Anna E Barón1, Severine Kako2, William J Feser3, Heather Malinowski4, Daniel Merrick4, Kavita Garg5, Stephen Malkoski6, Shannon Pretzel7, Jill M Siegfried8, Wilbur A Franklin4, York Miller9, Holly J Wolf10, Marileila Varella-Garcia2. 1. Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado. Electronic address: anna.baron@ucdenver.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado; Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado. 4. Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado. 5. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado. 6. Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado. 7. University of Colorado Cancer Center, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado. 8. Department of Pharmacology, Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Department of Pharmacology and Chemical Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 9. Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado; Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Denver, Colorado. 10. Department of Community and Behavioral Health, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer has a high false-positive rate with frequent discovery of indeterminate pulmonary nodules. Noninvasive biomarkers are needed to reduce false positives and improve risk stratification. A retrospective longitudinal evaluation was performed to assess chromosomal aneusomy in sputum by fluorescence in situ hybridization (CA-FISH) in four nested case-control studies. METHODS: Receiver operating characteristic analysis resulted in two grouped cohorts: a high-risk cohort (Colorado High-Risk Cohort and Colorado Nodule Cohort [68 case patients and 69 controls]) and a screening cohort (American College of Radiology Imaging Network/National Lung Screening Trial and Pittsburgh Lung Screening Study [97 case patients and 185 controls]). The CA-FISH assay was a four-target DNA panel encompassing the EGFR and v-myc avian myelocytomatosis viral oncogene homolog (MYC) genes, and the 5p15 and centromere 6 regions or the fibroblast growth factor 1 gene (FGFR1) and phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha gene (PIK3CA). A four-category scale (normal, probably normal, probably abnormal, and abnormal) was applied. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were estimated for each cohort. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 0.67 (95% CI: 0.55-0.78) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.85-0.98) for high-risk participants and 0.20 (95% CI: 0.13-0.30) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.78-0.89) for screening participants. The positive and negative LRs were, respectively, 11.66 (95% CI: 4.44-30.63) and 0.34 (95% CI: 0.24-0.48) for high-risk participants and 1.36 (95% CI: 0.81-2.28) and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.83-1.05) for screening participants. CONCLUSION: The high positive LR of sputum CA-FISH indicates that it could be a useful adjunct to low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer in high-risk settings. For screening, however, its low positive LR limits clinical utility. Prospective assessment of CA-FISH in the incidentally identified indeterminate nodule setting is ongoing in the Colorado Pulmonary Nodule Biomarker Trial.
INTRODUCTION: Low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer has a high false-positive rate with frequent discovery of indeterminate pulmonary nodules. Noninvasive biomarkers are needed to reduce false positives and improve risk stratification. A retrospective longitudinal evaluation was performed to assess chromosomal aneusomy in sputum by fluorescence in situ hybridization (CA-FISH) in four nested case-control studies. METHODS: Receiver operating characteristic analysis resulted in two grouped cohorts: a high-risk cohort (Colorado High-Risk Cohort and Colorado Nodule Cohort [68 case patients and 69 controls]) and a screening cohort (American College of Radiology Imaging Network/National Lung Screening Trial and Pittsburgh Lung Screening Study [97 case patients and 185 controls]). The CA-FISH assay was a four-target DNA panel encompassing the EGFR and v-myc avian myelocytomatosis viral oncogene homolog (MYC) genes, and the 5p15 and centromere 6 regions or the fibroblast growth factor 1 gene (FGFR1) and phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha gene (PIK3CA). A four-category scale (normal, probably normal, probably abnormal, and abnormal) was applied. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) (with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were estimated for each cohort. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 0.67 (95% CI: 0.55-0.78) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.85-0.98) for high-risk participants and 0.20 (95% CI: 0.13-0.30) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.78-0.89) for screening participants. The positive and negative LRs were, respectively, 11.66 (95% CI: 4.44-30.63) and 0.34 (95% CI: 0.24-0.48) for high-risk participants and 1.36 (95% CI: 0.81-2.28) and 0.93 (95% CI: 0.83-1.05) for screening participants. CONCLUSION: The high positive LR of sputum CA-FISH indicates that it could be a useful adjunct to low-dose computed tomography for lung cancer in high-risk settings. For screening, however, its low positive LR limits clinical utility. Prospective assessment of CA-FISH in the incidentally identified indeterminate nodule setting is ongoing in the Colorado Pulmonary Nodule Biomarker Trial.
Authors: Ruiyun Li; Nevins W Todd; Qi Qiu; Tao Fan; Richard Y Zhao; William H Rodgers; Hong-Bin Fang; Ruth L Katz; Sanford A Stass; Feng Jiang Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-01-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Bernhard C Danner; Timo Hellms; Klaus Jung; Bastian Gunawan; Vassilios Didilis; Laszlo Füzesi; Friedrich A Schöndube Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Alexander Guber; Joel Greif; Roni Rona; Elizabeth Fireman; Lea Madi; Tal Kaplan; Zipi Yemini; Maya Gottfried; Ruth L Katz; Michal Daniely Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2010-10-25 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: T C Kennedy; S P Proudfoot; W A Franklin; T A Merrick; G Saccomanno; M E Corkill; D L Mumma; K E Sirgi; Y E Miller; P G Archer; A Prochazka Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1996-10-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: David O Wilson; Joel L Weissfeld; Carl R Fuhrman; Stephen N Fisher; Paula Balogh; Rodney J Landreneau; James D Luketich; Jill M Siegfried Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2008-07-17 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Alain D Silk; Lauren M Zasadil; Andrew J Holland; Benjamin Vitre; Don W Cleveland; Beth A Weaver Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Hang Li; Jun Che; Mian Jiang; Ming Cui; Guoxing Feng; Jiali Dong; Shuqin Zhang; Lu Lu; Weili Liu; Saijun Fan Journal: Cell Commun Signal Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Theodore Warsavage; Fuyong Xing; Anna E Barón; William J Feser; Erin Hirsch; York E Miller; Stephen Malkoski; Holly J Wolf; David O Wilson; Debashis Ghosh Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-04-14 Impact factor: 3.240