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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schmitt, Christina, Schulz, Anna-Alice, Winkelmann, Ria, Smith, Kevin, Wild, Peter J., Demes, Melanie
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