BACKGROUND: Molecular oncology testing is important for patient management, and requests for the molecular analysis of cytology specimens are increasingly being made. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) cell blocks of such specimens have been routinely used for molecular diagnosis. However, the inability to assess cellularity before cell block preparation is a pitfall of their use. In this study, various cytologic preparations were tested with several molecular test platforms, and the results were compared with paired FFPE tissue. METHODS: Seventy-seven cytology cases, including fine-needle aspiration smears, touch preparations, and SurePath thin-layer preparations, were selected from the archives. Areas of interest were removed from the slide with a matrix capture solution. DNA extracted from the cells was evaluated by mutation analysis for BRAF, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), RAS, and a 50-gene panel with various testing platforms (single-nucleotide primer extension assay, Sanger sequencing, and next-generation sequencing). Thirty-eight tumors with available FFPE tissue were tested in parallel. RESULTS: The average DNA concentration was 299 ng/µL for the cytology specimens and 171 ng/µg for the paired FFPE tissue. Point mutations and large deletions were detected in BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, HRAS, and EGFR genes. In comparison with FFPE tissue, 5- to 8-fold less input DNA was needed when cytology preparations were used. The concordance between cytology specimens and FFPE tissue was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Cytologic preparations were found to be a reliable source for molecular oncology testing. DNA derived from cytology specimens performed well on multiple platforms, and 100% concordance was observed between cytology specimens and FFPE tissue.
BACKGROUND: Molecular oncology testing is important for patient management, and requests for the molecular analysis of cytology specimens are increasingly being made. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) cell blocks of such specimens have been routinely used for molecular diagnosis. However, the inability to assess cellularity before cell block preparation is a pitfall of their use. In this study, various cytologic preparations were tested with several molecular test platforms, and the results were compared with paired FFPE tissue. METHODS: Seventy-seven cytology cases, including fine-needle aspiration smears, touch preparations, and SurePath thin-layer preparations, were selected from the archives. Areas of interest were removed from the slide with a matrix capture solution. DNA extracted from the cells was evaluated by mutation analysis for BRAF, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), RAS, and a 50-gene panel with various testing platforms (single-nucleotide primer extension assay, Sanger sequencing, and next-generation sequencing). Thirty-eight tumors with available FFPE tissue were tested in parallel. RESULTS: The average DNA concentration was 299 ng/µL for the cytology specimens and 171 ng/µg for the paired FFPE tissue. Point mutations and large deletions were detected in BRAF, KRAS, NRAS, HRAS, and EGFR genes. In comparison with FFPE tissue, 5- to 8-fold less input DNA was needed when cytology preparations were used. The concordance between cytology specimens and FFPE tissue was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Cytologic preparations were found to be a reliable source for molecular oncology testing. DNA derived from cytology specimens performed well on multiple platforms, and 100% concordance was observed between cytology specimens and FFPE tissue.
Authors: Francine B de Abreu; Jason D Peterson; Christopher I Amos; Wendy A Wells; Gregory J Tsongalis Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: Lester J Layfield; Sinchita Roy-Chowdhuri; Zubair Baloch; Hormoz Ehya; Kim Geisinger; Susan J Hsiao; Oscar Lin; Neal I Lindeman; Michael Roh; Fernando Schmitt; Nikoletta Sidiropoulos; Paul A VanderLaan Journal: Diagn Cytopathol Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 1.582
Authors: Dara L Aisner; Mathew D Rumery; Daniel T Merrick; Kimi L Kondo; Hala Nijmeh; Derek J Linderman; Robert C Doebele; Natalie Thomas; Patrick C Chesnut; Marileila Varella-Garcia; Wilbur A Franklin; D Ross Camidge Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Amanda L Treece; Nathan D Montgomery; Nirali M Patel; Chris J Civalier; Leslie G Dodd; Margaret L Gulley; Jessica K Booker; Karen E Weck Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2016-02-16 Impact factor: 5.284