FNA smears of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma are superior to formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue as a source of DNA: Comparison of targeted KRAS amplification and genotyping in matched preresection and postresection samples

Comparison of Breast Fine-Needle Aspiration Cytology and Tissue Sampling for High-Throughput Proteomic Analysis and Cancer Biomarker Detection

INTRODUCTION

Fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) specimens are widely utilized for the diagnosis and molecular testing of various cancers. We performed a comparative proteomic analysis of three different sample types, including breast FNAC, core needle biopsy (CNB), and surgical resection tissues. Our goal was to evaluate the suitability of FNAC for in-depth proteomic analysis and for identifying potential therapeutic biomarkers in breast cancer.

METHODS

High-throughput proteomic analysis was conducted on matched FNAC, CNB, and surgical resection tissue samples obtained from breast cancer patients. The protein identification, including currently established or promising therapeutic targets, was compared among the three different sample types. Gene Ontology (GO) enrichment analysis was also performed on all matched samples.

RESULTS

Compared to tissue samples, FNAC testing revealed a comparable number of proteins (7,179 in FNAC; 7,196 in CNB; and 7,190 in resection samples). Around 85% of proteins were mutually identified in all sample types. FNAC, along with CNB, showed a positive correlation between the number of enrolled tumor cells and identified proteins. In the GO analysis, the FNAC samples demonstrated a higher number of genes for each pathway and GO terms than tissue samples. CCND1, CDK6, HER2, and IGF1R were found in higher quantities in the FNAC compared to tissue samples, while TUBB2A was only detected in the former.

CONCLUSION

FNAC is suitable for high-throughput proteomic analysis, in addition to an emerging source that could be used to identify and quantify novel cancer biomarkers.

Comprehensive molecular profiling of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in FNA, biopsy, and resection specimens

BACKGROUND

Molecular testing to identify molecular alterations in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has been increasingly requested because of potential therapeutic implications. In this study, we compared the performance of PDAC fine-needle aspiration (FNA), fine-needle biopsy (FNB), and resection specimens for comprehensive molecular analysis.

METHODS

A next-generation sequencing-based Oncomine Comprehensive Assay (OCA) was used to analyze molecular alterations in FNA, FNB, or resection specimens. We examined adequacy and success rates for completion of molecular testing and catalogued molecular alterations in these specimen types.

RESULTS

The cohort included 23 FNA, 20 FNB, and 27 resection cases. Gene mutation or amplification analysis was successful in 18 (78%) FNA and 16 (80%) FNB specimens, whereas gene fusion assessment succeeded in 12 (52%) FNA and 12 (60%) FNB samples. All 27 (100%) resection specimens were adequate for complete OCA. There were significant differences in success rates for mutation and amplification analysis between resection and FNA or FNB specimens (P < .01) but not between FNA and FNB samples (P > .05). Manual microdissection was less likely to be performed for FNA specimens than FNB or resection specimens (P < .01). KRAS mutation was the most common mutation identified (90%), followed by mutations in TP53 (64%), CDKN2A (25%), and SMAD4 (15%) genes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated similar success rates for comprehensive molecular analysis using FNA and FNB specimens of PDAC, suggesting that FNA material could serve as an alternative source for comprehensive molecular testing. The molecular alterations identified in these specimens may have potential diagnostic and therapeutic implications.

Comparison of Fluorometric and UV Spectrophotometric Findings for DNA Isolated From Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Blocks, Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology Smears, and Blood

Introduction: Fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) smear may serve as a convenient sample for DNA extraction for molecular pathology in addition to more commonly used formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) sections. DNA quantification done by fluorometer is more accurate than UV vis spectrophotometer regardless of the source. This study was conducted to compare DNA yield and quality from cytology smears, FFPE sections and peripheral blood using both fluorometer and spectrophotometer. Further, introspection was made to check for the adequacy of DNA extracted from cytology smears with respect to DNA extracted from core biopsies.

Method: DNA was extracted from 10 fresh peripheral blood samples, core biopsies and FNAC smears. The DNA was quantified using a fluorimeter and UV vis spectrophotometer in all cases.

Results: Statistically significant difference was seen between the data obtained from UV vis spectrophotometry and flourometry. The quantity of DNA extracted from FNAC smears was higher than that of core biopsy as per fluorometry data (mean DNA of core biopsy = 1.9ng/µl, of FNAC = 3.3ng/µl).

Conclusion: DNA estimation by fluorometry is more accurate and precise than spectrophotometry in FFPE, FNAC and whole blood samples. DNA yield from FNAC slides is comparable to that from core biopsies.

Impact of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition on Decision-Making in Precision Medicine for Pancreatic Cancer: Beyond Diagnosis

Precision medicine in cancer treatment refers to targeted therapy based on the evaluation of biomarkers. Although precision medicine for pancreatic cancer (PC) remains challenging, novel biomarker-based therapies, such as pembrolizumab, olaparib, and entrectinib, have been emerging. Most commonly, endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) had been used for the diagnosis of PC until now. However, advances in EUS-TA devices and biomarker testing, especially next-generation sequencing, have opened up the possibility of sequencing of various genes even in limited amounts of tissue samples obtained by EUS-TA, and identifying potential genetic alterations as therapeutic targets. Precision medicine benefits only a small population of patients with PC, but biomarker-based therapy has shown promising results in patients who once had no treatment options. Now, the role of EUS-TA has extended beyond diagnosis into decision-making regarding the treatment of PC. In this review, we mainly discuss tissue sampling by EUS-TA for biomarker testing and the current status of precision medicine for PC.

Diagnostic value of digital droplet polymerase chain reaction and digital multiplexed detection of single-nucleotide variants in pancreatic cytology specimens collected by EUS-guided FNA

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided FNA is recommended as a first-line procedure for the histopathologic diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Molecular analysis of EUS-FNA samples might be used as an auxiliary tool to strengthen the diagnosis. The current study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performances of K-ras testing using droplet digital polymerase chain reaction (ddPCR) and a novel single-nucleotide variant (SNV) assay performed on pancreatic EUS-FNA samples.

METHODS

EUS-FNA specimens from 31 patients with pancreatic masses (22 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas, 7 chronic pancreatitis, and 2 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors) were included in the study. K-ras testing was initially performed by ddPCR. In addition, mutational status was evaluated using an SNV assay by NanoString technology, using digital enumeration of unique barcoded probes to detect 97 SNVs from 24 genes of clinical significance.

RESULTS

The overall specificity and sensitivity of cytologic examination were 100% and 63%, respectively. K-ras mutation testing was performed using ddPCR, and the sensitivity increased to 87% with specificity 90%. The SNV assay detected at least 1 variant in 90% of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma samples; the test was able to detect 2 K-ras codon 61 mutations in 2 cases of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, which were missed by ddPCR. The overall diagnostic accuracy of the cytologic examination alone was 74%, and it increased to 91% when the results of both molecular tests were considered for the cases with negative and inconclusive results.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study illustrated that integration of K-ras analysis with cytologic evaluation, especially in inconclusive cases, can enhance the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions.

Theragnostic chromosomal rearrangements in treatment-naive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas obtained via endoscopic ultrasound

A crucial mutational mechanism in malignancy is structural variation, in which chromosomal rearrangements alter gene functions that drive cancer progression. Herein, the presence and pattern of structural variations were investigated in twelve prospectively acquired treatment‐naïve pancreatic cancers specimens obtained via endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). In many patients, this diagnostic biopsy procedure and specimen is the only opportunity to identify somatic clinically relevant actionable alterations that may impact their care and outcome. Specialized mate pair sequencing (MPseq) provided genome‐wide structural variance analysis (SVA) with a view to identifying prognostic markers and possible therapeutic targets. MPseq was successfully performed on all specimens, identifying highly rearranged genomes with complete SVA on all specimens with > 20% tumour content. SVA identified chimeric fusion proteins and potentially immunogenic readthrough transcripts, change of function truncations, gains and losses of key genes linked to tumour progression. Complex localized rearrangements, termed chromoanagenesis, with broad pattern heterogeneity were observed in 10 (83%) specimens, impacting multiple genes with diverse cellular functions that could influence theragnostic evaluation and responsiveness to immunotherapy regimens. This study indicates that genome‐wide MPseq can be successfully performed on very limited clinically EUS obtained specimens for chromosomal rearrangement detection and potential theragnostic targets.

Pathologic interpretation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology/biopsy for pancreatic lesions

Pathologic interpretation of endoscopic ultrasound–guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology/biopsy specimens is one of the most challenging tasks in cytology and surgical pathology practice, as the procedure often yields minimal amounts of diagnostic material and contains contaminants, such as blood cells and normal intestinal mucosa. EUS-FNA cytology/biopsy will nevertheless become a more popular procedure for evaluation of various pancreatic lesions because they are difficult to approach with conventional endoscopic procedures. Pathologists should understand the structural differences and limitations of EUS-FNA that make pathologic diagnosis difficult. Ancillary tests are available for differential diagnosis of EUS-FNA for various pancreatic lesions. Immunostains are the most commonly used ancillary tests, and pathologists should able to choose the necessary panel for differential diagnosis. Pathologists should review clinical history and radiologic and/or EUS findings before selecting an immunostain panel and making a pathologic diagnosis. In addition, one’s threshold of malignancy should be adjusted according to the appropriate clinical setting to avoid under-evaluation of pathologic diagnoses. Clinico-pathologic correlation is essential in pathologic evaluation of EUS-FNA for pancreatic lesions. Pathologists can reduce errors by correlating clinical and radiologic findings when evaluating EUS-FNA. Some molecular tests can be applied in differential diagnosis of pancreatic neoplastic and cystic lesions. Molecular data should be used as supportive evidence of a specific disease entity, rather than direct evidence, and should be correlated with clinico-pathologic findings to avoid errors in pathologic diagnosis.

