blocks.

conclusionsFNA smears of lung adenocarcinomas are high-quality alternative specimens for a targeted NGS panel with a high success rate in clinical practice. Cancer Cytopathol 2016;124:406-14. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaBiomarkers, TumorBiopsy, Fine-NeedleCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungDNA Mutational AnalysisErbB ReceptorsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansLung NeoplasmsLymphatic MetastasisMutationNeoplasm GradingPrognosisProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)Biomarkers, TumorEGFR protein, humanErbB ReceptorsKRAS protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)fine-needle aspirationKRASlung carcinomamassive parallel sequencing

Identifiers

PMID26882436
PMCPMC4905788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.