QJM. 2016 Mar;109(3):167-73. doi: 10.1093/qjmed/hcv103. Epub 2015 Jun 1.

Comparison of EGFR mutation detection between the tissue and cytology using direct sequencing, pyrosequencing and peptide nucleic acid clamping in lung adenocarcinoma: Korean multicentre study.

Min KW¹, Kim WS², Jang SJ³, Choi YD⁴, Chang S⁵, Jung SH⁶, Kim L⁷, Roh MS⁸, Lee CS⁹, Shim JW¹⁰, Kim MJ¹¹, Lee GK¹²; Korean Cardiopulmonary Pathology Study Group.

Author information

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The importance of sensitive methods for the detection of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation is emphasized. The aim of this study is to perform comparative and concordance analyses of direct sequencing, pyrosequencing and peptide nucleic acid (PNA)clamping for detecting EGFR gene mutations using archived tissue and cytology specimens.

METHODS:

Samples from a total of 112 cases, which were diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the lung at nine hospitals in Korea were collected. Using the above three methods, the concordance rates of EGFR mutations in exons 18, 19, 20 and 21 were analysed and validated in comparative tissue and cytology specimens.

RESULTS:

Comparison of EGFR mutation detection between the tissue and cytology had a high concordance rate. The diagnostic performance of pyrosequencing and PNA clamping in tissue was higher than that of direct sequencing as well as cytology. Additionally, among some of the patients who had EGFR wild type by single method, EGFR mutations were detected by other methods. Cytology specimens had a diagnostic performance for the detection of EGFR mutations.

CONCLUSIONS:

Cytology specimens had a diagnostic performance for the detection of EGFR mutations that was comparable to that of tissues. For detecting EGFR mutations, pyrosequencing or PNA clamping was more sensitive than direct sequencing. In EGFR mutation negative patients who are difficult to obtain tissue, repeating test using pyrosequencing or PNA clamping is recommended to improve the detection rate of EGFR mutation than only one, especially in cytology.

© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association of Physicians. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.