Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Pilot study shows rapid mutation detection in lung cancer using cytology supernatants, suggesting improved workflow.
INTRODUCTION: Timely molecular testing is essential for guiding targeted therapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), yet results are often delayed by limited tissue availability and reliance on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) material for next-generation sequencing (NGS). Cytology fine-needle aspiration (FNA) specimens frequently provide the sole diagnostic sample, and their residual supernatants-typically discarded-represent an untapped source of tumor-derived nucleic acids. METHODS: In this pilot study, cytology supernatants from 10 NSCLC cases with known EGFR or KRAS mutations by NGS were analyzed using Idylla™ ctEGFR and ctKRAS Mutation Assays. Each 2-3 mL supernatant sample, stored in CytoLyt® at 4 °C after cell block preparation, was tested without extraction. Idylla™ results were compared with orthogonal NGS data for concordance, and turnaround times for routine FFPE-based testing were evaluated to model potential workflow improvements. RESULTS: All four EGFR-mutated cases (p.L858R, p.G719A, and exon 19 deletions) were correctly detected by Idylla™, yielding 100% concordance with NGS. Among six KRAS-mutated cases, Idylla™ identified all p.G12C variants but missed p.G12V and p.Q61K, achieving 80% overall concordance. Median time from collection to NGS report was 22 days, whereas modeled same-day Idylla™ testing offered a theoretical reduction of approximately 20 days in turnaround time. Discordant cases correlated with relatively low tumor cellularity in cell blocks. CONCLUSIONS: Cytology supernatants preserved in CytoLyt® are a feasible substrate for rapid, cartridge-based molecular testing using the Idylla™ platform. This approach can serve as a complementary or rescue strategy when cellular slide preparations or FFPE tissue is limited or NGS fails, enabling faster access to actionable molecular results in NSCLC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parham et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: