Sherif Elhanafi1, Nadim Mahmud1, Norge Vergara2, Michael L Kochman1, Koushik K Das3, Gregory G Ginsberg1, Michael Rajala1, Vinay Chandrasekhara4. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Department of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Tumor genotyping may allow for improved prognostication and targeted therapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We aimed to compare endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) with fine needle aspiration (FNA) to fine needle biopsy (FNB) for obtaining sufficient tissue for genomic analysis and theranostic potential. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients that underwent EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB with either positive or suspicious cytology for PDAC between March 2016 and December 2017. Demographic, procedural, and cytology data were recorded. Genetic alterations were recorded, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were calculated. RESULTS: The study included 167 patients: 145 patients had FNA and 22 patients underwent FNB. Overall, 117 samples (70.1%) were sufficient for targeted next-generation sequencing. FNB resulted in a higher proportion of patients with sufficient samples compared with FNA (90.9% vs 66.9%; P = 0.02). In multivariable modeling, only FNB (odds ratio 4.95, 95% confidence interval 1.11-22.05, P = 0.04) was associated with sufficient sampling for genomic testing. FNB was more likely to obtain sufficient tissue from tumors ≤ 3 cm (100% vs 68.4%, P = 0.017) and tumors located in the head/neck of the pancreas (100% vs 63.1%, P = 0.03) compared with FNA. The most commonly identified alterations were in KRAS (88%), TP53 (68%), and SMAD4 (16%). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic ultrasonography can reliably obtain sufficient tissue from PDAC for targeted genomic sequencing for prognostication and theranostics. FNB should be considered when tumor genotyping is requested, especially for tumors ≤ 3 cm or tumors located in the head/neck of the pancreas.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Tumor genotyping may allow for improved prognostication and targeted therapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). We aimed to compare endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) with fine needle aspiration (FNA) to fine needle biopsy (FNB) for obtaining sufficient tissue for genomic analysis and theranostic potential. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients that underwent EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB with either positive or suspicious cytology for PDAC between March 2016 and December 2017. Demographic, procedural, and cytology data were recorded. Genetic alterations were recorded, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were calculated. RESULTS: The study included 167 patients: 145 patients had FNA and 22 patients underwent FNB. Overall, 117 samples (70.1%) were sufficient for targeted next-generation sequencing. FNB resulted in a higher proportion of patients with sufficient samples compared with FNA (90.9% vs 66.9%; P = 0.02). In multivariable modeling, only FNB (odds ratio 4.95, 95% confidence interval 1.11-22.05, P = 0.04) was associated with sufficient sampling for genomic testing. FNB was more likely to obtain sufficient tissue from tumors ≤ 3 cm (100% vs 68.4%, P = 0.017) and tumors located in the head/neck of the pancreas (100% vs 63.1%, P = 0.03) compared with FNA. The most commonly identified alterations were in KRAS (88%), TP53 (68%), and SMAD4 (16%). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic ultrasonography can reliably obtain sufficient tissue from PDAC for targeted genomic sequencing for prognostication and theranostics. FNB should be considered when tumor genotyping is requested, especially for tumors ≤ 3 cm or tumors located in the head/neck of the pancreas.
Authors: Shuanzeng Wei; David Lieberman; Jennifer J D Morrissette; Zubair W Baloch; David B Roth; Cindy McGrath Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2015-12-18 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Shaozhou Ken Tian; J Keith Killian; Natasha Rekhtman; Ryma Benayed; Sumit Middha; Marc Ladanyi; Oscar Lin; Maria E Arcila Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2016-09-02 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Shinichi Yachida; Catherine M White; Yoshiki Naito; Yi Zhong; Jacqueline A Brosnan; Anne M Macgregor-Das; Richard A Morgan; Tyler Saunders; Daniel A Laheru; Joseph M Herman; Ralph H Hruban; Alison P Klein; Siân Jones; Victor Velculescu; Christopher L Wolfgang; Christine A Iacobuzio-Donahue Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-09-18 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Ferga C Gleeson; Benjamin R Kipp; Sarah E Kerr; Jesse S Voss; Konstantinos N Lazaridis; David A Katzka; Michael J Levy Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2014-10-24 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Sarah Navina; Kevin McGrath; Jennifer Chennat; Vijay Singh; Timothy Pal; Herb Zeh; Alyssa M Krasinskas Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Walid L Shaib; Andrew Ip; Kenneth Cardona; Olatunji B Alese; Shishir K Maithel; David Kooby; Jerome Landry; Bassel F El-Rayes Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-02-01
Authors: Ferga C Gleeson; Sarah E Kerr; Benjamin R Kipp; Jesse S Voss; Douglas M Minot; Zheng Jin Tu; Michael R Henry; Rondell P Graham; George Vasmatzis; John C Cheville; Konstantinos N Lazaridis; Michael J Levy Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-08-23
Authors: Diogo T H de Moura; Thomas R McCarty; Pichamol Jirapinyo; Igor B Ribeiro; Kelly E Hathorn; Antonio Coutinho Madruga-Neto; Linda S Lee; Christopher C Thompson Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2020-05-25
Authors: Lucia Roa-Peña; Sruthi Babu; Cindy V Leiton; Maoxin Wu; Sofia Taboada; Ali Akalin; Jonathan Buscaglia; Luisa F Escobar-Hoyos; Kenneth R Shroyer Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 4.264