Molecular classification of cancer with the 92-gene assay in cytology and limited tissue samples

Abstract

BackgroundDetailed molecular evaluation of cytology and limited tissue samples is increasingly becoming the standard for cancer care. Reproducible and accurate diagnostic approaches with reduced demands on cellularity are an ongoing unmet need. This study evaluated the performance of a 92-gene assay for molecular diagnosis of tumor type/subtype in cytology and limited tissue samples.MethodsClinical validation of accuracy for the 92-gene assay in limited tissue samples such as cytology cell blocks, core biopsies and small excisions was conducted in a blinded multi-institutional study (N = 109, 48% metastatic, 53% grade II and III). Analytical success rate and diagnostic utility were evaluated in a consecutive series of 644 cytology cases submitted for clinical testing.ResultsThe 92-gene assay demonstrated 91% sensitivity (95% CI [0.84, 0.95]) for tumor classification, with high accuracy maintained irrespective of specimen type (100%, 92%, and 86% in FNA/cytology cell blocks, core biopsies, and small excisions, respectively; p = 0.26). The assay performed equally well for metastatic versus primary tumors (90% vs 93%, p = 0.73), and across histologic grades (100%, 90%, 89%, in grades I, II, and III, respectively; p = 0.75). In the clinical case series, a molecular diagnosis was reported in 87% of the 644 samples, identifying 23 different tumor types and allowing for additional mutational analysis in selected cases.ConclusionsThese findings demonstrate high accuracy and analytical success rate of the 92-gene assay, supporting its utility in the molecular diagnosis of cancer for specimens with limited tissue.

Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy of Liver Lesions Yields Higher Tumor Fraction for Molecular Studies: A Direct Comparison With Concurrent Core Needle Biopsy

“…In addition, numerous studies have shown FNAB to be a highly accurate, safe, and cost-effective tissue sampling method, [5][6][7][8] and samples have been shown to be suitable for molecular testing, including next-generation sequencing (NGS). [9][10][11] Therefore, as oncology moves into the era of personalized medicine, it is imperative to determine the utility and effectiveness of tissue sampling modalities.…”

Prognostic Importance of Cell Cycle Regulators Cyclin D1 (CCND1) and Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor 1B (CDKN1B/p27) in Sporadic Gastric Cancers

“…Since the MLPA evaluation is based on quantitative reading of peak intensities, it is, naturally, influenced by the level of background set by the presence of nonmalignant components in the tested sample. Therefore, tumor cellularity is essential as reported recently [ 35 ]. The representative results of MLPA evaluation of gene amplification in gastric carcinoma tissue are shown in Figures 1 and 2 .…”

Integrating a 92-Gene Expression Analysis for the Management of Neuroendocrine Tumors of Unknown Primary

“…Analysis of the 92-gene test allowed performance comparisons between primary and metastasis tumor sites, tumor grades, and previous microarray platform studies (Erlander et al, 2011, Wu et al, 2012. No performance loss or significant difference between primary and metastatic sites was found and no statistical significance among tumor grades could be identified (Wu et al, 2012) and was proven accurate with smaller tissue samples, irrespective of biopsy site (Brachtel et al, 2016). The 92-gene cancer ID analysis accurately determined the tumor site origin of 96.2% of cases compared to IHC, Figure 1.…”