ArticleCytoJournal2020
Bronchial brushing cytology is comparable to bronchial biopsy for epidermal growth factor receptor mutation test in non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in CytoJournal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Concordance study of bronchial biopsy tissues and matched bronchial brushing cytology specimens in driver gene detection of non-small cell lung cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesBronchial brushing (BB) is often used to obtain supplementary samples for diagnosing lung cancer. We examined the possibility of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) testing on BB samples and compared them with bronchial biopsy samples. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe used 150 BB samples with non-small cell carcinoma submitted to our department within 2 years. Biopsy samples were concurrently submitted for histologic diagnosis. We used the peptide nucleic acid clamping method for EFGR mutation test. Histologic diagnosis identified 137 cases of adenocarcinomas and 13 cases of non-small cell lung carcinoma, not otherwise specified. Each sample was assessed for adequacy and DNA content for EGFR mutation test.
resultsAmong BB samples, 28 had exon 19 deletion, 21 had mutations in exon 21, 99 were wild type, and analysis of two failed. The EGFR mutation rate in BB samples was 33.1% (49/148). Among bronchial biopsy samples, 26 had exon 19 deletion, 20 had mutations in exon 21, 92 were wild type, and analysis of 12 failed. The EGFR mutation rate using biopsy sample was 33.8% (46/136). The mutation detection results were nearly identical in both groups of samples (131/138, 94.9%). However, in two cases, an exon 21 mZutation was detected in biopsy samples but not in BB samples. In five cases, exon 19 deletion (two cases) and exon 21 mutation (three cases) were detected in BB but not in biopsy samples. The median DNA content was 58.83 ng for BB samples and 48.47 ng for biopsy samples. The failure rate for BB samples was lower than for biopsy samples. Overall, the BB samples were comparable to bronchial biopsy samples in terms of DNA quantity and mutation detection results.
conclusionWe conclude that in case of inadequate biopsy samples, BB samples can be used as a substitute material for EGFR mutation test.
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.