ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022
The utility of sputum supernatant as an alternative liquid biopsy specimen for next-generation sequencing-based somatic variation profiling.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Study of the Spectral-Luminescent Properties of Saliva in Patients With Lung Cancer.Journal of biophotonics · 2026Article
- Harmonizing definitions in liquid biopsy: A terminology framework by the international society of liquid biopsy.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2026Review
- Sputum Liquid Biopsy for Lung Cancer Screening, Diagnosis, Subtyping, Surveillance, Response Prediction, and Prognostication: A Scoping Review.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Liquid biopsy in lung cancer.Breathe (Sheffield, England) · 2025Review
- Liquid Biopsy in Lung Cancer: Biomarkers for the Management of Recurrence and Metastasis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Comprehensive genomic profiling has become standard clinical practice in the management of advanced lung cancer. In addition to tissue and plasma, other body fluids are also being actively explored as alternative sources of tumor DNA. This study investigated the utility of induced sputum obtained from patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for somatic variation profiling. Methods: Our study included 41 treatment-naïve patients diagnosed with locally advanced to advanced NSCLC between October 2018 and June 2019. Capture-based targeted sequencing was performed on matched tumor, plasma, and induced sputum samples of 41 patients using a 168-gene panel. We analyzed the somatic variations detected from each sample type and the concordance of variations detected between matched samples. The concordance rate was defined as the proportion of the total number of variations detected from one sample type relative to the reference sample type. Results: Comparative analysis on the somatic variation detection using matched tumor samples as a reference revealed detection rates of 76.9% for plasma, 72.4% for sputum-supernatant, and 65.7% for sputum-sediment samples. Plasma, sputum-supernatant, and sputum-sediment achieved positive predictive values of 73.3%, 80.4%, and 55.6% and sensitivities of 50.0%, 36.9%, 31.3%, respectively, relative to tumor samples for 168 genes. Sputum-supernatants had significantly higher concordance rates relative to matched tumor samples (69.2% Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that supernatant fraction from induced sputum is a better sampling source than its sediment and performs comparably to plasma samples. Induced sputum from NSCLC patients could serve as an alternative media for next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based somatic variation profiling.
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.