ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2026
Comparison of tissue acquisition techniques for Next-Generation Sequencing of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2026. 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.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNext-Generation Sequencing (NGS) allows the use of more efficacious targeted treatments for lung cancer; however, sample inadequacy can cause delays in patient pathways. Here, we compare various methods of tissue acquisition used in clinical practice and identify factors associated with inadequate sampling. MATERIALS AND
methodsSpecimens submitted for NGS from a large single-centre UK academic institution following confirmation of lung cancer were reviewed. The primary objectives were to assess the proportion in which such analysis was successfully completed and identify factors, including the method of tissue acquisition, associated with sample inadequacy for, or failure of, the analysis. Secondary analyses included an assessment of genomic alterations identified by NGS-based analysis and specimen processing times.
resultsDNA-based NGS analysis was successfully completed in 87.1% (n=511/587) of all specimens, with known oncogenic driver variants being identified in 60.6% (n=310/511). Success rates for specific specimen acquisition techniques included 90.0% (n=126/140) for endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration, 79.3% (n=88/111) for percutaneous image-guided lung biopsies, 66.7% (n=14/21) for pleural fluid cell blocks and 60% (n=9/15) for percutaneous image-guided pleural biopsies.Sequential RNA-based NGS analysis was successfully completed in 81.4% (n=92/113) cases, yielding a further 20 fusion gene events. Overall, actionable genomic alterations were identified in a total of 28.0% (n=143/511) of specimens across DNA-based and RNA-based analyses.
conclusionPleural fluid cell blocks and percutaneous image-guided pleural biopsies were least likely to be associated with successful NGS-based processing. Where possible, other sites for tissue acquisition should be considered in individuals with pleural disease to prevent delays in their pathway.
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.