Literature DB >> 24513263

Success and failure rates of tumor genotyping techniques in routine pathological samples with non-small-cell lung cancer.

Paul A Vanderlaan1, Norihiro Yamaguchi2, Erik Folch3, David H Boucher2, Michael S Kent4, Sidharta P Gangadharan4, Adnan Majid3, Michael A Goldstein2, Mark S Huberman2, Olivier N Kocher1, Daniel B Costa5.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Identification of some somatic molecular alterations in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has become evidence-based practice. The success and failure rate of using commercially available tumor genotyping techniques in routine day-to-day NSCLC pathology samples is not well described. We sought to evaluate the success and failure rate of EGFR mutation, KRAS mutation, and ALK FISH in a cohort of lung cancers subjected to routine clinical tumor genotype.
METHODS: Clinicopathologic data, tumor genotype success and failure rates were retrospectively compiled and analyzed from 381 patient-tumor samples.
RESULTS: From these 381 patients with lung cancer, the mean age was 65 years, 61.2% were women, 75.9% were white, 27.8% were never smokers, 73.8% had advanced NSCLC and 86.1% had adenocarcinoma histology. The tumor tissue was obtained from surgical specimens in 48.8%, core needle biopsies in 17.9%, and as cell blocks from aspirates or fluid in 33.3% of cases. Anatomic sites for tissue collection included lung (49.3%), lymph nodes (22.3%), pleura (11.8%), bone (6.0%), brain (6.0%), among others. The overall success rate for EGFR mutation analysis was 94.2%, for KRAS mutation 91.6% and for ALK FISH 91.6%. The highest failure rates were observed when the tissue was obtained from image-guided percutaneous transthoracic core-needle biopsies (31.8%, 27.3%, and 35.3% for EGFR, KRAS, and ALK tests, respectively) and bone specimens (23.1%, 15.4%, and 23.1%, respectively). In specimens obtained from bone, the failure rates were significantly higher for biopsies than resection specimens (40% vs. 0%, p=0.024 for EGFR) and for decalcified compared to non-decalcified samples (60% vs. 5.5%, p=0.021 for EGFR).
CONCLUSIONS: Tumor genotype techniques are feasible in most samples, outside small image-guided percutaneous transthoracic core-needle biopsies and bone samples from core biopsies with decalcification, and therefore expansion of routine tumor genotype into the care of patients with NSCLC may not require special tissue acquisition or manipulation.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ALK; Anaplastic lymphoma kinase; Bone specimen; Core biopsy; EGFR; Epidermal growth factor receptor; Failure; KRAS; Lung cancer; Molecular testing; Never smokers; Non-small-cell lung cancer; Tumor genotype

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24513263      PMCID: PMC3954776          DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2014.01.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lung Cancer        ISSN: 0169-5002            Impact factor:   5.705


  23 in total

1.  The positive impact of cytological specimens for EGFR mutation testing in non-small cell lung cancer: a single South East Asian laboratory's analysis of 670 cases.

Authors:  B Pang; M Dettmer; D Matthias; C W Ong; A N Dhewar; S Gupta; G L Lim; M E Nga; J E Seet; A Qasim; T M Chin; R Soo; R Soong; M Salto-Tellez
Journal:  Cytopathology       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 2.073

2.  Non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  David S Ettinger; Wallace Akerley; Hossein Borghaei; Andrew C Chang; Richard T Cheney; Lucian R Chirieac; Thomas A D'Amico; Todd L Demmy; Apar Kishor P Ganti; Ramaswamy Govindan; Frederic W Grannis; Leora Horn; Thierry M Jahan; Mohammad Jahanzeb; Anne Kessinger; Ritsuko Komaki; Feng-Ming Kong; Mark G Kris; Lee M Krug; Inga T Lennes; Billy W Loo; Renato Martins; Janis O'Malley; Raymond U Osarogiagbon; Gregory A Otterson; Jyoti D Patel; Mary C Pinder-Schenck; Katherine M Pisters; Karen Reckamp; Gregory J Riely; Eric Rohren; Scott J Swanson; Douglas E Wood; Stephen C Yang; Miranda Hughes; Kristina M Gregory
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 11.908

3.  Diagnosis of lung cancer in small biopsies and cytology: implications of the 2011 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society classification.

Authors:  William D Travis; Elisabeth Brambilla; Masayuki Noguchi; Andrew G Nicholson; Kim Geisinger; Yasushi Yatabe; Yuichi Ishikawa; Ignacio Wistuba; Douglas B Flieder; Wilbur Franklin; Adi Gazdar; Philip S Hasleton; Douglas W Henderson; Keith M Kerr; Iver Petersen; Victor Roggli; Erik Thunnissen; Ming Tsao
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2012-09-12       Impact factor: 5.534

