Comparison of sampling methods for next generation sequencing for patients with lung cancer
Abstract Introduction Success of next generation sequencing (NGS) analysis is becoming indispensable in the treatment of advanced lung cancer. However, the advantages and disadvantages of each sampling method in the NGS analysis have not yet been clarified. Methods We compared the success rates of N...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2022-07-01
|
| Series: | Cancer Medicine |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4632 |
| _version_ | 1811290214419660800 |
|---|---|
| author | Kei Kunimasa Shingo Matsumoto Kazumi Nishino Keiichiro Honma Noboru Maeda Hanako Kuhara Motohiro Tamiya Takako Inoue Takahisa Kawamura Toru Kimura Tomohiro Maniwa Jiro Okami Koichi Goto Toru Kumagai |
| author_facet | Kei Kunimasa Shingo Matsumoto Kazumi Nishino Keiichiro Honma Noboru Maeda Hanako Kuhara Motohiro Tamiya Takako Inoue Takahisa Kawamura Toru Kimura Tomohiro Maniwa Jiro Okami Koichi Goto Toru Kumagai |
| author_sort | Kei Kunimasa |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Introduction Success of next generation sequencing (NGS) analysis is becoming indispensable in the treatment of advanced lung cancer. However, the advantages and disadvantages of each sampling method in the NGS analysis have not yet been clarified. Methods We compared the success rates of NGS analysis, and DNA and RNA yields for transbronchial biopsy (TBB), endobronchial ultrasound‐guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS‐TBNA), computed tomography (CT)‐guided biopsy, fluid sample, and surgical biopsy for NGS analysis in patients through the lung cancer genomic screening project for individualized medicine (LC‐SCRUM)‐Asia, a nationwide NGS screening project. In case, sufficient samples could not be collected by TBB and EBUS‐TBNA, re‐biopsy (genome re‐biopsy) was performed. Results A total of 223 patients were enrolled and success rates of NGS analysis were not different between samples obtained through TBB, EBUS‐TBNA, and CT‐guided biopsy; however, success rates for fluid samples and surgical biopsy samples were significantly higher than those of other methods. The risk of genome re‐biopsy was higher with TBB for centrally located lesions. CT‐guided biopsy yielded more samples but had a lower success rate for analysis of RNA‐based NGS than TBB. Conclusions TBB is the mainstay of sampling methods, but for centrally located lesions, EBUS‐TBNA may be a better strategy. For CT‐guided biopsy, the success rate of RNA‐based NGS analysis is low. Fluid samples are expected to yield successful results as surgical biopsy samples, but the latter are better for sample preservation. Determining the optimal method for genome biopsy for each case is important. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T04:09:02Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-978e7bbf0f754bd9ad62e1525b8d6435 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2045-7634 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T04:09:02Z |
| publishDate | 2022-07-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Cancer Medicine |
| spelling | doaj.art-978e7bbf0f754bd9ad62e1525b8d64352022-12-22T03:03:09ZengWileyCancer Medicine2045-76342022-07-0111142744275410.1002/cam4.4632Comparison of sampling methods for next generation sequencing for patients with lung cancerKei Kunimasa0Shingo Matsumoto1Kazumi Nishino2Keiichiro Honma3Noboru Maeda4Hanako Kuhara5Motohiro Tamiya6Takako Inoue7Takahisa Kawamura8Toru Kimura9Tomohiro Maniwa10Jiro Okami11Koichi Goto12Toru Kumagai13Department of Thoracic Oncology Osaka International Cancer Institute Osaka JapanDepartment of Thoracic Oncology National Cancer Center Hospital East Kashiwa JapanDepartment of Thoracic Oncology Osaka International Cancer Institute Osaka JapanDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology & Cytology Osaka International Cancer Institute Osaka JapanDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology Osaka International Cancer Institute Osaka JapanDepartment of Thoracic Oncology Osaka International Cancer Institute Osaka JapanDepartment of Thoracic Oncology Osaka International Cancer Institute Osaka JapanDepartment of Thoracic Oncology Osaka International Cancer Institute Osaka JapanDepartment of Thoracic Oncology Osaka International Cancer Institute Osaka JapanDepartment of General Thoracic Surgery Osaka International Cancer Institute Osaka JapanDepartment of General Thoracic Surgery Osaka International Cancer Institute Osaka JapanDepartment of General Thoracic Surgery Osaka International Cancer Institute Osaka