OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare the adequacy of core needle biopsy specimens with the adequacy of specimens from resected tissue, the histologic reference standard, for mutational analysis of malignant tumors of the lung. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The first 18 patients enrolled in a phase 2 study of gefitinib for lung cancer in July 2004 through August 2005 underwent CT- or fluoroscopy-guided lung biopsy before the start of gefitinib therapy. Three weeks after gefitinib therapy, the patients underwent lung tumor resection. The results of EGFR and KRAS mutational analysis of the core needle biopsy specimens were compared with those of EGFR and KRAS mutational analysis of the surgical specimens. RESULTS: Two specimens were unsatisfactory for mutational analysis. The results of mutational assay results of the other 16 specimens were the same as those of analysis of the surgical specimens obtained an average of 31 days after biopsy. CONCLUSION: Biopsy with small (18- to 20-gauge) core needles can yield sufficient and reliable samples for mutational analysis. This technique is likely to become an important tool with the increasing use of pharmacotherapy based on the genetics of specific tumors in individual patients.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare the adequacy of core needle biopsy specimens with the adequacy of specimens from resected tissue, the histologic reference standard, for mutational analysis of malignant tumors of the lung. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The first 18 patients enrolled in a phase 2 study of gefitinib for lung cancer in July 2004 through August 2005 underwent CT- or fluoroscopy-guided lung biopsy before the start of gefitinib therapy. Three weeks after gefitinib therapy, the patients underwent lung tumor resection. The results of EGFR and KRAS mutational analysis of the core needle biopsy specimens were compared with those of EGFR and KRAS mutational analysis of the surgical specimens. RESULTS: Two specimens were unsatisfactory for mutational analysis. The results of mutational assay results of the other 16 specimens were the same as those of analysis of the surgical specimens obtained an average of 31 days after biopsy. CONCLUSION: Biopsy with small (18- to 20-gauge) core needles can yield sufficient and reliable samples for mutational analysis. This technique is likely to become an important tool with the increasing use of pharmacotherapy based on the genetics of specific tumors in individual patients.
Authors: Matthew Ellis; Natalie Davis; Andrew Coop; Minetta Liu; Lisa Schumaker; Richard Y Lee; Rujirutana Srikanchana; Chris G Russell; Baljit Singh; William R Miller; Vered Stearns; Marie Pennanen; Theodore Tsangaris; Ann Gallagher; Aiyi Liu; Alan Zwart; Daniel F Hayes; Marc E Lippman; Yue Wang; Robert Clarke Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Martine J Piccart-Gebhart; Marion Procter; Brian Leyland-Jones; Aron Goldhirsch; Michael Untch; Ian Smith; Luca Gianni; Jose Baselga; Richard Bell; Christian Jackisch; David Cameron; Mitch Dowsett; Carlos H Barrios; Günther Steger; Chiun-Shen Huang; Michael Andersson; Moshe Inbar; Mikhail Lichinitser; István Láng; Ulrike Nitz; Hiroji Iwata; Christoph Thomssen; Caroline Lohrisch; Thomas M Suter; Josef Rüschoff; Tamás Suto; Victoria Greatorex; Carol Ward; Carolyn Straehle; Eleanor McFadden; M Stella Dolci; Richard D Gelber Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: William Pao; Vincent Miller; Maureen Zakowski; Jennifer Doherty; Katerina Politi; Inderpal Sarkaria; Bhuvanesh Singh; Robert Heelan; Valerie Rusch; Lucinda Fulton; Elaine Mardis; Doris Kupfer; Richard Wilson; Mark Kris; Harold Varmus Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2004-08-25 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: W Fraser Symmans; Mark Ayers; Edwin A Clark; James Stec; Kenneth R Hess; Nour Sneige; Thomas A Buchholz; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Nuhad K Ibrahim; Aman U Buzdar; Richard L Theriault; Marguerite F M Rosales; Eva S Thomas; Karin M Gwyn; Marjorie C Green; Abdul R Syed; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Lajos Pusztai Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: William Pao; Vincent A Miller; Katerina A Politi; Gregory J Riely; Romel Somwar; Maureen F Zakowski; Mark G Kris; Harold Varmus Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2005-02-22 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Binsheng Zhao; Geoffrey R Oxnard; Chaya S Moskowitz; Mark G Kris; William Pao; Pingzhen Guo; Valerie M Rusch; Marc Ladanyi; Naiyer A Rizvi; Lawrence H Schwartz Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-06-09 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: A Warth; L Bubendorf; S Gütz; A Morresi-Hauf; M Hummel; K Junker; U Lehmann; I Petersen; P A Schnabel Journal: Pathologe Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 1.011
Authors: C Lim; H S Sekhon; J C Cutz; D M Hwang; S Kamel-Reid; R F Carter; G da Cunha Santos; T Waddell; M Binnie; M Patel; N Paul; T Chung; A Brade; R El-Maraghi; C Sit; M S Tsao; N B Leighl Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Alda L Tam; Edward S Kim; J Jack Lee; Joe E Ensor; Marshall E Hicks; Ximing Tang; George R Blumenschein; Christine M Alden; Jeremy J Erasmus; Anne Tsao; Scott M Lippman; Waun K Hong; Ignacio I Wistuba; Sanjay Gupta Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 15.609