Cargando…

Validation of ctDNA Quality Control Materials Through a Precompetitive Collaboration of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health

We report the results from a Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Consortium project to address the absence of well-validated quality control materials (QCMs) for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing. This absence is considered a cause of variance and inconsistencies in trans...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Williams, P. Mickey, Forbes, Thomas, P. Lund, Steven, Cole, Kenneth D., He, Hua-Jun, Karlovich, Chris, Paweletz, Cloud P., Stetson, Daniel, Yee, Laura M., Connors, Dana E., Keating, Susan M., Destenaves, Benoit, Cleveland, Megan H., Lau, Christie J., Barrett, J. Carl, Kelloff, Gary J., McCormack, Robert T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer Health 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8232894/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34250423
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/PO.20.00528
_version_ 1783713733326929920
author Williams, P. Mickey
Forbes, Thomas
P. Lund, Steven
Cole, Kenneth D.
He, Hua-Jun
Karlovich, Chris
Paweletz, Cloud P.
Stetson, Daniel
Yee, Laura M.
Connors, Dana E.
Keating, Susan M.
Destenaves, Benoit
Cleveland, Megan H.
Lau, Christie J.
Barrett, J. Carl
Kelloff, Gary J.
McCormack, Robert T.
author_facet Williams, P. Mickey
Forbes, Thomas
P. Lund, Steven
Cole, Kenneth D.
He, Hua-Jun
Karlovich, Chris
Paweletz, Cloud P.
Stetson, Daniel
Yee, Laura M.
Connors, Dana E.
Keating, Susan M.
Destenaves, Benoit
Cleveland, Megan H.
Lau, Christie J.
Barrett, J. Carl
Kelloff, Gary J.
McCormack, Robert T.
author_sort Williams, P. Mickey
collection PubMed
description We report the results from a Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Consortium project to address the absence of well-validated quality control materials (QCMs) for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing. This absence is considered a cause of variance and inconsistencies in translating ctDNA results into clinical actions. METHODS: In this phase I study, QCMs with 14 clinically relevant mutations representing single nucleotide variants, insertions or deletions (indels), translocations, and copy number variants were sourced from three commercial manufacturers with variant allele frequencies (VAFs) of 5%, 2.5%, 1%, 0.1%, and 0%. Four laboratories tested samples in quadruplicate using two allele-specific droplet digital polymerase chain reaction and three (amplicon and hybrid capture) next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels. RESULTS: The two droplet digital polymerase chain reaction assays reported VAF values very close to the manufacturers’ claimed concentrations for all QCMs. NGS assays reported most single nucleotide variants and indels, but not translocations, close to the expected VAF values. Notably, two NGS assays reported lower VAF than expected for all translocations in all QCM mixtures, possibly related to technical challenges detecting these variants. The ability to call ERBB2 copy number amplifications varied across assays. All three QCMs provided valuable insight into assay precision. Each assay across all variant types demonstrated dropouts at 0.1%, suggesting that the QCM can serve for testing of an assay’s limit of detection with confidence claims for specific variants. CONCLUSION: These results support the utility of the QCM in testing ctDNA assay analytical performance. However, unique designs and manufacturing methods for the QCM, and variations in a laboratory’s testing configuration, may require testing of multiple QCMs to find the best reagents for accurate result interpretation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8232894
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Wolters Kluwer Health
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82328942021-07-09 Validation of ctDNA Quality Control Materials Through a Precompetitive Collaboration of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Williams, P. Mickey Forbes, Thomas P. Lund, Steven Cole, Kenneth D. He, Hua-Jun Karlovich, Chris Paweletz, Cloud P. Stetson, Daniel Yee, Laura M. Connors, Dana E. Keating, Susan M. Destenaves, Benoit Cleveland, Megan H. Lau, Christie J. Barrett, J. Carl Kelloff, Gary J. McCormack, Robert T. JCO Precis Oncol Original Reports We report the results from a Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Consortium project to address the absence of well-validated quality control materials (QCMs) for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing. This absence is considered a cause of variance and inconsistencies in translating ctDNA results into clinical actions. METHODS: In this phase I study, QCMs with 14 clinically relevant mutations representing single nucleotide variants, insertions or deletions (indels), translocations, and copy number variants were sourced from three commercial manufacturers with variant allele frequencies (VAFs) of 5%, 2.5%, 1%, 0.1%, and 0%. Four laboratories tested samples in quadruplicate using two allele-specific droplet digital polymerase chain reaction and three (amplicon and hybrid capture) next-generation sequencing (NGS) panels. RESULTS: The two droplet digital polymerase chain reaction assays reported VAF values very close to the manufacturers’ claimed concentrations for all QCMs. NGS assays reported most single nucleotide variants and indels, but not translocations, close to the expected VAF values. Notably, two NGS assays reported lower VAF than expected for all translocations in all QCM mixtures, possibly related to technical challenges detecting these variants. The ability to call ERBB2 copy number amplifications varied across assays. All three QCMs provided valuable insight into assay precision. Each assay across all variant types demonstrated dropouts at 0.1%, suggesting that the QCM can serve for testing of an assay’s limit of detection with confidence claims for specific variants. CONCLUSION: These results support the utility of the QCM in testing ctDNA assay analytical performance. However, unique designs and manufacturing methods for the QCM, and variations in a laboratory’s testing configuration, may require testing of multiple QCMs to find the best reagents for accurate result interpretation. Wolters Kluwer Health 2021-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8232894/ /pubmed/34250423 http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/PO.20.00528 Text en © 2021 by American Society of Clinical Oncology https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Original Reports
Williams, P. Mickey
Forbes, Thomas
P. Lund, Steven
Cole, Kenneth D.