4.  Clinical features and outcome of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer who harbor EML4-ALK.

Authors:  Alice T Shaw; Beow Y Yeap; Mari Mino-Kenudson; Subba R Digumarthy; Daniel B Costa; Rebecca S Heist; Benjamin Solomon; Hannah Stubbs; Sonal Admane; Ultan McDermott; Jeffrey Settleman; Susumu Kobayashi; Eugene J Mark; Scott J Rodig; Lucian R Chirieac; Eunice L Kwak; Thomas J Lynch; A John Iafrate
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-08-10       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  The introduction of systematic genomic testing for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Stephanie Cardarella; Taylor M Ortiz; Victoria A Joshi; Mohit Butaney; David M Jackman; David J Kwiatkowski; Beow Y Yeap; Pasi A Jänne; Neal I Lindeman; Bruce E Johnson
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 15.609

6.  Feasibility of image-guided transthoracic core-needle biopsy in the BATTLE lung trial.

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

7.  Cancer statistics, 2013.

Authors:  Rebecca Siegel; Deepa Naishadham; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2013-01-17       Impact factor: 508.702

8.  Molecular testing guideline for selection of lung cancer patients for EGFR and ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors: guideline from the College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and Association for Molecular Pathology.

Authors:  Neal I Lindeman; Philip T Cagle; Mary Beth Beasley; Dhananjay Arun Chitale; Sanja Dacic; Giuseppe Giaccone; Robert Brian Jenkins; David J Kwiatkowski; Juan-Sebastian Saldivar; Jeremy Squire; Erik Thunnissen; Marc Ladanyi
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2013-07       Impact factor: 15.609

9.  EGFR mutations are detected comparably in cytologic and surgical pathology specimens of nonsmall cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Jason H Smouse; Edmund S Cibas; Pasi A Jänne; Victoria A Joshi; Kelly H Zou; Neal I Lindeman
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2009-02-25       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Impact of epidermal growth factor receptor and KRAS mutations on clinical outcomes in previously untreated non-small cell lung cancer patients: results of an online tumor registry of clinical trials.

Authors:  David M Jackman; Vincent A Miller; Leigh-Anne Cioffredi; Beow Y Yeap; Pasi A Jänne; Gregory J Riely; Marielle Gallegos Ruiz; Giuseppe Giaccone; Lecia V Sequist; Bruce E Johnson
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2009-08-11       Impact factor: 12.531

View more
  59 in total

1.  Clinical Impact of Plasma and Tissue Next-Generation Sequencing in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Real-World Experience.

Authors:  Laura Bonanno; Alberto Pavan; Alessandra Ferro; Lorenzo Calvetti; Stefano Frega; Giulia Pasello; Giuseppe Aprile; Valentina Guarneri; PierFranco Conte
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2020-07-07

Review 2.  Overview of clinicopathologic features of ALK-rearranged lung adenocarcinoma and current diagnostic testing for ALK rearrangement.

Authors:  Hyojin Kim; Jin-Haeng Chung
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2015-04

Review 3.  Circulating cell-free DNA for non-invasive cancer management.

Authors:  Caitlin M Stewart; Dana W Y Tsui
Journal:  Cancer Genet       Date:  2018-03-11

4.  Quality Assessment of Reporting Performance for EGFR Molecular Diagnosis in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Yanxi Han; Rui Zhang; Guigao Lin; Kuo Zhang; Jiehong Xie; Jinming Li
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2017-07-12

5.  Kinase inhibitor-responsive genotypes in EGFR mutated lung adenocarcinomas: moving past common point mutations or indels into uncommon kinase domain duplications and rearrangements.

Authors:  Daniel B Costa
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2016-06

Review 6.  Lung cancer diagnosis and staging in the minimally invasive age with increasing demands for tissue analysis.

Authors:  Erik Folch; Daniel B Costa; Jeffrey Wright; Paul A VanderLaan
Journal:  Transl Lung Cancer Res       Date:  2015-08

7.  Comparison of liquid-based to tissue-based biopsy analysis by targeted next generation sequencing in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a comprehensive systematic review.

Authors:  Stepan M Esagian; Georgia Ι Grigoriadou; Ilias P Nikas; Vasileios Boikou; Peter M Sadow; Jae-Kyung Won; Konstantinos P Economopoulos
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 4.553

8.  Quality and concordance of genotyping array data of 12,064 samples from 5840 cancer patients.

Authors:  Mingsheng Guo; Wei Yue; David C Samuels; Hui Yu; Jing He; Ying-Yong Zhao; Yan Guo
Journal:  Genomics       Date:  2018-06-11       Impact factor: 5.736

Review 9.  Improving Cancer Detection and Treatment with Liquid Biopsies and ptDNA.

Authors:  Michael D Kessler; Nisha R Pawar; Stuart S Martin; Toni M Antalis; Timothy D O'Connor
Journal:  Trends Cancer       Date:  2018-08-01

10.  De novo ALK kinase domain mutations are uncommon in kinase inhibitor-naïve ALK rearranged lung cancers.

Authors:  Antonio R Lucena-Araujo; Jason P Moran; Paul A VanderLaan; Dora Dias-Santagata; Erik Folch; Adnan Majid; Michael S Kent; Sidharta P Gangadharan; Deepa Rangachari; Mark S Huberman; Susumu S Kobayashi; Daniel B Costa
Journal:  Lung Cancer       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 5.705

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.