13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      International pilot external quality assessment scheme for analysis and reporting of circulating tumour DNA

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Molecular analysis of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) is becoming increasingly important in clinical treatment decisions. A pilot External Quality Assessment (EQA) scheme for ctDNA analysis was organized by four European EQA providers under the umbrella organization IQN Path, in order to investigate the feasibility of delivering an EQA to assess the detection of clinically relevant variants in plasma circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and to analyze reporting formats.

          Methods

          Thirty-two experienced laboratories received 5 samples for EGFR mutation analysis and/or 5 samples for KRAS and NRAS mutation analysis. Samples were artificially manufactured to contain 3 mL of human plasma with 20 ng/mL of fragmented ctDNA and variants at allelic frequencies of 1 and 5%.

          Results

          The scheme error rate was 20.1%. Higher error rates were observed for RAS testing when compared to EGFR analysis, for allelic frequencies of 1% compared to 5%, and for cases including 2 different variants. The reports over-interpreted wild-type results and frequently failed to comment on the amount of cfDNA extracted.

          Conclusions

          The pilot scheme demonstrated the feasibility of delivering a ctDNA EQA scheme and the need for such a scheme due to high error rates in detecting low frequency clinically relevant variants. Recommendations to improve reporting of cfDNA are provided.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4694-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          EGFR mutation detection in ctDNA from NSCLC patient plasma: A cross-platform comparison of leading technologies to support the clinical development of AZD9291.

          To assess the ability of different technology platforms to detect epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations, including T790M, from circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Epidermal growth factor receptor mutation status in circulating free DNA in serum: from IPASS, a phase III study of gefitinib or carboplatin/paclitaxel in non-small cell lung cancer.

            In IPASS (IRESSA Pan-Asia Study), clinically selected patients with pulmonary adenocarcinoma received first-line gefitinib or carboplatin/paclitaxel. This preplanned, exploratory analysis was conducted to increase understanding of the use of surrogate samples, such as serum, versus tumor biopsy samples for determining EGFR mutation status in the Japanese cohort (n = 233). EGFR mutations were assessed using tumor tissue-derived DNA (n = 91) and circulating free (cf) DNA from pretreatment serum samples (n = 194). Fewer patients were EGFR mutation positive when assessed using pretreatment cfDNA (23.7%) versus tumor tissue-derived DNA (61.5%). cfDNA results identified no false positives but a high rate of false negatives (56.9%). There was a significant interaction between cfDNA EGFR mutation status and treatment for progression-free survival (PFS) (p = 0.045). PFS was significantly longer and objective response rate (ORR) higher with gefitinib than carboplatin/paclitaxel in the cfDNA EGFR mutation-positive subgroup (PFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-0.60; p < 0.001; ORR: odds ratio [OR], 1.71; 95% CI, 0.48-6.09; 75.0% versus 63.6%; p = 0.40). There was a slight numerical advantage in PFS and ORR for gefitinib over carboplatin/paclitaxel in the cfDNA EGFR mutation-negative subgroup, likely due to the high rate of false negatives within this subgroup. These results merit further investigation to determine whether alternative sources of tumor DNA, such as cfDNA in serum, could be used for determining EGFR mutation status in future; currently, where a sample is available, analysis of tumor material is recommended.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Methods for Applying Accurate Digital PCR Analysis on Low Copy DNA Samples

              Digital PCR (dPCR) is a highly accurate molecular approach, capable of precise measurements, offering a number of unique opportunities. However, in its current format dPCR can be limited by the amount of sample that can be analysed and consequently additional considerations such as performing multiplex reactions or pre-amplification can be considered. This study investigated the impact of duplexing and pre-amplification on dPCR analysis by using three different assays targeting a model template (a portion of the Arabidopsis thaliana alcohol dehydrogenase gene). We also investigated the impact of different template types (linearised plasmid clone and more complex genomic DNA) on measurement precision using dPCR. We were able to demonstrate that duplex dPCR can provide a more precise measurement than uniplex dPCR, while applying pre-amplification or varying template type can significantly decrease the precision of dPCR. Furthermore, we also demonstrate that the pre-amplification step can introduce measurement bias that is not consistent between experiments for a sample or assay and so could not be compensated for during the analysis of this data set. We also describe a model for estimating the prevalence of molecular dropout and identify this as a source of dPCR imprecision. Our data have demonstrated that the precision afforded by dPCR at low sample concentration can exceed that of the same template post pre-amplification thereby negating the need for this additional step. Our findings also highlight the technical differences between different templates types containing the same sequence that must be considered if plasmid DNA is to be used to assess or control for more complex templates like genomic DNA.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +32 (0)16 33 01 43 , cleo.keppens@kuleuven.be
                els.dequeker@kuleuven.be
                Simon.Patton@mft.nhs.uk
                nicnorm@yahoo.com
                francesca.fenizia@hotmail.it
                Rachel.Butler@wales.nhs.uk
                Melanie.Cheetham@mft.nhs.uk
                Jenni.Fairley@ed.ac.uk
                Hannah.L.Williams@nhslothian.scot.nhs.uk
                jacqueline.hall@iqnpath.org
                e.schuuring@umcg.nl
                Sandi.Deans@ed.ac.uk
                Journal
                BMC Cancer
                BMC Cancer
                BMC Cancer
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2407
                9 August 2018
                9 August 2018
                2018
                : 18
                : 804
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0668 7884, GRID grid.5596.f, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, , University of Leuven, ; Kapucijnenvoer 35d, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
                [2 ]European Society of Pathology (ESP), Anderlecht, Belgium
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0641 2620, GRID grid.416523.7, European Molecular Quality Network (EMQN), Manchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary’s Hospital, ; Manchester, M13 9WL UK
                [4 ]Cell Biology and Biotherapy Unit, Instituto Nazionale Tumori “Fondazione Giovanni Pascale”, IRCCS, Napoli, Italy
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0169 7725, GRID grid.241103.5, All Wales Genetic Laboratory, Institute of Medical Genetics, , University Hospital of Wales, ; Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4XW UK
                [6 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0709 1919, GRID grid.418716.d, UK NEQAS for Molecular Genetics, Department of Laboratory Medicine, , Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, ; Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 4SA UK
                [7 ]International Quality Network for Pathology (IQN Path) Association Sans But Lucratif (A.S.B.L), 3A Sentier de l’Espérance, L-1474 Luxembourg City, Luxembourg
                [8 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2113 8111, GRID grid.7445.2, Division of Cancer, Department of Surgery and Cancer, , Imperial College London, ; London, UK
                [9 ]Department of Pathology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4498-8386
                Article
                4694
                10.1186/s12885-018-4694-x
                6085634
                30092778
                025cbdbc-2f91-41c4-acf1-9946c72987ff
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 12 January 2018
                : 25 July 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Biocartis, Horizon Diagnostics, Merck KGaA, Qiagen, Roche, Sysmex Inostics, Seracare and Thermo Fisher Scientific/Life Technologies
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                kras,nras,egfr,mutation testing,ctdna,cfdna,lung cancer,colorectal cancer
                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                kras, nras, egfr, mutation testing, ctdna, cfdna, lung cancer, colorectal cancer

                Comments

                Comment on this article