Advertisement
Original Study| Volume 24, ISSUE 2, e105-e112, March 2023

The Performance of an Extended Next Generation Sequencing Panel Using Endobronchial Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Samples in Non-Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Pragmatic Study

  • Author Footnotes
    a Present Address: Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 185 Pilgrim Road, Deaconess 201, Boston, MA 02215.
    Chenchen Zhang
    Correspondence
    Address for correspondence: Chenchen Zhang, Division of Thoracic Surgery & Interventional Pulmonology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
    Footnotes
    a Present Address: Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 185 Pilgrim Road, Deaconess 201, Boston, MA 02215.
    Affiliations
    Division of Thoracic Surgery & Interventional Pulmonology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Roger Y. Kim
    Affiliations
    Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Cindy M. McGrath
    Affiliations
    Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Michelle Andronov
    Affiliations
    Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Andrew R. Haas
    Affiliations
    Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Kevin C. Ma
    Affiliations
    Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Anthony R. Lanfranco
    Affiliations
    Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Christoph T. Hutchinson
    Affiliations
    Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Jennifer J.D. Morrissette
    Affiliations
    Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
    Search for articles by this author
  • David M. DiBardino
    Affiliations
    Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
    Search for articles by this author
  • Author Footnotes
    a Present Address: Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 185 Pilgrim Road, Deaconess 201, Boston, MA 02215.
Published:December 04, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2022.11.010

      Highlights

      • The performance of extensive DNA and RNA NGS panels using EBUS-TBNA samples is highly successful.
      • Sampling more advanced nodal stations and samples with higher tumor cellularity are associated with a higher likelihood of DNA NGS success.
      • More than 3 EBUS-TBNA passes from the same nodal station did not result in better NGS performance.

      Abstract

      Introduction/Background

      Samples from endobronchial ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) are frequently used for next generation sequencing (NGS) in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) to look for genetic driver mutations. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the performance of extended NGS panels using EBUS-TBNA samples in a real-world setting and identify factors associated with the success of NGS.

      Materials and Methods

      This study included all patients who underwent EBUS and were diagnosed with non-squamous NSCLC with mediastinal metastasis from 2016 to 2019 at the University of Pennsylvania. We reviewed demographic information, imaging studies, procedure reports, pathology and NGS reports. Logistic regression was used to analyze factors associated with the success of NGS panels.

      Results

      The success rates of NGS using EBUS-TBNA samples were 92.5%, and 91.5% for DNA and RNA NGS panels respectively. Samples from higher N stage (N2 and N3 lymph nodes) and with higher tumor cellularity (>25%) resulted in higher success rate for DNA NGS. The effect of tumor cellularity remained borderline significant after entering multivariable logistic regression. The short-axis diameter of the sampled lymph node on CT scan, FDG-avidity on PET CT and >3 EBUS passes per lymph node during the procedure were not associated with NGS success.

      Conclusion

      Both DNA and RNA extended-panel NGS had high performance using EBUS-TBNA samples. Sampling more advanced nodal stations and obtaining samples with higher tumor cellularity were associated with higher success rate of DNA NGS. Other imaging or procedural factors did not affect NGS performance.

      Keywords

      Abbreviations:

      NGS (next generation sequencing), NSCLC (non-small cell lung cancer), EBUS-TBNA (endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration), FNA (fine needle aspiration), ROSE (rapid on-site evaluation), FB (flexible Bronchoscopy), EBBx (endobronchial biopsy), TBBx (transbronchial biopsy), IHC (immunohistochemistry stains), STP (solid tumor panel), FTP (fusion transcription panel), PD-L1 (programmed death-ligand 1), EML4-ALK (Echinoderm microtubule-associated protein-like 4 - anaplastic lymphoma kinase), RET (rearranged during transfection), ROS1 (proto-oncogene tyrosine-protein kinase 1), FISH (fluorescence in situ hybridization), CT (computed tomography), PET (positron emission tomography), FDG (Fluorodeoxyglucose), SUVmax (maximum standardized uptake value), IQR (interquartile range), OR (Odds Ratio), CI (confidence interval), ctDNA (circulating tumor DNA), FFPE (formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Lung Cancer
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

