Dataset Information

Biopsy misidentification identified by DNA profiling in a large multicenter trial.

ABSTRACT: The Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events (REDUCE) prostate cancer risk reduction study randomly assigned 8,231 men to dutasteride or placebo for 4 years. Protocol-mandated biopsies were obtained after 2 and 4 years. After the discovery of three cases of biopsy sample misidentification in the first 2 years, all protocol-mandated biopsy samples were DNA tested to verify biopsy identity.Biopsy and blood DNA profiling was performed retrospectively for the year 2 scheduled biopsies and prospectively for the year 4 scheduled biopsies. Toward the end of year 2, multiple changes were made to improve sample handling and chain of custody.Of the 6,458 year 2 and 4,777 year 4 biopsies, 26 biopsies reflecting 13 sample handling errors at year 2 (0.4%) and one biopsy reflecting one sample handling error at year 4 (0.02%) were confirmed to be mismatched to the patient for whom they were originally submitted. Of 6,733 reference blood samples profiled, 31 (0.5%) were found to be mismatched to the patient's verified identity profile. Sample identification errors occurred at local research sites and central laboratories.Biopsy misidentification is a potential problem in clinical laboratories and clinical trials. Until now, biopsy misidentification has not been studied in the setting of a large, multinational clinical trial. In the REDUCE study, process improvement initiatives halfway through the trial dramatically reduced biopsy mismatches. The potential for biopsy mismatches in clinical trials and clinical practice is an under-recognized problem that requires rigorous attention to details of chain of custody and consideration of more widespread DNA identity testing.

SUBMITTER: Marberger M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3107764 | biostudies-literature | 2011 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Biopsy misidentification identified by DNA profiling in a large multicenter trial.

Marberger Michael M McConnell John D JD Fowler Ivy I Andriole Gerald L GL Bostwick David G DG Somerville Matthew C MC Rittmaster Roger S RS

Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 20110328 13

<h4>Purpose</h4>The Reduction by Dutasteride of Prostate Cancer Events (REDUCE) prostate cancer risk reduction study randomly assigned 8,231 men to dutasteride or placebo for 4 years. Protocol-mandated biopsies were obtained after 2 and 4 years. After the discovery of three cases of biopsy sample misidentification in the first 2 years, all protocol-mandated biopsy samples were DNA tested to verify biopsy identity.<h4>Methods</h4>Biopsy and blood DNA profiling was performed retrospectively for th ...[more]

PMID: 21444877

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimsAlthough conventional EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) has previously been considered first-line for sampling subepithelial lesions (SELs), variable accuracy has resulted in increased use of fine-needle biopsy (FNB) sampling to improve diagnostic yield. The primary aim of this study was to compare FNA versus FNB sampling for the diagnosis of SELs.MethodsThis was a multicenter, retrospective study to evaluate the outcomes of EUS-FNA and EUS-guided FNB sampling (EUS-FNB) of SELs over a 3-year period. Demographics, lesion characteristics, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), cell block accuracy, and adverse events were analyzed. Subgroup analyses were performed comparing FNA versus FNB sampling by location and diagnostic yield with or without ROSE. Multivariable logistic regression was also performed.ResultsTwo hundred twenty-nine patients with SELs (115 FNA and 114 FNB sampling) underwent EUS-guided sampling. Mean patient age was 60.86 ± 12.84 years. Most lesions were gastric in location (75.55%) and from the fourth layer (71.18%). Cell block for FNB sampling required fewer passes to achieve conclusive diagnosis (2.94 ± 1.09 vs 3.55 ± 1.55; P = .003). The number of passes was not different for ROSE adequacy (P = .167). Immunohistochemistry was more able to be successfully performed in more FNB sampling samples (69.30% vs 40.00%; P < .001). Overall, sensitivity and accuracy were superior for FNB sampling versus FNA (79.41% vs 51.92% [P = .001] and 88.03% vs 77.19% [P = .030], respectively). On subgroup analysis, sensitivity and accuracy of FNB sampling alone was superior to FNA + ROSE (79.03% vs 46.67% [P = .001] and 87.25% vs 68.00% [P = .024], respectively). There was no significant difference in diagnostic yield of FNB sampling alone versus FNB sampling + ROSE (P > .05). Multivariate analysis showed no predictors associated with accuracy. One minor adverse event was reported in the FNA group.ConclusionsEUS-FNB was superior to EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of SELs. EUS-FNB was also superior to EUS-FNA alone and EUS-FNA + ROSE. These results suggest EUS-FNB should be considered a first-line modality and may suggest a reduced role for ROSE in the diagnosis of SELs. However, a large randomized controlled trial is required to confirm our findings.

Dataset Information

Biopsy misidentification identified by DNA profiling in a large multicenter trial.

Publications

Biopsy misidentification identified by DNA profiling in a large multicenter trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets