Cargando…
Comparison of Circulating Cell-Free DNA Extraction Methods for Downstream Analysis in Cancer Patients
Circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) may contain DNA originating from the tumor in plasma of cancer patients (ctDNA) and enables noninvasive cancer diagnosis, treatment predictive testing, and response monitoring. A recent multicenter evaluation of workflows by the CANCER-ID consortium using artificia...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7281769/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32414097 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers12051222 |
_version_ | 1783543996620996608 |
---|---|
author | van der Leest, Paul Boonstra, Pieter A. ter Elst, Arja van Kempen, Léon C. Tibbesma, Marco Koopmans, Jill Miedema, Anneke Tamminga, Menno Groen, Harry J. M. Reyners, Anna K. L. Schuuring, Ed |
author_facet | van der Leest, Paul Boonstra, Pieter A. ter Elst, Arja van Kempen, Léon C. Tibbesma, Marco Koopmans, Jill Miedema, Anneke Tamminga, Menno Groen, Harry J. M. Reyners, Anna K. L. Schuuring, Ed |
author_sort | van der Leest, Paul |
collection | PubMed |
description | Circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) may contain DNA originating from the tumor in plasma of cancer patients (ctDNA) and enables noninvasive cancer diagnosis, treatment predictive testing, and response monitoring. A recent multicenter evaluation of workflows by the CANCER-ID consortium using artificial spiked-in plasma showed significant differences and consequently the importance of carefully selecting ccfDNA extraction methods. Here, the quantity and integrity of extracted ccfDNA from the plasma of cancer patients were assessed. Twenty-one cancer patient-derived cell-free plasma samples were selected to compare the Qiagen CNA, Maxwell RSC ccfDNA plasma, and Zymo manual quick ccfDNA kit. High-volume citrate plasma samples collected by diagnostic leukapheresis from six cancer patients were used to compare the Qiagen CNA (2 mL) and QIAamp MinElute ccfDNA kit (8 mL). This study revealed similar integrity and similar levels of amplified short-sized fragments and tumor-specific mutants comparing the CNA and RSC kits. However, the CNA kit consistently showed the highest yield of ccfDNA and short-sized fragments, while the RSC and ME kits showed higher variant allelic frequencies (VAFs). Our study pinpoints the importance of standardizing preanalytical conditions as well as consensus on defining the input of ccfDNA to accurately detect ctDNA and be able to compare results in a clinical routine practice, within and between clinical studies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7281769 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72817692020-06-15 Comparison of Circulating Cell-Free DNA Extraction Methods for Downstream Analysis in Cancer Patients van der Leest, Paul Boonstra, Pieter A. ter Elst, Arja van Kempen, Léon C. Tibbesma, Marco Koopmans, Jill Miedema, Anneke Tamminga, Menno Groen, Harry J. M. Reyners, Anna K. L. Schuuring, Ed Cancers (Basel) Article Circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) may contain DNA originating from the tumor in plasma of cancer patients (ctDNA) and enables noninvasive cancer diagnosis, treatment predictive testing, and response monitoring. A recent multicenter evaluation of workflows by the CANCER-ID consortium using artificial spiked-in plasma showed significant differences and consequently the importance of carefully selecting ccfDNA extraction methods. Here, the quantity and integrity of extracted ccfDNA from the plasma of cancer patients were assessed. Twenty-one cancer patient-derived cell-free plasma samples were selected to compare the Qiagen CNA, Maxwell RSC ccfDNA plasma, and Zymo manual quick ccfDNA kit. High-volume citrate plasma samples collected by diagnostic leukapheresis from six cancer patients were used to compare the Qiagen CNA (2 mL) and QIAamp MinElute ccfDNA kit (8 mL). This study revealed similar integrity and similar levels of amplified short-sized fragments and tumor-specific mutants comparing the CNA and RSC kits. However, the CNA kit consistently showed the highest yield of ccfDNA and short-sized fragments, while the RSC and ME kits showed higher variant allelic frequencies (VAFs). Our study pinpoints the importance of standardizing preanalytical conditions as well as consensus on defining the input of ccfDNA to accurately detect ctDNA and be able to compare results in a clinical routine practice, within and between clinical studies. MDPI 2020-05-13 /pmc/articles/PMC7281769/ /pubmed/32414097 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers12051222 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article van der Leest, Paul Boonstra, Pieter A. ter Elst, Arja van Kempen, Léon C. Tibbesma, Marco Koopmans, Jill Miedema, Anneke Tamminga, Menno Groen, Harry J. M. Reyners, Anna K. L. Schuuring, Ed Comparison of Circulating Cell-Free DNA Extraction Methods for Downstream Analysis in Cancer Patients |
title | Comparison of Circulating Cell-Free DNA Extraction Methods for Downstream Analysis in Cancer Patients |
title_full | Comparison of Circulating Cell-Free DNA Extraction Methods for Downstream Analysis in Cancer Patients |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Circulating Cell-Free DNA Extraction Methods for Downstream Analysis in Cancer Patients |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Circulating Cell-Free DNA Extraction Methods for Downstream Analysis in Cancer Patients |
title_short | Comparison of Circulating Cell-Free DNA Extraction Methods for Downstream Analysis in Cancer Patients |
title_sort | comparison of circulating cell-free dna extraction methods for downstream analysis in cancer patients |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7281769/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32414097 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers12051222 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vanderleestpaul comparisonofcirculatingcellfreednaextractionmethodsfordownstreamanalysisincancerpatients AT boonstrapietera comparisonofcirculatingcellfreednaextractionmethodsfordownstreamanalysisincancerpatients AT terelstarja comparisonofcirculatingcellfreednaextractionmethodsfordownstreamanalysisincancerpatients AT vankempenleonc comparisonofcirculatingcellfreednaextractionmethodsfordownstreamanalysisincancerpatients AT tibbesmamarco comparisonofcirculatingcellfreednaextractionmethodsfordownstreamanalysisincancerpatients AT koopmansjill comparisonofcirculatingcellfreednaextractionmethodsfordownstreamanalysisincancerpatients AT miedemaanneke comparisonofcirculatingcellfreednaextractionmethodsfordownstreamanalysisincancerpatients AT tammingamenno comparisonofcirculatingcellfreednaextractionmethodsfordownstreamanalysisincancerpatients AT groenharryjm comparisonofcirculatingcellfreednaextractionmethodsfordownstreamanalysisincancerpatients AT reynersannakl comparisonofcirculatingcellfreednaextractionmethodsfordownstreamanalysisincancerpatients AT schuuringed comparisonofcirculatingcellfreednaextractionmethodsfordownstreamanalysisincancerpatients |