Preliminary Experience of Liquid Biopsy in Lung Cancer Compared to Conventional Assessment: Light and Shadows.
conventional biopsy
liquid biopsy
lung cancer
Journal
Journal of personalized medicine
ISSN: 2075-4426
Titre abrégé: J Pers Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101602269
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Nov 2022
12 Nov 2022
Historique:
received:
31
08
2022
revised:
08
11
2022
accepted:
10
11
2022
entrez:
24
11
2022
pubmed:
25
11
2022
medline:
25
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Purpose: To assess the qualitative relationship between liquid biopsy and conventional tissue biopsy. As a secondary target, we evaluated the relationship between the liquid biopsy results and the T stage, N stage, M stage, and compared to grading. Methods: The Local Ethics Committee of the “Università degli Studi della Campania Luigi Vanvitelli”, with the internal resolution number 24997/2020 of 12.11.2020, approved this spontaneous prospective study. According to the approved protocol, patients with lung cancer who underwent Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology (FNAC), CT-guided biopsy, and liquid biopsy were enrolled. A Yates chi-square test was employed to analyze differences in percentage values of categorical variables. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Data analysis was performed using the Matlab Statistic Toolbox (The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA). Results: When a genetic mutation is present on the pathological examination, this was also detected on the liquid biopsy. ROS1 and PDL1 mutations were found in 2/29 patients, while EGFR Exon 21 was identified in a single patient. At liquid biopsy, 26 mutations were identified in the analyzed samples. The mutations with the highest prevalence rate in the study populations were: ALK (Ile1461Val), found in 28/29 patients (96.6%), EML4 (Lys398Arg), identified in 16/29 (55.2%) patients, ALK (Asp1529Glu), found in 14/29 (48.3%) patients, EGFR (Arg521Lys), found in 12/29 (41.4%) patients, ROS (Lys2228Gln), identified in 11/29 (37.9%) patients, ROS (Arg167Gln) and ROS (Ser2229Cys), identified in 10/29 (34.5%) patients, ALK (Lys1491Arg) and PIK3CA (Ile391Met), identified in 8/29 (27.6%) patients, ROS (Thr145Pro), identified in 6/29 (20.7%) patients, and ROS (Ser1109Leu), identified in 4/29 (13.8%) patients. No statistically significant differences can be observed in the mutation rate between the adenocarcinoma population and the squamous carcinoma population (p > 0.05, Yates chi-square test). Conclusions: We showed that, when a genetic mutation was detected in pathological examination, this was always detected by liquid biopsy, demonstrating a very high concordance rate of genomic testing between tissues and their corresponding mutations obtained by liquid biopsy, without cases of false-negative results. In addition, in our study, liquid biopsy highlighted 26 mutations, with the prevalence of ALK mutation in 96.6% of patients, supporting the idea that this approach could be an effective tool in cases with insufficient tumor tissue specimens or in cases where tissue specimens are not obtainable.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36422072
pii: jpm12111896
doi: 10.3390/jpm12111896
pmc: PMC9698369
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Radiol Med. 2021 Aug;126(8):1117-1128
pubmed: 33954898
Radiol Med. 2020 Aug;125(8):790-797
pubmed: 32206984
Radiol Med. 2021 Dec;126(12):1584-1600
pubmed: 34843029
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Jan 25;13(3):
pubmed: 33504085
J Thorac Oncol. 2018 Mar;13(3):323-358
pubmed: 29396253
Radiol Med. 2020 Dec;125(12):1225-1232
pubmed: 32415477
Infect Agent Cancer. 2017 Apr 28;12:23
pubmed: 28465718
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Apr 18;14(8):
pubmed: 35454937
