Objectives: In this study we reviewed our practice of lung cancer epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutational testing in an academic centralized laboratory setting, where direct smears and liquid-based cytology (LBC) slides represent the most frequent cytological specimens received. The aim was to assess the differences, if any, between these sample types in terms of DNA yield, adequacy rates and overall EGFR testing performance. Study Design: A total of 362 cases were retrieved - received from January 2012 to January 2014 for EGFR testing - including 204 LBC specimens and 158 smears. Exon 19 deletions and the L858R point mutation in exon 21, detected by fragment assay and TaqMan assay, respectively, were confirmed by direct sequencing or by high-resolution melting. Results: Although the direct smears showed a higher DNA yield (60.94 vs. 23.07 ng/µl) and were more frequently cell-rich (54%) than the LBC slides (31.4%), the differences in adequacy (direct smears: 97.4%; LBCs: 94.1%) and in mutant rate (direct smears: 10.3%; LBCs: 14.0%) between the two sample types did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: Not only direct smears but also LBC slides represent an effective preparation and storage medium for cytological material to be used for EGFR molecular testing.

Keywords:
Epidermal growth factor receptor test, Nonsmall-cell lung cancer, Liquid-based cytology
© 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel
2014
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.