| Literature DB >> 33209621 |
Wenhua Liang1, Dan Liu2, Min Li3, Wei Wang5, Zheng Qin5, Jian Zhang6, Yong Zhang7, Yang Hu8, Hairong Bao9, Yi Xiang10, Bo Wang11, Jing Wu11, Jianyu Sun11, Chengping Hu3, Xianwei Ye12, Xiangyan Zhang12, Wei Xiao13, Chunmei Yun14, Dejun Sun14, Wei Wang5, Ning Chang6, Yunhui Zhang15, Jianping Zhao16, Xin Zhang7, Jinfu Xu8, Di Wu17, Xiaoju Liu9, Yubiao Guo18, Qichuan Zhang19, Wei Zhang20, Lan Yang21, Zhanqing Li22, Xiaoju Zhang23, Baohui Han24, Zhaohui Tong25, Jianxing He1, Jieming Qu10, Jian-Bing Fan11,26, Nanshan Zhong27.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lung nodules are a diagnostic challenge. Current clinical management of lung nodule patients is inefficient and therefore causes patient misclassification, which increases healthcare expenses. However, a precise and robust lung nodule classifier to minimize discomfort for patients and healthcare costs is still lacking. The aim of the present protocol is to evaluate the effectiveness of using a liquid biopsy classifier to diagnose nodules compared to physician estimates and whether the classifier can reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies in benign cases.Entities:
Keywords: Pulmonary nodule; liquid biopsy; lung cancer early diagnosis
Year: 2020 PMID: 33209621 PMCID: PMC7653103 DOI: 10.21037/tlcr-20-701
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res ISSN: 2218-6751
Figure 1Different areas of DNA methylation in malignant and benign pulmonary nodules.
Pathological diagnosis & ctDNA methylation detection in patients with pulmonary nodules
| Positive | Negative | Total | Sensitivity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor pathological subtype | ||||
| Invasive lung adenocarcinoma (IA) | 33 | 9 | 42 | 78.60% |
| Minimal invasive lung adenocarcinoma (MIA) | 10 | 2 | 12 | 83.30% |
| Other | 9 | 0 | 9 | 100% |
| Total | 52 | 11 | 63 | 82.50% |
| Benign lesions subtype | ||||
| Hamartoma (HAM) | 3 | 2 | 5 | |
| Tuberculosis granuloma (TB) | 0 | 6 | 6 | |
| Fungal infection (FUN) | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Inflammation (INF) | 2 | 2 | 4 | |
| Other | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Normal (NOR) | 6 | 43 | 49 | |
| Total | 11 | 55 | 66 | 83.30% |
Figure 2Summary of research procedures.
Clinical trial flow chart
| Assessment/Procedures | Enrolment | Follow-up | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V0 | V1* | V2* | V3* | V4* | V5* | Vx* | ||
| −2~0 mo. | 3 mo. ± 2 wk. | 6 mo. ± 2 wk. | 12 mo. ± 2 wk. | 24 mo. ± 1 mo. | 36 mo. ± 1 mo. | Surgery/percutaneous lung puncture/the other biopsies | ||
| General Data | × | |||||||
| Inclusion and Exclusion criteria | × | |||||||
| Informed Consent | × | |||||||
| The Subjects’ Lung History Questionnaire | × | |||||||
| Blood Sample Collection | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | |
| CT/LDCT | × | × | × | × | × | × | × | |
| The Clinical Assessment Form | × | × | × | × | × | × | ||
| Fresh Tissue or FFPE Samples | × | |||||||
| Pathological Report | × | |||||||
| Adverse Events during the trial | × | × | × | × | × | × | ||
*, substantial follow-up arrangements after each visit (V1, V2, V3, V4, V5 or Vx) for each subject will be determined by the investigator based on baseline and/or current CT/LDCT imaging diagnosis.