Search

The application of next generation sequencing (NGS) technology to cytological samples has significantly modified molecular cytopathology practice. Cytological samples represent a valid source of high‐quality DNA for NGS analysis, especially for predicting patients' response to targeted treatments and for refining the risk of malignancy in indeterminate cytological diagnoses. However, several pre‐analytical factors may influence the reliability of NGS clinical analysis. Here, we briefly review the challenges of NGS in cytology practice, focusing on those pre‐analytical factors that may negatively affect NGS success rates and routine diagnostic applications. Finally, we address the future directions of the field. Molecular cytopathology is a rapidly evolving field. Modern molecular cytopathologists play a key role in bridging the gap between conventional microscopy and novel molecular technologies. Cytological samples represent a valid source of high‐quality DNA for next generation sequencing (NGS) analysis, especially for predicting patients' response to targeted treatments and for refining the risk of malignancy in indeterminate cytological diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Artificial genomic reference standards in a cytocentrifuge/cytospin format with well‐annotated genomic data are useful for validating next‐generation sequencing (NGS) on routine cytopreparations. Here, reference standards were optimized to be stained by different laboratories before DNA extraction and to contain a lower number of cells (2 × 105). This was done to better reflect the clinical challenge of working with insufficient cytological material. Methods: A total of 17 worldwide laboratories analyzed customized reference standard slides (slides A‐D). Each laboratory applied its standard workflow. The sample slides were engineered to harbor epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) c.2235_2249del15 p.E746_A750delELREA, EGFR c.2369C>T p.T790M, Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) c.38G>A p.G13D, and B‐Raf proto‐oncogene, serine/threonine kinase (BRAF) c.1798_1799GT>AA p.V600K mutations at various allele frequencies (AFs). Results: EGFR and KRAS mutation detection showed excellent interlaboratory reproducibility, especially on slides A and B (10% and 5% AFs). On slide C (1% AF), either the EGFR mutation or the KRAS mutation was undetected by 10 of the 17 laboratories (58.82%). A reassessment of the raw data in a second‐look analysis highlighted the mutations (n = 10) that had been missed in the first‐look analysis. BRAF c.1798_1799GT>AA p.V600K showed a lower concordance rate for mutation detection and AF quantification. Conclusions: The data show that the detection of low‐abundance mutations is still clinically challenging and may require a visual inspection of sequencing reads to detect. Genomic reference standards in a cytocentrifuge/cytospin format are a valid tool for regular quality assessment of laboratories performing molecular studies on cytology with low‐AF mutations. Cytological genomic reference standards are a valid educational and validation tool and show highly reproducible results. The detection of low‐abundance mutations is challenging and may require a visual inspection of sequencing reads. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Minimally invasive procedures such as endobronchial ultrasound‐guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS‐TBNA) must yield not only good quality and quantity of material for morphological assessment, but also an adequate sample for analysis of molecular markers to guide patients to appropriate targeted therapies. In this context, cytopathologists worldwide should be familiar with minimum requirements for refereeing cytological samples for testing. The present manuscript is a review with comprehensive description of the content of the workshop entitled Cytological preparations for molecular analysis: pre‐analytical issues for EBUS TBNA, presented at the 40th European Congress of Cytopathology in Liverpool, UK. The present review emphasises the advantages and limitations of different types of cytology substrates used for molecular analysis such as archival smears, liquid‐based preparations, archival cytospin preparations and FTA (Flinders Technology Associates) cards, as well as their technical requirements/features. These various types of cytological specimens can be successfully used for an extensive array of molecular studies, but the quality and quantity of extracted nucleic acids rely directly on adequate pre‐analytical assessment of those samples. In this setting, cytopathologists must not only be familiar with the different types of specimens and associated technical procedures, but also correctly handle the material provided by minimally invasive procedures, ensuring that there is sufficient amount of material for a precise diagnosis and correct management of the patient through personalised care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Molecular testing of cytological lung cancer specimens includes, beyond epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), emerging predictive/prognostic genomic biomarkers such as Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS), neuroblastoma RAS viral [v-ras] oncogene homolog (NRAS), B-Raf