Usefulness of rapid on-site evaluation specimens from endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for cancer gene panel testing: A retrospective study

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly lethal malignancy, with a 5-year survival rate of 6%. Cancer gene panel testing is expected to allow selection of suitable therapeutic drugs in individual patients with PC and improve their prognosis. Although somatic mutations can be identified in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples derived from surgical specimen, the rate of surgical indication among patients with PC is only 20%. To acquire genome information with a less invasive method, we used rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) specimens from endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration. The present study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the utility of comprehensive cancer gene panel testing with ROSE specimens. DNA was extracted from preserved ROSE specimens of 26 patients diagnosed with PC between 2011 and 2017. DNA sequences of oncogenes and cancer-related genes were determined using the Ion AmpliSeq Comprehensive Caner Panel. We compared KRAS mutations between cancer gene panel testing by next-generation sequencing (NGS) and KRAS mutation analysis by polymerase chain reaction. The mean yield of DNA per extraction from ROSE specimens was 171 ng (range, 34-478 ng). On cancer gene panel testing, we noted KRAS mutations (92%), TP53 mutations (50%), CDKN2A mutations (15%), and SMAD4 mutations (31%). The concordance rate of KRAS mutations between cancer gene panel testing by NGS using ROSE specimens and KRAS mutation analysis by the companion diagnostics using residual materials was 81%. Among five cases of KRAS discordance, three showed KRAS mutations in cancer gene panel testing but not in KRAS mutation analysis. Cancer gene panel testing with ROSE specimens can help stratify unresectable PC patients without additional invasive approaches, and it can be used for therapeutic drug selection.

New era for pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound: From imaging to molecular pathology of pancreatic cancer

With recent advances in molecular pathology and the development of new chemotherapy regimens, the knowledge of the molecular alterations of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is becoming appealing for stratifying patients for prognosis and response to a defined treatment. Archival formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples are a useful source of genomic deoxyribonucleic acid; nevertheless, most studies employed formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples deriving from surgical specimens, which are therefore representative of <20% of PDAC patients. Indeed, the development of a reliable methodology for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition, stabilization, and analysis is crucial for the development of molecular markers for clinical use in order to achieve “personalized medicine”. With the development of new needles, this technique is able to retrieve a high quantity and quality of PDAC tissue that can be used not only for diagnosis but also for mutational and transcriptome evaluations and for the development of primary cell or tissue cultures. In the present editorial, we discuss the current knowledge regarding the use of endoscopic ultrasound as a tool to obtain samples for molecular analyses, its possible pitfalls, and its use for the development of disease models such as xenografts or organoids.

New Era of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition: Next-Generation Sequencing by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling for Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer is a lethal cancer with an increasing incidence. Despite improvements in chemotherapy, patients with pancreatic cancer continue to face poor prognoses. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is the primary method for obtaining tissue samples of pancreatic cancer. Due to advancements in next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, multiple parallel sequencing can be applied to EUS-TA samples. Genomic biomarkers for therapeutic stratification in pancreatic cancer are still lacking, however, NGS can unveil potential predictive genomic biomarkers of treatment response. Thus, the importance of NGS using EUS-TA samples is becoming recognized. In this review, we discuss the recent advances in EUS-TA application for NGS of pancreatic cancer.

Touch imprint cytology on endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy provides comparable sample quality and diagnostic yield to standard endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration specimens in the evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is the gold standard for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs). Cytological samples can also be obtained using touch imprint cytology (TIC) on EUS fine-needle biopsy (FNB) specimens. We aimed to compare sample quality and diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA-standard cytology (EUS-FNA-SC) to that of EUS-FNB-TIC in a series of patients with SPLs.

METHODS

Thirty-two consecutive patients referred for EUS-tissue acquisition of SPLs who underwent rapid on-site evaluation of both EUS-FNA-SC and paired EUS-FNB-TIC during the same endoscopic session were retrospectively identified. Sample quality (evaluated in terms of blood contamination, presence of clots, tissue casts, cellularity, and necrosis) and diagnostic yield were compared between the techniques.

RESULTS

The mean number of passes to reach diagnosis at rapid on-site evaluation was similar between EUS-FNA-SC and EUS-FNB-TIC (1.09 ± 0.3 vs 1.13 ± 0.34, P = .711). EUS-FNA-SC scores of sample quality were comparable to those of EUS-FNB-TIC (blood contamination, 2.47 ± 1.11 vs 2.25 ± 1.14, P = .109; clots, 1.25 ± 0.76 vs 1.19 ± 0.69, P = .624; tissue casts, 3.56 ± 0.88 vs 3.59 ± 1.09, P = .872; cellularity, 2.84 ± 1.11 vs 3.09 ± 1.09, P = .244; necrosis, 2.25 ± 1.08 vs 2.53 ± 1.02 P = .059; total score, 12.38 ± 2.88 vs 17.66 ± 2.38, P = .536). Adequacy, sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy of the two sampling techniques were equal (93.7%, 90.6% and 90.6%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-FNB-TIC provides comparable samples to those of EUS-FNA-SC and combines the benefits of cytology and histology for the evaluation of SPLs by employing a single needle during the same endoscopic procedure.