Cargando…

Variation in pre-PCR processing of FFPE samples leads to discrepancies in BRAF and EGFR mutation detection: a diagnostic RING trial

AIMS: Mutation detection accuracy has been described extensively; however, it is surprising that pre-PCR processing of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples has not been systematically assessed in clinical context. We designed a RING trial to (i) investigate pre-PCR variability, (ii) corre...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kapp, Joshua R, Diss, Tim, Spicer, James, Gandy, Michael, Schrijver, Iris, Jennings, Lawrence J, Li, Marilyn M, Tsongalis, Gregory J, de Castro, David Gonzalez, Bridge, Julia A, Wallace, Andrew, Deignan, Joshua L, Hing, Sandra, Butler, Rachel, Verghese, Eldo, Latham, Gary J, Hamoudi, Rifat A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4316935/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25430497
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202644
_version_ 1782355643858944000
author Kapp, Joshua R
Diss, Tim
Spicer, James
Gandy, Michael
Schrijver, Iris
Jennings, Lawrence J
Li, Marilyn M
Tsongalis, Gregory J
de Castro, David Gonzalez
Bridge, Julia A
Wallace, Andrew
Deignan, Joshua L
Hing, Sandra
Butler, Rachel
Verghese, Eldo
Latham, Gary J
Hamoudi, Rifat A
author_facet Kapp, Joshua R
Diss, Tim
Spicer, James
Gandy, Michael
Schrijver, Iris
Jennings, Lawrence J
Li, Marilyn M
Tsongalis, Gregory J
de Castro, David Gonzalez
Bridge, Julia A
Wallace, Andrew
Deignan, Joshua L
Hing, Sandra
Butler, Rachel
Verghese, Eldo
Latham, Gary J
Hamoudi, Rifat A
author_sort Kapp, Joshua R
collection PubMed
description AIMS: Mutation detection accuracy has been described extensively; however, it is surprising that pre-PCR processing of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples has not been systematically assessed in clinical context. We designed a RING trial to (i) investigate pre-PCR variability, (ii) correlate pre-PCR variation with EGFR/BRAF mutation testing accuracy and (iii) investigate causes for observed variation. METHODS: 13 molecular pathology laboratories were recruited. 104 blinded FFPE curls including engineered FFPE curls, cell-negative FFPE curls and control FFPE tissue samples were distributed to participants for pre-PCR processing and mutation detection. Follow-up analysis was performed to assess sample purity, DNA integrity and DNA quantitation. RESULTS: Rate of mutation detection failure was 11.9%. Of these failures, 80% were attributed to pre-PCR error. Significant differences in DNA yields across all samples were seen using analysis of variance (p<0.0001), and yield variation from engineered samples was not significant (p=0.3782). Two laboratories failed DNA extraction from samples that may be attributed to operator error. DNA extraction protocols themselves were not found to contribute significant variation. 10/13 labs reported yields averaging 235.8 ng (95% CI 90.7 to 380.9) from cell-negative samples, which was attributed to issues with spectrophotometry. DNA measurements using Qubit Fluorometry demonstrated a median fivefold overestimation of DNA quantity by Nanodrop Spectrophotometry. DNA integrity and PCR inhibition were factors not found to contribute significant variation. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we provide evidence demonstrating that variation in pre-PCR steps is prevalent and may detrimentally affect the patient's ability to receive critical therapy. We provide recommendations for preanalytical workflow optimisation that may reduce errors in down-stream sequencing and for next-generation sequencing library generation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4316935
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43169352015-02-11 Variation in pre-PCR processing of FFPE samples leads to discrepancies in BRAF and EGFR mutation detection: a diagnostic RING trial Kapp, Joshua R Diss, Tim Spicer, James Gandy, Michael Schrijver, Iris Jennings, Lawrence J Li, Marilyn M Tsongalis, Gregory J de Castro, David Gonzalez Bridge, Julia A Wallace, Andrew Deignan, Joshua L Hing, Sandra Butler, Rachel Verghese, Eldo Latham, Gary J Hamoudi, Rifat A J Clin Pathol Original Article AIMS: Mutation detection accuracy has been described extensively; however, it is surprising that pre-PCR processing of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples has not been systematically assessed in clinical context. We designed a RING trial to (i) investigate pre-PCR variability, (ii) correlate pre-PCR variation with EGFR/BRAF mutation testing accuracy and (iii) investigate causes for observed variation. METHODS: 13 molecular pathology laboratories were recruited. 