proto-oncogene, serine/threonine kinase (BRAF), and phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit α (PIK3CA). Next-generation sequencing (NGS) and other multigene mutational assays are suitable for cytological specimens, including smears. However, the current literature reflects single-institution studies rather than multicenter experiences.Methods: Quantitative cytological molecular reference slides were produced with cell lines designed to harbor concurrent mutations in the EGFR, KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA genes at various allelic ratios, including low allele frequencies (AFs; 1%). This interlaboratory ring trial study included 14 institutions across the world that performed multigene mutational assays, from tissue extraction to data analysis, on these reference slides, with each laboratory using its own mutation analysis platform and methodology.Results: All laboratories using NGS (n = 11) successfully detected the study's set of mutations with minimal variations in the means and standard errors of variant fractions at dilution points of 10% (P = .171) and 5% (P = .063) despite the use of different sequencing platforms (Illumina, Ion Torrent/Proton, and Roche). However, when mutations at a low AF of 1% were analyzed, the concordance of the NGS results was low, and this reflected the use of different thresholds for variant calling among the institutions. In contrast, laboratories using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight (n = 2) showed lower concordance in terms of mutation detection and mutant AF quantification.Conclusions: Quantitative molecular reference slides are a useful tool for monitoring the performance of different multigene mutational assays, and this could lead to better standardization of molecular cytopathology procedures. Cancer Cytopathol 2017;125:615-26. © 2017 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The results from molecular assays can be affected significantly by the preanalytic condition of cytologic samples. The authors review current knowledge on the use of cytologic samples for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation testing in non-small cell lung cancer with a focus on preanalytic parameters. A systematic electronic search of the MEDLINE database was performed to identify original articles that reported the use of cytologic samples for EGFR molecular analysis and included a minimum of 100 samples. The information collected included author(s), journal, and year of publication; number of patients and samples; sampling method; type of preparation; type of fixative; staining techniques; mutation analysis techniques; tumor cellularity; the percentage of tumor cells; data on DNA quantity, quality, and concentration; failed assays; and the mutation rate. EGFR mutation analysis was conducted on 4999 cytologic samples from 22 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Fine-needle aspirates and pleural effusions were the most common types of specimens used. DNA was mainly extracted from cell blocks and smears, and the most commonly reported fixatives included formalin, ethanol, and CytoLyt. Cellularity assessments and DNA yields were available from 5 studies each. The average success rate for the assays that used cytologic specimens was 95.87% (range, 85.2%-100%). The mutation rate ranged from 6% to 50.46%, and a higher mutation detection rate and lower numbers of insufficient cases were reported for pleural effusions and lymph node samples from endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration compared with histologic specimens. Low cellularity and a low percentage of tumor cells were associated with higher test failure rates. Future guidelines should consider the current data for specific recommendations regarding cytologic samples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Molecular cytopathology has gene sequencing as its core technology. Until recently, cytological samples were only tested by sequential single-gene mutational tests. Today, with the better understanding of the molecular events involved in malignancy and the mechanisms of pharmacotherapy, larger gene panels are more informative than a single biomarker. Next-generation sequencing ( NGS), matched with the multiplex capture of targeted gene regions and analysed by sophisticated bioinformatics tools, enables the simultaneous detection of multiple mutations in multiple genes. With the development of miniaturised technology and benchtop sequencers, it is not unlikely that NGS will soon be adopted for routine molecular diagnostics, including cytological samples. This review addresses (1) the most relevant methodological and technical aspects of the NGS analysis workflow and the diverse platforms available; (2) the issues related to daily practice implementation, namely, the cytological sample requirement and the validation procedures; and (3) the opportunities that NGS offers in different fields of cytopathology, to increase mutation detection sensitivity in paucicellular smears and to extend the analysis to a larger number of gene regions. Cytopathologists involvement and coordination in this rapidly evolving field is crucial for the effective implementation of NGS in the present and future cytological practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]