Cargando…
Comparison of MET gene amplification analysis by next-generation sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridization
MET gene alterations are known to be involved in acquired resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition. MET amplifications present a potential therapeutic target in non-small cell lung cancer. Although next-generation sequencing (NGS) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) are co...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Impact Journals LLC
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8555686/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34733418 http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28092 |
_version_ | 1784592028450947072 |
---|---|
author | Schmitt, Christina Schulz, Anna-Alice Winkelmann, Ria Smith, Kevin Wild, Peter J. Demes, Melanie |
author_facet | Schmitt, Christina Schulz, Anna-Alice Winkelmann, Ria Smith, Kevin Wild, Peter J. Demes, Melanie |
author_sort | Schmitt, Christina |
collection | PubMed |
description | MET gene alterations are known to be involved in acquired resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition. MET amplifications present a potential therapeutic target in non-small cell lung cancer. Although next-generation sequencing (NGS) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) are conventionally used to assess MET amplifications, there are currently no clinically defined cut-off values for NGS, with FISH still being the gold standard. A collective of 20 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded lung cancer tissue samples (mean age 64 years) were selected based on increased MET gene copy number (CNV) status or the presence of mutations detected by NGS (GeneReader, QIAGEN) and were further assessed by FISH (MET/CEN7, Zytomed). Of these, 17 tumor samples were MET-amplified and one patient was found to have a MET rearrangement by NGS, while two samples had no MET gene alteration. In contrast to the NGS result, FISH analysis showed only one highly amplified sample and 19 negative samples. The single highly amplified case detected by FISH was also positive by NGS with a fold change (FC) of 3.18 and a mean copy number (CN(MV 10−100%)) of 20.5. Therefore, for the assessment of MET amplifications using the QIAGEN NGS workflow, we suggest detecting amplified cases with an FC value of ≥ 3.0 and a CN(MV 10−100%) value of ≥ 20.0 by FISH. In summary, NGS allows for DNA- and RNA-based analysis of specific MET gene amplifications, point mutations or rearrangements. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8555686 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Impact Journals LLC |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85556862021-11-02 Comparison of MET gene amplification analysis by next-generation sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridization Schmitt, Christina Schulz, Anna-Alice Winkelmann, Ria Smith, Kevin Wild, Peter J. Demes, Melanie Oncotarget Research Paper MET gene alterations are known to be involved in acquired resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibition. MET amplifications present a potential therapeutic target in non-small cell lung cancer. Although next-generation sequencing (NGS) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) are conventionally used to assess MET amplifications, there are currently no clinically defined cut-off values for NGS, with FISH still being the gold standard. A collective of 20 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded lung cancer tissue samples (mean age 64 years) were selected based on increased MET gene copy number (CNV) status or the presence of mutations detected by NGS (GeneReader, QIAGEN) and were further assessed by FISH (MET/CEN7, Zytomed). Of these, 17 tumor samples were MET-amplified and one patient was found to have a MET rearrangement by NGS, while two samples had no MET gene alteration. In contrast to the NGS result, FISH analysis showed only one highly amplified sample and 19 negative samples. The single highly amplified case detected by FISH was also positive by NGS with a fold change (FC) of 3.18 and a mean copy number (CN(MV 10−100%)) of 20.5. Therefore, for the assessment of MET amplifications using the QIAGEN NGS workflow, we suggest detecting amplified cases with an FC value of ≥ 3.0 and a CN(MV 10−100%) value of ≥ 20.0 by FISH. In summary, NGS allows for DNA- and RNA-based analysis of specific MET gene amplifications, point mutations or rearrangements. Impact Journals LLC 2021-10-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8555686/ /pubmed/34733418 http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28092 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Schmitt et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) (CC BY 3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Paper Schmitt, Christina Schulz, Anna-Alice Winkelmann, Ria Smith, Kevin Wild, Peter J. Demes, Melanie Comparison of MET gene amplification analysis by next-generation sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridization |
title | Comparison of MET gene amplification analysis by next-generation sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridization |
title_full | Comparison of MET gene amplification analysis by next-generation sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridization |
title_fullStr | Comparison of MET gene amplification analysis by next-generation sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridization |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of MET gene amplification analysis by next-generation sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridization |
title_short | Comparison of MET gene amplification analysis by next-generation sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridization |
title_sort | comparison of met gene amplification analysis by next-generation sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridization |
topic | Research Paper |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8555686/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34733418 http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28092 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT schmittchristina comparisonofmetgeneamplificationanalysisbynextgenerationsequencingandfluorescenceinsituhybridization AT schulzannaalice comparisonofmetgeneamplificationanalysisbynextgenerationsequencingandfluorescenceinsituhybridization AT winkelmannria comparisonofmetgeneamplificationanalysisbynextgenerationsequencingandfluorescenceinsituhybridization AT smithkevin comparisonofmetgeneamplificationanalysisbynextgenerationsequencingandfluorescenceinsituhybridization AT wildpeterj comparisonofmetgeneamplificationanalysisbynextgenerationsequencingandfluorescenceinsituhybridization AT demesmelanie comparisonofmetgeneamplificationanalysisbynextgenerationsequencingandfluorescenceinsituhybridization |