ArticlePathology oncology research : POR2020
The Clinical Impact of Re-biopsies in Lung Adenocarcinoma: a Retrospective Multicenter Study.
Article in Pathology oncology research : POR, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
If a patient's cancer progresses while undergoing targeted therapy, a re-biopsy is not mandatory. But when evaluating the benefits and risks on a case-by-case basis (transformation to small cell, assessing for a clinical trial), physicians should inform patients about the possible need for a re-biopsy (5). This was a retrospective and multicentre study. A total of 644 patients with lung adenocarcinoma were reviewed, 625 of whom were ruled eligible. From them, 399 were found to show disease progression, and 126 re-biopsies were performed. Progression status, re-biopsy sites, success of obtaining adequate tissue, molecular patterns after re-biopsy and subsequent treatments were analysed. Survival differences among patients with disease progression were then examined according to re-biopsy status. Overall, 625 patients with adenocarcinoma and a median age of 61.4 were evaluated. Initial tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) usage numbered 37 patients (5.9%). Progression was diagnosed in 399 (63.8%) patients, out of which 26 (31.6%) underwent re-biopsies. The successful number of re-biopsies was 103 (81.7%). No complications were observed after any of the biopsy procedures. Subsequent treatments were changed in 15 patients (11.9%), who began new TKI treatments. Poor performance status was the most common reason for not performing a biopsy (n = 65; 23.8%), followed by the physician's decision (n = 40; 14.6%). Re-biopsies can demonstrate the new characteristics of a tumour and can detect the activation of pre-existing clones, making possible new treatment opportunities for patients. According to the performance status of the patient and the availability of the progressive lesion, we should increase the rate of re-biopsies before the decision to follow up with the best supportive care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.