Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29463880›Full record

ArticleModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2018

Salvaging the supernatant: next generation cytopathology for solid tumor mutation profiling.

Sinchita Roy-Chowdhuri, Meenakshi Mehrotra, Ana Maria Bolivar, Rashmi Kanagal-Shamanna, Bedia A Barkoh, Brette Hannigan, Stephanie Zalles, Wenrui Ye, Dzifa Duose, Russell Broaddus and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Next generation sequencing in cytology.Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2021
    Review
  20. Review
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

14 authors.

Sinchita Roy-ChowdhuriDepartment of Pathology, Division of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. sroy2@mdanderson.org.
Meenakshi MehrotraDepartment of Hematopathology, Division of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Ana Maria BolivarDiagnostic Genetics, School of Health Professions, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Rashmi Kanagal-ShamannaDepartment of Hematopathology, Division of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Bedia A BarkohDepartment of Hematopathology, Division of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Brette HanniganDiagnostic Genetics, School of Health Professions, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Stephanie ZallesDiagnostic Genetics, School of Health Professions, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Wenrui YeDiagnostic Genetics, School of Health Professions, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Dzifa DuoseDepartment of Translational Molecular Pathology, Division of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Russell BroaddusDepartment of Pathology, Division of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Gregg StaerkelDepartment of Pathology, Division of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Ignacio WistubaDepartment of Translational Molecular Pathology, Division of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
L Jeffrey MedeirosDepartment of Hematopathology, Division of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Rajyalakshmi LuthraDepartment of Hematopathology, Division of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the expanding role of targeted therapy in patients with solid tumors, pathologists face the daunting task of having to maximize limited volume tissue obtained by fine needle aspiration for a variety of molecular tests. While most molecular studies on fine needle aspiration samples have been reported using cellular material, recent studies have shown that a substantial amount of DNA can be retrieved from the supernatant fluid of aspirate needle rinses after cell pelleting for cytospin or cell block preparations. In routine clinical workflow, the supernatant is discarded; however this fluid may provide a complementary source of DNA for tumor mutational profiling. In this study, we evaluated the post-centrifuged supernatant from 25 malignant and 10 benign fine needle aspiration needle rinses. The mean and median DNA yields from the supernatants were 445 ng and 176.4 ng (range, 15.1-2958 ng), respectively. Next generation sequencing using the Ion AmpliSeq Cancer Hotspot Panel v2 detected somatic mutations in all 25 malignant samples. No mutations were detected in any of the benign samples tested. When available, mutations detected in the supernatant fluid were compared to the next generation sequencing analysis performed on a prior or concurrent surgical specimen from the same patient and showed 100% concordance. In a subset of cases (n = 19) mutations in EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, PIK3CA, and NRAS were successfully confirmed by droplet digital PCR, providing an orthogonal platform for mutation analysis. In summary, in this study we show that post centrifuged supernatants from fine needle aspiration needle rinses can provide a robust substrate for expanded mutation profiling by next generation sequencing, as well as hotspot mutation testing by droplet digital PCR. The ability to detect somatic mutations from otherwise discarded supernatant fluids offers the ability to triage and effectively utilize limited volume fine needle aspiration samples when multiple molecular tests are requested, without the need to re-biopsy for additional tissue samples.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBiopsy, Fine-NeedleCentrifugationDNA Mutational AnalysisDNA, NeoplasmGene Expression ProfilingHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansNeoplasmsSpecimen HandlingBiomarkers, TumorDNA, Neoplasm

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.