4.5 Article

Gene Alterations in Paired Supernatants and Precipitates from Malignant Pleural Effusions of Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Journal

TRANSLATIONAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.tranon.2020.100784

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81802276]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the feasibility of using malignant pleural effusion (MPE) supernatant and paired cell blocks (precipitate) for gene profiling in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using next-generation sequencing (NGS) technique. METHODS: Stage IV non-squamous NSCLC patients with MPE were eligible in this prospective study and recruited from Zhejiang Cancer Hospital between May 2014 and October 2015. MPE supernatant and paired precipitate sample gene alterations were determined with NGS containing 14 cancer-related genes. Progression free survival (PFS) was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank test. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were enrolled in the present study. All pleural effusions were confirmed as malignant with cytological smears. A total of 77 paired MPE supernatant and precipitate samples were acquired from the 102 patients. The results revealed that there were no statistically significant differences in the detection rate and maximum allelic fraction between supernatant and precipitate samples (P = 1.0 and P = .6). Collectively, 172 and 158 genomic alterations with 112 shared mutations were identified in supernatant and precipitate samples, respectively. Comparable PFS was found in FGFR mutation patients according to the supernatant and precipitate sample results (14.0 vs.13.9 months, P = .90). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrated that MPE supernatants were comparable to precipitate samples for detection of genetic alteration. However, gene mutation heterogeneity was found between these two media types.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available