EGFR mutation status yield from bronchoalveolar lavage in patients with primary pulmonary adenocarcinoma compared to a venous blood sample and tissue biopsy.
Adenocarcinoma
Bronchoalveolar lavage
EGFR
Liquid biopsy
Lung cancer
Journal
PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Titre abrégé: PeerJ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
09
09
2020
accepted:
22
04
2021
entrez:
27
5
2021
pubmed:
28
5
2021
medline:
28
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In recent years, there has been a revolution in the genomic profiling and molecular typing of lung cancer. A key oncogene is the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). The gold standard for determining EGFR mutation status is tissue biopsy, where a histological specimen is taken by a bronchoscopic or surgical method (transbronchial biopsy, forceps biopsy, etc.). However, in clinical practice the tissue sample is often insufficient for morphological and molecular analysis. Bronchoalveolar lavage is a validated diagnostic method for pathogenic infections in the lower respiratory tract, yet its diagnostic value for oncogenic mutation testing in lung cancer has not been extensively investigated. This study aims to compare the prevalence of EGFR mutation status in bronchoalveolar lavage and peripheral blood referring to the gold standard - tissue biopsy in patients with primary lung adenocarcinoma. Twenty-six patients with adenocarcinoma were examined for EGFR mutation from tissue biopsy, peripheral blood sample and bronchoalveolar lavage. Thirteen patients had wild type EGFR and the other 13 had EGFR mutation. EGFR mutation from a peripheral blood sample was identified in 38.5% (5/13) of patients, whereas EGFR mutation obtained from bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) was identified in 92.3% (12/13). This study demonstrates that a liquid biopsy sample for EGFR status from BAL has a higher sensitivity compared to a venous blood sample.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In recent years, there has been a revolution in the genomic profiling and molecular typing of lung cancer. A key oncogene is the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). The gold standard for determining EGFR mutation status is tissue biopsy, where a histological specimen is taken by a bronchoscopic or surgical method (transbronchial biopsy, forceps biopsy, etc.). However, in clinical practice the tissue sample is often insufficient for morphological and molecular analysis. Bronchoalveolar lavage is a validated diagnostic method for pathogenic infections in the lower respiratory tract, yet its diagnostic value for oncogenic mutation testing in lung cancer has not been extensively investigated. This study aims to compare the prevalence of EGFR mutation status in bronchoalveolar lavage and peripheral blood referring to the gold standard - tissue biopsy in patients with primary lung adenocarcinoma.
METHODS
METHODS
Twenty-six patients with adenocarcinoma were examined for EGFR mutation from tissue biopsy, peripheral blood sample and bronchoalveolar lavage.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Thirteen patients had wild type EGFR and the other 13 had EGFR mutation. EGFR mutation from a peripheral blood sample was identified in 38.5% (5/13) of patients, whereas EGFR mutation obtained from bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) was identified in 92.3% (12/13). This study demonstrates that a liquid biopsy sample for EGFR status from BAL has a higher sensitivity compared to a venous blood sample.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34040898
doi: 10.7717/peerj.11448
pii: 11448
pmc: PMC8127956
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e11448Informations de copyright
©2021 Yanev et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Références
Semin Intervent Radiol. 2006 Jun;23(2):188-93
pubmed: 21326762
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015 Jan;24(1):206-12
pubmed: 25339418
N Engl J Med. 2012 Mar 8;366(10):883-892
pubmed: 22397650
Ann Oncol. 2016 Sep;27(suppl 5):v1-v27
pubmed: 27664245
J Thorac Oncol. 2017 Sep;12(9):1344-1356
pubmed: 28611011
Cancer Res. 2001 Feb 15;61(4):1659-65
pubmed: 11245480
Eur J Cancer. 2004 Feb;40(3):452-60
pubmed: 14746865
Clin Chim Acta. 2001 Nov;313(1-2):139-42
pubmed: 11694251
Nat Med. 2008 Sep;14(9):985-90
pubmed: 18670422
Int J Biol Markers. 2007 Apr-Jun;22(2):95-9
pubmed: 17549664
BMC Cancer. 2014 Apr 28;14:294
pubmed: 24773774
Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Oct;112(4):843-50
pubmed: 18827127
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2017 Aug 28;55(10):1489-1495
pubmed: 28195541
Eur Respir Rev. 2017 Jun 28;26(144):
pubmed: 28659503
Chest. 2013 May;143(5 Suppl):e142S-e165S
pubmed: 23649436
J Thorac Oncol. 2010 Apr;5(4):448-52
pubmed: 20125040