Cargando…

Direct comparison of circulating tumor DNA sequencing assays with targeted large gene panels

Next generation sequencing (NGS) assays with large targeted gene panels can comprehensively profile cancer somatic mutations in a tumor sample. Given the rapid adoption of such assays for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis in clinical oncology, it is essential for the community to understand the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yu, Lizhi, Lopez, Gonzalo, Rassa, John, Wang, Yixin, Basavanhally, Tara, Browne, Andrew, Huang, Chang-Pin, Dorsey, Lauren, Jen, Jin, Hersey, Sarah
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9049497/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35482763
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266889
_version_ 1784696150217981952
author Yu, Lizhi
Lopez, Gonzalo
Rassa, John
Wang, Yixin
Basavanhally, Tara
Browne, Andrew
Huang, Chang-Pin
Dorsey, Lauren
Jen, Jin
Hersey, Sarah
author_facet Yu, Lizhi
Lopez, Gonzalo
Rassa, John
Wang, Yixin
Basavanhally, Tara
Browne, Andrew
Huang, Chang-Pin
Dorsey, Lauren
Jen, Jin
Hersey, Sarah
author_sort Yu, Lizhi
collection PubMed
description Next generation sequencing (NGS) assays with large targeted gene panels can comprehensively profile cancer somatic mutations in a tumor sample. Given the rapid adoption of such assays for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis in clinical oncology, it is essential for the community to understand their analytical performance in liquid biopsy settings. Here, we directly compared five ctDNA NGS assays, most of which having a panel of 400 or more genes, with simulated samples harboring mutations relevant to solid tumors or myeloid malignancy. Our results indicate that the detection sensitivity and reproducibility of all five assays was 90% or higher when the mutations were at 0.5% or 1.0% allele frequency, and with optimal DNA input of 30 ng or 50 ng per vendor’s protocol. The performances decreased and varied dramatically, when mutations were at a 0.1% allele frequency and/or when a lower genomic input of 10 ng DNA was used. Interestingly, one of the assays repeatedly showed higher rate of false positivity than the others across two different sample sets. Multiple intrinsic technical factors pertaining to the NGS assays were further investigated. Notable differences among the assays were seen for depth of coverage and background noise, which profoundly impacted assay performance. The results derived from this study are highly informative and provide a framework to assess and select suitable assays for specific application in cancer monitoring and potential clinical use.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9049497
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90494972022-04-29 Direct comparison of circulating tumor DNA sequencing assays with targeted large gene panels Yu, Lizhi Lopez, Gonzalo Rassa, John Wang, Yixin Basavanhally, Tara Browne, Andrew Huang, Chang-Pin Dorsey, Lauren Jen, Jin Hersey, Sarah PLoS One Research Article Next generation sequencing (NGS) assays with large targeted gene panels can comprehensively profile cancer somatic mutations in a tumor sample. Given the rapid adoption of such assays for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis in clinical oncology, it is essential for the community to understand their analytical performance in liquid biopsy settings. Here, we directly compared five ctDNA NGS assays, most of which having a panel of 400 or more genes, with simulated samples harboring mutations relevant to solid tumors or myeloid malignancy. Our results indicate that the detection sensitivity and reproducibility of all five assays was 90% or higher when the mutations were at 0.5% or 1.0% allele frequency, and with optimal DNA input of 30 ng or 50 ng per vendor’s protocol. The performances decreased and varied dramatically, when mutations were at a 0.1% allele frequency and/or when a lower genomic input of 10 ng DNA was used. Interestingly, one of the assays repeatedly showed higher rate of false positivity than the others across two different sample sets. Multiple intrinsic technical factors pertaining to the NGS assays were further investigated. Notable differences among the assays were seen for depth of coverage and background noise, which profoundly impacted assay performance. The results derived from this study are highly informative and provide a framework to assess and select suitable assays for specific application in cancer monitoring and potential clinical use. Public Library of Science 2022-04-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9049497/ /pubmed/35482763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266889 Text en © 2022 Yu et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Yu, Lizhi
Lopez, Gonzalo
Rassa, John
Wang, Yixin
Basavanhally, Tara
Browne, Andrew
Huang, Chang-Pin
Dorsey, Lauren
Jen, Jin
Hersey, Sarah
Direct comparison of circulating tumor DNA sequencing assays with targeted large gene panels
title Direct comparison of circulating tumor DNA sequencing assays with targeted large gene panels
title_full Direct comparison of circulating tumor DNA sequencing assays with targeted large gene panels
title_fullStr Direct comparison of circulating tumor DNA sequencing assays with targeted large gene panels
title_full_unstemmed Direct comparison of circulating tumor DNA sequencing assays with targeted large gene panels
title_short Direct comparison of circulating tumor DNA sequencing assays with targeted large gene panels
title_sort direct comparison of circulating tumor dna sequencing assays with targeted large gene panels
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9049497/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35482763
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266889
work_keys_str_mv AT yulizhi directcomparisonofcirculatingtumordnasequencingassayswithtargetedlargegenepanels
AT lopezgonzalo directcomparisonofcirculatingtumordnasequencingassayswithtargetedlargegenepanels
AT rassajohn directcomparisonofcirculatingtumordnasequencingassayswithtargetedlargegenepanels
AT wangyixin directcomparisonofcirculatingtumordnasequencingassayswithtargetedlargegenepanels
AT basavanhallytara directcomparisonofcirculatingtumordnasequencingassayswithtargetedlargegenepanels
AT browneandrew directcomparisonofcirculatingtumordnasequencingassayswithtargetedlargegenepanels
AT huangchangpin directcomparisonofcirculatingtumordnasequencingassayswithtargetedlargegenepanels
AT dorseylauren directcomparisonofcirculatingtumordnasequencingassayswithtargetedlargegenepanels
AT jenjin directcomparisonofcirculatingtumordnasequencingassayswithtargetedlargegenepanels
AT herseysarah directcomparisonofcirculatingtumordnasequencingassayswithtargetedlargegenepanels