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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |