ArticleCancer medicine2022
Comparison of sampling methods for next generation sequencing for patients with lung cancer.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Feasibility of next-generation sequencing using bronchoscopic specimens in potentially resectable non-small cell lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Article
- High-Quality Samples for Next-Generation Sequencing and PD-L1 Assessment in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: The Role of Endobronchial Ultrasound-Guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Next-Generation Sequencing Analysis on Image-Guided Biopsy Samples in Early-Stage Lung Cancer: Feasibility Study and Comparison With Surgical Samples.JTO clinical and research reports · 2025Article
- Suitability of frozen cell pellets from cytology specimens for the Amoy 9-in-1 assay in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.Thoracic cancer · 2024Article
- Comparison of transbronchial biopsy techniques using needle and forceps biopsies in lung cancer for molecular diagnostics: a prospective, randomized crossover trial.Translational cancer research · 2024Article
- Utility of bronchoscopically obtained frozen cytology pellets for next-generation sequencing.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Tissue or liquid rebiopsy? A prospective study for simultaneous tissue and liquid NGS after first-line EGFR inhibitor resistance in lung cancer.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Utility of needle biopsy in centrally located lung cancer for genome analysis: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Suitability of respiratory endoscopy for sampling malignant thoracic tumors for comprehensive genomic profiling.Cancer science · 2023Article
- NSCLC in the Era of Targeted and Immunotherapy: What Every Pulmonologist Must Know.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Rapid and reliable collection of tumor tissue for successful gene panel in a patient with advanced stage lung cancer: A case report.Thoracic cancer · 2023Article
- Clinical application of comprehensive genomic profiling panel to thoracic malignancies: A single-center retrospective study.Thoracic cancer · 2022Article
- Comparison of sampling methods for next generation sequencing for patients with lung cancer.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSuccess of next generation sequencing (NGS) analysis is becoming indispensable in the treatment of advanced lung cancer. However, the advantages and disadvantages of each sampling method in the NGS analysis have not yet been clarified.
methodsWe compared the success rates of NGS analysis, and DNA and RNA yields for transbronchial biopsy (TBB), endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA), computed tomography (CT)-guided biopsy, fluid sample, and surgical biopsy for NGS analysis in patients through the lung cancer genomic screening project for individualized medicine (LC-SCRUM)-Asia, a nationwide NGS screening project. In case, sufficient samples could not be collected by TBB and EBUS-TBNA, re-biopsy (genome re-biopsy) was performed.
resultsA total of 223 patients were enrolled and success rates of NGS analysis were not different between samples obtained through TBB, EBUS-TBNA, and CT-guided biopsy; however, success rates for fluid samples and surgical biopsy samples were significantly higher than those of other methods. The risk of genome re-biopsy was higher with TBB for centrally located lesions. CT-guided biopsy yielded more samples but had a lower success rate for analysis of RNA-based NGS than TBB.
conclusionsTBB is the mainstay of sampling methods, but for centrally located lesions, EBUS-TBNA may be a better strategy. For CT-guided biopsy, the success rate of RNA-based NGS analysis is low. Fluid samples are expected to yield successful results as surgical biopsy samples, but the latter are better for sample preservation. Determining the optimal method for genome biopsy for each case is important.
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.