Molecular testing opportunities on cytology effusion specimens: the pre-analytic effects of various body fluid cytology preparation methods on RNA extraction quality and targeted sequencing
Gloria H Sura,Kevin Tran,Chunxiao Fu,Lili Du,Michał Marczyk,Yadira Martinez,Agata A Tinnirello,Rebekah E Gould,Rosanna Lau,W Fraser Symmans
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasc.2022.09.003
Abstract:Introduction: RNA sequencing (RNAseq) analysis is emerging as a clinical research or diagnostic approach for cytologic samples, but there is need for formal comparison of different sample preparation methods in the cytology laboratory to identify which pre-analytic methods could provide alternatives to formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) sections. Materials and methods: We prepared 13 malignant effusions (metastatic estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer) in the cytology laboratory using 6 routine cytologic methods: FFPE cell block, Carnoy's solution, 95% ethanol (EtOH), air-dried and Diff-Quik, ThinPrep, and SurePath preparations. Measurements of RNA quality, expression of 2 multigene expression signatures, molecular subtype, and 4 common activating mutation sites in each preparation were compared with fresh frozen (FF) cell pellet in RNA preservative using distribution of fragment length and concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Results: The fraction of RNA fragments measuring 200 bases or more (DV200) were 24% higher from cytospins fixed in Carnoy's solution or 95% EtOH than DV200 from FFPE cell blocks. SurePath samples failed RNAseq quality control. There was high concordance of gene expression measurements with FF samples using cytospins fixed in Carnoy's solution, 95% EtOH, Diff-Quik (CCC = 0.829, 0.812, 0.760, respectively), or ThinPrep (CCC = 0.736), but lower using FFPE cell block (CCC = 0.564). The proportion of mutant transcripts was concordant between FF and any cytologic preparation methods. Conclusions: Cytospin preparations fixed with Carnoy's or 95% ETOH then Papanicolaou stained produced RNAseq results that were equivalent to FF samples and superior to FFPE cell block sections.