PURPOSE: Knowledge of tumor mutational status has become a priority for effective NSCLC-tailored treatment. NSCLC diagnosis is more often reached through biopsy; thus, there is a clear need to implement for routine tumor molecular profiling on small cytological samples. This work aims to screen and compare the EGFR and KRAS mutational prevalence in fresh tumor cells and in corresponding routinely processed samples derived from trans-thoracic fine-needle aspiration. The latter currently represents the most appropriate diagnostic procedure in case of peripheral lesions, such as adenocarcinomas, which account for almost 40% of all NSCLCs and for the highest EGFR mutational rates. METHODS: Two hundred and forty-four patients carrying peripheral lung masses underwent CT-guided aspiration. The obtained material was split, and a part was addressed to conventional histopathological analysis while the remaining one was stored at -20 °C. In case of confirmation of adenocarcinoma, tumor genomic DNA was extracted from both fresh and fixed material, and EGFR and KRAS sequencing was performed. RESULTS: We identified 136 adenocarcinomas; from 134, we could recover enough material for the study. A full match was demonstrated between EGFR/KRAS mutational prevalences through the two approaches tested. We found EGFR mutations in 13 patients (9.7%); 7 were females and 11 never or former smokers. KRAS mutations occurred in 20 (14.9%) patients. EGFR and KRAS mutations were mutually exclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Mutational screening on fresh cancer cells is an achievable, safe and cost-effective procedure which might allow routinely tumor molecular profiling as powerful integration of conventional histopathological analysis.
PURPOSE: Knowledge of tumor mutational status has become a priority for effective NSCLC-tailored treatment. NSCLC diagnosis is more often reached through biopsy; thus, there is a clear need to implement for routine tumor molecular profiling on small cytological samples. This work aims to screen and compare the EGFR and KRAS mutational prevalence in fresh tumor cells and in corresponding routinely processed samples derived from trans-thoracic fine-needle aspiration. The latter currently represents the most appropriate diagnostic procedure in case of peripheral lesions, such as adenocarcinomas, which account for almost 40% of all NSCLCs and for the highest EGFR mutational rates. METHODS: Two hundred and forty-four patients carrying peripheral lung masses underwent CT-guided aspiration. The obtained material was split, and a part was addressed to conventional histopathological analysis while the remaining one was stored at -20 °C. In case of confirmation of adenocarcinoma, tumor genomic DNA was extracted from both fresh and fixed material, and EGFR and KRAS sequencing was performed. RESULTS: We identified 136 adenocarcinomas; from 134, we could recover enough material for the study. A full match was demonstrated between EGFR/KRAS mutational prevalences through the two approaches tested. We found EGFR mutations in 13 patients (9.7%); 7 were females and 11 never or former smokers. KRAS mutations occurred in 20 (14.9%) patients. EGFR and KRAS mutations were mutually exclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Mutational screening on fresh cancer cells is an achievable, safe and cost-effective procedure which might allow routinely tumor molecular profiling as powerful integration of conventional histopathological analysis.
Authors: Alberto Bardelli; D Williams Parsons; Natalie Silliman; Janine Ptak; Steve Szabo; Saurabh Saha; Sanford Markowitz; James K V Willson; Giovanni Parmigiani; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Victor E Velculescu Journal: Science Date: 2003-05-09 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Olga C J Schuurbiers; Monika G Looijen-Salamon; Marjolijn J L Ligtenberg; Henricus F M van der Heijden Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Stephen B Solomon; Maureen F Zakowski; William Pao; Raymond H Thornton; Marc Ladanyi; Mark G Kris; Valerie W Rusch; Naiyer A Rizvi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: A Kalikaki; A Koutsopoulos; M Trypaki; J Souglakos; E Stathopoulos; V Georgoulias; D Mavroudis; A Voutsina Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2008-09-16 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Annamaria Catino; Andrea Misino; Anna Scattone; Lucia Caldarola; Stella Petroni; Antonio Logroscino; Elisabetta Sara Montagna; Gabriella Serio; Giovanni Simone; Domenico Galetta Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2016-02
Authors: Jaclyn F Hechtman; Ahmet Zehir; Rona Yaeger; Lu Wang; Sumit Middha; Tao Zheng; David M Hyman; David Solit; Maria E Arcila; Laetitia Borsu; Jinru Shia; Efsevia Vakiani; Leonard Saltz; Marc Ladanyi Journal: Mol Cancer Res Date: 2015-12-11 Impact factor: 5.852
Authors: Paweł Krawczyk; Rodryg Ramlau; Joanna Chorostowska-Wynimko; Tomasz Powrózek; Marzena Anna Lewandowska; Janusz Limon; Bartosz Wasąg; Juliusz Pankowski; Jerzy Kozielski; Ewa Kalinka-Warzocha; Aleksandra Szczęsna; Kamila Wojas-Krawczyk; Michał Skroński; Rafał Dziadziuszko; Paulina Jaguś; Ewelina Antoszewska; Justyna Szumiło; Bożena Jarosz; Aldona Woźniak; Wojciech Jóźwicki; Wojciech Dyszkiewicz; Monika Pasieka-Lis; Dariusz M Kowalski; Maciej Krzakowski; Jacek Jassem; Janusz Milanowski Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2014-08-03 Impact factor: 4.553