JapanDepartment of Thoracic Oncology National Cancer Center Hospital East Kashiwa JapanDepartment of Thoracic Oncology Osaka International Cancer Institute Osaka JapanAbstract Introduction Success of next generation sequencing (NGS) analysis is becoming indispensable in the treatment of advanced lung cancer. However, the advantages and disadvantages of each sampling method in the NGS analysis have not yet been clarified. Methods We compared the success rates of NGS analysis, and DNA and RNA yields for transbronchial biopsy (TBB), endobronchial ultrasound‐guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS‐TBNA), computed tomography (CT)‐guided biopsy, fluid sample, and surgical biopsy for NGS analysis in patients through the lung cancer genomic screening project for individualized medicine (LC‐SCRUM)‐Asia, a nationwide NGS screening project. In case, sufficient samples could not be collected by TBB and EBUS‐TBNA, re‐biopsy (genome re‐biopsy) was performed. Results A total of 223 patients were enrolled and success rates of NGS analysis were not different between samples obtained through TBB, EBUS‐TBNA, and CT‐guided biopsy; however, success rates for fluid samples and surgical biopsy samples were significantly higher than those of other methods. The risk of genome re‐biopsy was higher with TBB for centrally located lesions. CT‐guided biopsy yielded more samples but had a lower success rate for analysis of RNA‐based NGS than TBB. Conclusions TBB is the mainstay of sampling methods, but for centrally located lesions, EBUS‐TBNA may be a better strategy. For CT‐guided biopsy, the success rate of RNA‐based NGS analysis is low. Fluid samples are expected to yield successful results as surgical biopsy samples, but the latter are better for sample preservation. Determining the optimal method for genome biopsy for each case is important.https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4632lung cancernext generation sequencingNGS success ratere‐biopsysampling method |
| spellingShingle | Kei Kunimasa Shingo Matsumoto Kazumi Nishino Keiichiro Honma Noboru Maeda Hanako Kuhara Motohiro Tamiya Takako Inoue Takahisa Kawamura Toru Kimura Tomohiro Maniwa Jiro Okami Koichi Goto Toru Kumagai Comparison of sampling methods for next generation sequencing for patients with lung cancer Cancer Medicine lung cancer next generation sequencing NGS success rate re‐biopsy sampling method |
| title | Comparison of sampling methods for next generation sequencing for patients with lung cancer |
| title_full | Comparison of sampling methods for next generation sequencing for patients with lung cancer |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of sampling methods for next generation sequencing for patients with lung cancer |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of sampling methods for next generation sequencing for patients with lung cancer |
| title_short | Comparison of sampling methods for next generation sequencing for patients with lung cancer |
| title_sort | comparison of sampling methods for next generation sequencing for patients with lung cancer |
| topic | lung cancer next generation sequencing NGS success rate re‐biopsy sampling method |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4632 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT keikunimasa comparisonofsamplingmethodsfornextgenerationsequencingforpatientswithlungcancer AT shingomatsumoto comparisonofsamplingmethodsfornextgenerationsequencingforpatientswithlungcancer AT kazuminishino comparisonofsamplingmethodsfornextgenerationsequencingforpatientswithlungcancer AT keiichirohonma comparisonofsamplingmethodsfornextgenerationsequencingforpatientswithlungcancer AT noborumaeda comparisonofsamplingmethodsfornextgenerationsequencingforpatientswithlungcancer AT hanakokuhara comparisonofsamplingmethodsfornextgenerationsequencingforpatientswithlungcancer AT motohirotamiya comparisonofsamplingmethodsfornextgenerationsequencingforpatientswithlungcancer AT takakoinoue comparisonofsamplingmethodsfornextgenerationsequencingforpatientswithlungcancer AT takahisakawamura comparisonofsamplingmethodsfornextgenerationsequencingforpatientswithlungcancer AT torukimura comparisonofsamplingmethodsfornextgenerationsequencingforpatientswithlungcancer AT tomohiromaniwa comparisonofsamplingmethodsfornextgenerationsequencingforpatientswithlungcancer AT jirookami comparisonofsamplingmethodsfornextgenerationsequencingforpatientswithlungcancer AT koichigoto comparisonofsamplingmethodsfornextgenerationsequencingforpatientswithlungcancer AT torukumagai comparisonofsamplingmethodsfornextgenerationsequencingforpatientswithlungcancer |