Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35857102›Full record

ReviewVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2022

Expert opinion on NSCLC small specimen biomarker testing - Part 1: Tissue collection and management.

Frédérique Penault-Llorca, Keith M Kerr, Pilar Garrido, Erik Thunnissen, Elisabeth Dequeker, Nicola Normanno, Simon J Patton, Jenni Fairley, Joshua Kapp, Daniëlle de Ridder and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. BRAFNPJ precision oncology · 2024
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Frédérique Penault-LlorcaUniversity Clermont Auvergne, INSERM U1240, Centre Jean Perrin, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Keith M KerrDepartment of Pathology, Aberdeen University Medical School and Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK.
Pilar GarridoMedical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Ramón Y Cajal, University of Alcalá, Madrid, Spain.
Erik ThunnissenAmsterdam University Medical Center, VU Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Elisabeth DequekerDepartment of Public Health, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, Campus Gasthuisberg, University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Nicola NormannoCell Biology and Biotherapy Unit, Istituto Nazionale Tumori "Fondazione Giovanni Pascale" IRCCS, Naples, Italy.
Simon J PattonEMQN CIC, Manchester, UK.
Jenni FairleyGenQA, Edinburgh, UK.
Joshua KappAmgen (Europe) GmbH, Rotkreuz, Switzerland.
Daniëlle de RidderAmgen BV, Breda, the Netherlands.
Aleš RyškaDepartment of Pathology, Charles University Medical Faculty Hospital, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic.
Holger MochDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. holger.moch@usz.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7986-2839

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biomarker testing is crucial for treatment selection in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the quantity of available tissue often presents a key constraint for patients with advanced disease, where minimally invasive tissue biopsy typically returns small samples. In Part 1 of this two-part series, we summarise evidence-based recommendations relating to small sample processing for patients with NSCLC. Generally, tissue biopsy techniques that deliver the greatest quantity and quality of tissue with the least risk to the patient should be selected. Rapid on-site evaluation can help to ensure sufficient sample quality and quantity. Sample processing should be managed according to biomarker testing requirements, because tissue fixation methodology influences downstream nucleic acid, protein and morphological analyses. Accordingly, 10% neutral buffered formalin is recommended as an appropriate fixative, and the duration of fixation is recommended not to exceed 24-48 h. Tissue sparing techniques, including the 'one biopsy per block' approach and small sample cutting protocols, can help preserve tissue. Cytological material (formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded [FFPE] cytology blocks and non-FFPE samples such as smears and touch preparations) can be an excellent source of nucleic acid, providing either primary or supplementary patient material to complete morphological and molecular diagnoses. Considerations on biomarker testing, reporting and quality assessment are discussed in Part 2.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungLung NeoplasmsNucleic AcidsBiomarkersFixativesFormaldehydeHumansParaffin EmbeddingTissue FixationBiomarkersFixativesFormaldehydeNucleic AcidsBest practiceBiopsyCytological techniquesHistologyMolecular diagnosticsNon-small cell lung carcinoma

Identifiers

PMID35857102
PMCPMC9485167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.