Radiol Med. 2021 Jun;126(6):894-899
pubmed: 33492651
Radiol Med. 2021 Jan;126(1):163-169
pubmed: 32415475
Front Oncol. 2020 Oct 08;10:572895
pubmed: 33117705
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 May;204(5):1000-7
pubmed: 25905934
Oncol Rep. 2015 Mar;33(3):1243-7
pubmed: 25529982
Radiol Med. 2020 Jan;125(1):98-106
pubmed: 31583558
Lung Cancer. 2017 May;107:100-107
pubmed: 27180141
Radiol Med. 2021 Jul;126(7):979-988
pubmed: 33900527
Radiol Med. 2020 Jul;125(7):625-635
pubmed: 32125637
Radiol Med. 2020 Jun;125(6):578-584
pubmed: 32040718
Oncologist. 2019 Aug;24(8):1022-1026
pubmed: 31023862
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Mar 24;14(7):
pubmed: 35406419
Thorac Cancer. 2022 Jun;13(12):1822-1826
pubmed: 35575062
Infect Agent Cancer. 2018 Jul 3;13:23
pubmed: 29988667
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013 Aug;10(8):472-84
pubmed: 23836314
Cancer Cytopathol. 2019 May;127(5):278-280
pubmed: 31050221
Radiol Med. 2020 Apr;125(4):374-383
pubmed: 31916105
Hum Genomics. 2019 Aug 1;13(1):34
pubmed: 31370908
J Clin Med. 2021 Mar 22;10(6):
pubmed: 33810058
Nat Chem. 2018 May;10(5):489-495
pubmed: 29610463
Genes (Basel). 2020 Dec 03;11(12):
pubmed: 33287145
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Front Oncol. 2022 Mar 15;12:859152
pubmed: 35372000
Radiol Med. 2021 Dec;126(12):1571-1583
pubmed: 34865190
Radiol Med. 2020 Jun;125(6):531-537
pubmed: 32020528
Radiol Med. 2020 Jan;125(1):7-14
pubmed: 31587181
J Thorac Oncol. 2018 Sep;13(9):1248-1268
pubmed: 29885479
Indian J Clin Biochem. 2015 Jan;30(1):55-8
pubmed: 25646041
Oncotarget. 2017 Apr 19;8(31):51224-51237
pubmed: 28881643
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2016 Nov;26(9):1650-1657
pubmed: 27654262
Ann Transl Med. 2017 Feb;5(3):46
pubmed: 28251125
Radiol Oncol. 2017 Aug 16;51(3):252-262
pubmed: 28959161
Radiol Med. 2021 Mar;126(3):466-473
pubmed: 32889704
Cell Res. 2014 Jun;24(6):766-9
pubmed: 24710597
Cancers (Basel). 2020 Aug 26;12(9):
pubmed: 32858990
Radiol Med. 2021 Jan;126(1):5-13
pubmed: 32458272
Clin Cancer Res. 2018 Apr 15;24(8):1872-1880
pubmed: 29330207
Radiol Med. 2021 Jan;126(1):55-62
pubmed: 32495272
Fam Cancer. 2015 Sep;14(3):341-8
pubmed: 25666743
Radiol Med. 2021 Aug;126(8):1044-1054
pubmed: 34041663
J Clin Pathol. 2020 Feb;73(2):96-101
pubmed: 31562206
Radiol Med. 2022 May;127(5):461-470
pubmed: 35347583
Radiol Med. 2021 Nov;126(11):1425-1433
pubmed: 34373989
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 Aug 30;11(9):
pubmed: 34573911
Radiol Med. 2020 Apr;125(4):348-355
pubmed: 31916102
Ann Oncol. 2018 Jan 1;29(1):119-126
pubmed: 28945848
Nat Commun. 2014 Apr 07;5:3591
pubmed: 24710016
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Aug 07;13(16):
pubmed: 34439148
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2020 Mar;144(3):361-369
pubmed: 31329477
Clin Chim Acta. 2001 Nov;313(1-2):139-42
pubmed: 11694251
Radiol Med. 2021 Feb;126(2):291-298
pubmed: 32564269
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Feb 22;14(5):
pubmed: 35267418
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Mar 29;113(13):E1826-34
pubmed: 26976580
Radiol Med. 2021 Jun;126(6):786-794
pubmed: 33512651
Sci Rep. 2019 Jul 29;9(1):10953
pubmed: 31358904
Nat Rev Cancer. 2017 Apr;17(4):223-238
pubmed: 28233803
Cancers (Basel). 2022 Feb 27;14(5):
pubmed: 35267544
Balkan Med J. 2021 Sep;38(5):287-295
pubmed: 34558414
Radiol Med. 2020 Apr;125(4):406-415
pubmed: 31970579
Radiol Med. 2021 Jun;126(6):774-785
pubmed: 33743143
Infect Agent Cancer. 2021 Jul 19;16(1):53
pubmed: 34281580
Cancer Control. 2021 Jan-Dec;28:1073274820985786
pubmed: 33567876
Cancer Res. 2013 Nov 1;73(21):6384-8
pubmed: 24145355
Cancer Med. 2019 Jul;8(8):3685-3697
pubmed: 31112372
Oncotarget. 2015 Oct 6;6(30):30394-407
pubmed: 26320185
Infect Agent Cancer. 2017 Oct 30;12:57
pubmed: 29093748