Open AccessComparison of sampling methods for next generation sequencing for patients with lung cancer
Author(s) -
Kunimasa Kei,
Matsumoto Shingo,
Nishino Kazumi,
Honma Keiichiro,
Maeda Noboru,
Kuhara Hanako,
Tamiya Motohiro,
Inoue Takako,
Kawamura Takahisa,
Kimura Toru,
Maniwa Tomohiro,
Okami Jiro,
Goto Koichi,
Kumagai Toru
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
cancer medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.403
H-Index - 53
ISSN - 2045-7634
DOI - 10.1002/cam4.4632
Subject(s) - biopsy , medicine , sampling (signal processing) , lung cancer , radiology , liquid biopsy , cancer , pathology , computer science , filter (signal processing) , computer vision
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.