104 blinded FFPE curls including engineered FFPE curls, cell-negative FFPE curls and control FFPE tissue samples were distributed to participants for pre-PCR processing and mutation detection. Follow-up analysis was performed to assess sample purity, DNA integrity and DNA quantitation. RESULTS: Rate of mutation detection failure was 11.9%. Of these failures, 80% were attributed to pre-PCR error. Significant differences in DNA yields across all samples were seen using analysis of variance (p<0.0001), and yield variation from engineered samples was not significant (p=0.3782). Two laboratories failed DNA extraction from samples that may be attributed to operator error. DNA extraction protocols themselves were not found to contribute significant variation. 10/13 labs reported yields averaging 235.8 ng (95% CI 90.7 to 380.9) from cell-negative samples, which was attributed to issues with spectrophotometry. DNA measurements using Qubit Fluorometry demonstrated a median fivefold overestimation of DNA quantity by Nanodrop Spectrophotometry. DNA integrity and PCR inhibition were factors not found to contribute significant variation. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we provide evidence demonstrating that variation in pre-PCR steps is prevalent and may detrimentally affect the patient's ability to receive critical therapy. We provide recommendations for preanalytical workflow optimisation that may reduce errors in down-stream sequencing and for next-generation sequencing library generation. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-02 2014-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC4316935/ /pubmed/25430497 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202644 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Original Article
Kapp, Joshua R
Diss, Tim
Spicer, James
Gandy, Michael
Schrijver, Iris
Jennings, Lawrence J
Li, Marilyn M
Tsongalis, Gregory J
de Castro, David Gonzalez
Bridge, Julia A
Wallace, Andrew
Deignan, Joshua L
Hing, Sandra
Butler, Rachel
Verghese, Eldo
Latham, Gary J
Hamoudi, Rifat A
Variation in pre-PCR processing of FFPE samples leads to discrepancies in BRAF and EGFR mutation detection: a diagnostic RING trial
title Variation in pre-PCR processing of FFPE samples leads to discrepancies in BRAF and EGFR mutation detection: a diagnostic RING trial
title_full Variation in pre-PCR processing of FFPE samples leads to discrepancies in BRAF and EGFR mutation detection: a diagnostic RING trial
title_fullStr Variation in pre-PCR processing of FFPE samples leads to discrepancies in BRAF and EGFR mutation detection: a diagnostic RING trial
title_full_unstemmed Variation in pre-PCR processing of FFPE samples leads to discrepancies in BRAF and EGFR mutation detection: a diagnostic RING trial
title_short Variation in pre-PCR processing of FFPE samples leads to discrepancies in BRAF and EGFR mutation detection: a diagnostic RING trial
title_sort variation in pre-pcr processing of ffpe samples leads to discrepancies in braf and egfr mutation detection: a diagnostic ring trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4316935/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25430497
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202644
work_keys_str_mv AT kappjoshuar variationinprepcrprocessingofffpesamplesleadstodiscrepanciesinbrafandegfrmutationdetectionadiagnosticringtrial
AT disstim variationinprepcrprocessingofffpesamplesleadstodiscrepanciesinbrafandegfrmutationdetectionadiagnosticringtrial
AT spicerjames variationinprepcrprocessingofffpesamplesleadstodiscrepanciesinbrafandegfrmutationdetectionadiagnosticringtrial
AT gandymichael variationinprepcrprocessingofffpesamplesleadstodiscrepanciesinbrafandegfrmutationdetectionadiagnosticringtrial
AT schrijveriris variationinprepcrprocessingofffpesamplesleadstodiscrepanciesinbrafandegfrmutationdetectionadiagnosticringtrial
AT jenningslawrencej variationinprepcrprocessingofffpesamplesleadstodiscrepanciesinbrafandegfrmutationdetectionadiagnosticringtrial
AT limarilynm variationinprepcrprocessingofffpesamplesleadstodiscrepanciesinbrafandegfrmutationdetectionadiagnosticringtrial
AT tsongalisgregoryj variationinprepcrprocessingofffpesamplesleadstodiscrepanciesinbrafandegfrmutationdetectionadiagnosticringtrial
AT decastrodavidgonzalez variationinprepcrprocessingofffpesamplesleadstodiscrepanciesinbrafandegfrmutationdetectionadiagnosticringtrial
AT bridgejuliaa variationinprepcrprocessingofffpesamplesleadstodiscrepanciesinbrafandegfrmutationdetectionadiagnosticringtrial
AT wallaceandrew variationinprepcrprocessingofffpesamplesleadstodiscrepanciesinbrafandegfrmutationdetectionadiagnosticringtrial
AT deignanjoshual variationinprepcrprocessingofffpesamplesleadstodiscrepanciesinbrafandegfrmutationdetectionadiagnosticringtrial
AT hingsandra variationinprepcrprocessingofffpesamplesleadstodiscrepanciesinbrafandegfrmutationdetectionadiagnosticringtrial
AT butlerrachel variationinprepcrprocessingofffpesamplesleadstodiscrepanciesinbrafandegfrmutationdetectionadiagnosticringtrial
AT vergheseeldo variationinprepcrprocessingofffpesamplesleadstodiscrepanciesinbrafandegfrmutationdetectionadiagnosticringtrial
AT lathamgaryj variationinprepcrprocessingofffpesamplesleadstodiscrepanciesinbrafandegfrmutationdetectionadiagnosticringtrial
AT hamoudirifata variationinprepcrprocessingofffpesamplesleadstodiscrepanciesinbrafandegfrmutationdetectionadiagnosticringtrial