        • Siegel RL
        • Miller KD
        • Fuchs HE
        • Jemal A.
        Cancer statistics, 2021.
        Ca Cancer J Clin. 2021; 71: 7-33https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21708
        • Aberle DR
        • Adams AM
        • et al.
        Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening.
        N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 395-409https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1102873
        • Peravali M
        • Wang H
        • Kim C
        • Veytsman I.
        Combined Inhibition of EGFR and VEGF pathways in patients with EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Curr Oncol Rep. 2020; 22: 119https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-020-00981-0
        • Jiang L
        • Meng X
        • Zhao X
        • Xing L
        • Yu J.
        Perspective on treatment for unresectable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer with oncogene-driven mutation: a narrative review.
        Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2020; 9: 2137-2144https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-20-722
        • Lindeman NI
        • Cagle PT
        • Aisner DL
        • et al.
        Updated molecular testing guideline for the selection of lung cancer patients for treatment with targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors: guideline from the college of american pathologists, the international association for the study of lung cancer, and the association for molecular pathology.
        J Mol Diagn. 2018; 20: 129-159https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2017.11.004
        • Endris V
        • Penzel R
        • Warth A
        • et al.
        Molecular diagnostic profiling of lung cancer specimens with a semiconductor-based massive parallel sequencing approach: feasibility, costs, and performance compared with conventional sequencing.
        J Mol Diagn. 2013; 15: 765-775https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2013.06.002
        • Head SR
        • Komori HK
        • LaMere SA
        • et al.
        Library construction for next-generation sequencing: overviews and challenges.
        Biotechniques. 2014; 56: 61-64https://doi.org/10.2144/000114133
        • Bruno R
        • Fontanini G.
        Next generation sequencing for gene fusion analysis in lung cancer: a literature review.
        Diagnostics (Basel). 2020; 10: 521https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics10080521
        • van der Heijden EH
        • Casal RF
        • Trisolini R
        • et al.
        Guideline for the acquisition and preparation of conventional and endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration specimens for the diagnosis and molecular testing of patients with known or suspected lung cancer.
        Respiration. 2014; 88: 500-517https://doi.org/10.1159/000368857
        • Dietel M
        • Bubendorf L
        • Dingemans AM
        • et al.
        Diagnostic procedures for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC): recommendations of the European Expert Group.
        Thorax. 2016; 71: 177-184https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-206677
        • Roy-Chowdhuri S
        • Aisner DL
        • Allen TC
        • et al.
        Biomarker testing in lung carcinoma cytology specimens: a perspective from members of the pulmonary pathology society.
        Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016; 140: 1267-1272https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2016-0091-SA
        • Hagemann IS
        • Devarakonda S
        • Lockwood CM
        • et al.
        Clinical next-generation sequencing in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.
        Cancer. 2015; 121: 631-639https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.29089
        • Turner SR
        • Buonocore D
        • Desmeules P
        • et al.
        Feasibility of endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration for massively parallel next-generation sequencing in thoracic cancer patients.
        Lung Cancer. 2018; 119: 85-90https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2018.03.003
        • De Luca C
        • Pepe F
        • Iaccarino A
        • et al.
        RNA-based assay for next-generation sequencing of clinically relevant gene fusions in non-small cell lung cancer.
        Cancers (Basel). 2021; : 13https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13010139
        • Detterbeck FC
        • Boffa DJ
        • Kim AW
        • Tanoue LT.
        The eighth edition lung cancer stage classification.
        Chest. 2017; 151: 193-203
        • Wei S
        • Lieberman D
        • Morrissette JJ
        • Baloch ZW
        • Roth DB
        • CJCc McGrath
        Using “residual” FNA rinse and body fluid specimens for next-generation sequencing: an institutional experience.
        Cancer Cytopathology. 2016; 124: 324-329https://doi.org/10.1002/cncy.21666
        • Hofman MS
        • Hicks RJ.
        How we read oncologic FDG PET/CT.
        Cancer Imaging. 2016; 16: 1-4
        • Zhao JJ
        • Chan HP
        • Soon YY
        • Huang Y
        • Soo RA
        • Kee ACL.
        A systematic review and meta-analysis of the adequacy of endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration for next-generation sequencing in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.
        Lung Cancer. 2022; 166: 17-26https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2022.01.018
        • Stoy SP
        • Segal JP
        • Mueller J
        • et al.
        Feasibility of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration cytology specimens for next generation sequencing in non-small-cell lung cancer.
        Clin Lung Cancer. 2018; 19: e232https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cllc.2017.11.010
        • Uchimura K
        • Yanase K
        • Imabayashi T
        • et al.
        The impact of core tissues on successful next-generation sequencing analysis of specimens obtained through endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration.
        Cancers (Basel). 2021; : 13https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13235879
        • Murakami S
        • Yokose T
        • Nemoto D
        • et al.
        Suitability of bronchoscopic biopsy tissue samples for next-generation sequencing.
        Diagnostics (Basel). 2021; : 11https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11030391
        • Pisapia P
        • Costa JL
        • Pepe F
        • et al.
        Next generation sequencing for liquid biopsy based testing in non-small cell lung cancer in 2021.
        Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2021; 161103311https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103311
        • Wong NA
        • Gonzalez D
        • Salto-Tellez M
        • et al.
        RAS testing of colorectal carcinoma—a guidance document from the association of clinical pathologists molecular pathology and diagnostics group.
        Practice Guideline. 2014; 67: 751-757https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202467
        • Li MM
        • Datto M
        • Duncavage EJ
        • et al.
        Standards and guidelines for the interpretation and reporting of sequence variants in cancer: a joint consensus recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and College of American Pathologists.
        J Mol Diag. 2017; 19: 4-23https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoldx.2016.10.002
        • Muriana P
        • Rossetti FJM.
        The role of EBUS-TBNA in lung cancer restaging and mutation analysis.
        Mediastinum. 2020; 4: 23https://doi.org/10.21037/med-20-24