He, Hua-Jun
Karlovich, Chris
Paweletz, Cloud P.
Stetson, Daniel
Yee, Laura M.
Connors, Dana E.
Keating, Susan M.
Destenaves, Benoit
Cleveland, Megan H.
Lau, Christie J.
Barrett, J. Carl
Kelloff, Gary J.
McCormack, Robert T.
Validation of ctDNA Quality Control Materials Through a Precompetitive Collaboration of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health
title Validation of ctDNA Quality Control Materials Through a Precompetitive Collaboration of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health
title_full Validation of ctDNA Quality Control Materials Through a Precompetitive Collaboration of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health
title_fullStr Validation of ctDNA Quality Control Materials Through a Precompetitive Collaboration of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health
title_full_unstemmed Validation of ctDNA Quality Control Materials Through a Precompetitive Collaboration of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health
title_short Validation of ctDNA Quality Control Materials Through a Precompetitive Collaboration of the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health
title_sort validation of ctdna quality control materials through a precompetitive collaboration of the foundation for the national institutes of health
topic Original Reports
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8232894/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34250423
http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/PO.20.00528
work_keys_str_mv AT williamspmickey validationofctdnaqualitycontrolmaterialsthroughaprecompetitivecollaborationofthefoundationforthenationalinstitutesofhealth
AT forbesthomas validationofctdnaqualitycontrolmaterialsthroughaprecompetitivecollaborationofthefoundationforthenationalinstitutesofhealth
AT plundsteven validationofctdnaqualitycontrolmaterialsthroughaprecompetitivecollaborationofthefoundationforthenationalinstitutesofhealth
AT colekennethd validationofctdnaqualitycontrolmaterialsthroughaprecompetitivecollaborationofthefoundationforthenationalinstitutesofhealth
AT hehuajun validationofctdnaqualitycontrolmaterialsthroughaprecompetitivecollaborationofthefoundationforthenationalinstitutesofhealth
AT karlovichchris validationofctdnaqualitycontrolmaterialsthroughaprecompetitivecollaborationofthefoundationforthenationalinstitutesofhealth
AT paweletzcloudp validationofctdnaqualitycontrolmaterialsthroughaprecompetitivecollaborationofthefoundationforthenationalinstitutesofhealth
AT stetsondaniel validationofctdnaqualitycontrolmaterialsthroughaprecompetitivecollaborationofthefoundationforthenationalinstitutesofhealth
AT yeelauram validationofctdnaqualitycontrolmaterialsthroughaprecompetitivecollaborationofthefoundationforthenationalinstitutesofhealth
AT connorsdanae validationofctdnaqualitycontrolmaterialsthroughaprecompetitivecollaborationofthefoundationforthenationalinstitutesofhealth
AT keatingsusanm validationofctdnaqualitycontrolmaterialsthroughaprecompetitivecollaborationofthefoundationforthenationalinstitutesofhealth
AT destenavesbenoit validationofctdnaqualitycontrolmaterialsthroughaprecompetitivecollaborationofthefoundationforthenationalinstitutesofhealth
AT clevelandmeganh validationofctdnaqualitycontrolmaterialsthroughaprecompetitivecollaborationofthefoundationforthenationalinstitutesofhealth
AT lauchristiej validationofctdnaqualitycontrolmaterialsthroughaprecompetitivecollaborationofthefoundationforthenationalinstitutesofhealth
AT barrettjcarl validationofctdnaqualitycontrolmaterialsthroughaprecompetitivecollaborationofthefoundationforthenationalinstitutesofhealth
AT kelloffgaryj validationofctdnaqualitycontrolmaterialsthroughaprecompetitivecollaborationofthefoundationforthenationalinstitutesofhealth
AT mccormackrobertt validationofctdnaqualitycontrolmaterialsthroughaprecompetitivecollaborationofthefoundationforthenationalinstitutesofhealth