PURPOSE: Persistently elevated posttreatment plasma EBV DNA is a robust predictor of relapse in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). However, assay standardization is necessary for use in biomarker-driven trials. We conducted a study to harmonize the method between four centers with expertise in EBV DNA quantitation. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Plasma samples of 40 patients with NPC were distributed to four centers. DNA was extracted and EBV DNA copy number was determined by real-time quantitative PCR (BamHI-W primer/probe). Centers used the same protocol but generated their own calibrators. A harmonization study was then conducted using the same calibrators and PCR master mix and validated with ten pooled samples. RESULTS: The initial intraclass correlations (ICC) for the first 40 samples between each center and the index center were 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39-0.78], 0.70 (0.50-0.83), and 0.59 (0.35-0.76). The largest variability was the use of different PCR master mixes and calibrators. Standardization improved ICC to 0.83 (0.5-0.95), 0.95 (0.83-0.99) and 0.96 (0.86-0.99), respectively, for ten archival frozen samples. For fresh plasma with spiked-in EBV DNA, correlations were more than 0.99 between the centers. At 5 EBV DNA copies per reaction or above, the coefficient of variance (CV) was less than 10% for the cycle threshold (Ct) among all centers, suggesting this concentration can be reliably used as a cutoff for defining the presence of detectable EBV DNA. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative PCR assays, even when conducted in experienced clinical labs, can yield large variability in plasma EBV DNA copy numbers without harmonization. The use of common calibrators and PCR master mix can help to reduce variability.
PURPOSE: Persistently elevated posttreatment plasma EBV DNA is a robust predictor of relapse in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC). However, assay standardization is necessary for use in biomarker-driven trials. We conducted a study to harmonize the method between four centers with expertise in EBV DNA quantitation. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Plasma samples of 40 patients with NPC were distributed to four centers. DNA was extracted and EBV DNA copy number was determined by real-time quantitative PCR (BamHI-W primer/probe). Centers used the same protocol but generated their own calibrators. A harmonization study was then conducted using the same calibrators and PCR master mix and validated with ten pooled samples. RESULTS: The initial intraclass correlations (ICC) for the first 40 samples between each center and the index center were 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.39-0.78], 0.70 (0.50-0.83), and 0.59 (0.35-0.76). The largest variability was the use of different PCR master mixes and calibrators. Standardization improved ICC to 0.83 (0.5-0.95), 0.95 (0.83-0.99) and 0.96 (0.86-0.99), respectively, for ten archival frozen samples. For fresh plasma with spiked-in EBV DNA, correlations were more than 0.99 between the centers. At 5 EBV DNA copies per reaction or above, the coefficient of variance (CV) was less than 10% for the cycle threshold (Ct) among all centers, suggesting this concentration can be reliably used as a cutoff for defining the presence of detectable EBV DNA. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative PCR assays, even when conducted in experienced clinical labs, can yield large variability in plasma EBV DNA copy numbers without harmonization. The use of common calibrators and PCR master mix can help to reduce variability.
Authors: Y M Lo; L Y Chan; A T Chan; S F Leung; K W Lo; J Zhang; J C Lee; N M Hjelm; P J Johnson; D P Huang Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1999-11-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Henning Usadel; Jan Brabender; Kathy D Danenberg; Carmen Jerónimo; Susan Harden; James Engles; Peter V Danenberg; Stephen Yang; David Sidransky Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2002-01-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Anthony T C Chan; Y M Dennis Lo; Benny Zee; Lisa Y S Chan; Brigette B Y Ma; Sing-Fai Leung; Frankie Mo; Maria Lai; Stephen Ho; Dolly P Huang; Philip J Johnson Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-11-06 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Dora L W Kwong; Edmond H N Pow; Jonathan S T Sham; Anne S McMillan; Lucullus H T Leung; W Keung Leung; Daniel T T Chua; Ashley C K Cheng; Po M Wu; Gordon K H Au Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jian Ji Pan; Wai Tong Ng; Jing Feng Zong; Sarah W M Lee; Horace C W Choi; Lucy L K Chan; Shao Jun Lin; Qiao Juan Guo; Henry C K Sze; Yun Bin Chen; You Ping Xiao; Wai Kuen Kan; Brian O'Sullivan; Wei Xu; Quynh Thu Le; Christine M Glastonbury; A Dimitrios Colevas; Randal S Weber; William Lydiatt; Jatin P Shah; Anne W M Lee Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sharon D Stoker; Maarten A Wildeman; Zlata Novalic; Renske Fles; Vincent van der Noort; Remco de Bree; Weibel W Braunius; Guido B van den Broek; Bas Kreike; Kenneth W Kross; Hedy Juwana; Octavia Ramayanti; Sandra A W M Verkuijlen; Jan Paul de Boer; Astrid E Greijer; Jaap M Middeldorp; I Bing Tan Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Re-I Chin; Kevin Chen; Abul Usmani; Chanelle Chua; Peter K Harris; Michael S Binkley; Tej D Azad; Jonathan C Dudley; Aadel A Chaudhuri Journal: Mol Diagn Ther Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 4.074
Authors: Elizabeth M Jaffee; Chi Van Dang; David B Agus; Brian M Alexander; Kenneth C Anderson; Alan Ashworth; Anna D Barker; Roshan Bastani; Sangeeta Bhatia; Jeffrey A Bluestone; Otis Brawley; Atul J Butte; Daniel G Coit; Nancy E Davidson; Mark Davis; Ronald A DePinho; Robert B Diasio; Giulio Draetta; A Lindsay Frazier; Andrew Futreal; Sam S Gambhir; Patricia A Ganz; Levi Garraway; Stanton Gerson; Sumit Gupta; James Heath; Ruth I Hoffman; Cliff Hudis; Chanita Hughes-Halbert; Ramy Ibrahim; Hossein Jadvar; Brian Kavanagh; Rick Kittles; Quynh-Thu Le; Scott M Lippman; David Mankoff; Elaine R Mardis; Deborah K Mayer; Kelly McMasters; Neal J Meropol; Beverly Mitchell; Peter Naredi; Dean Ornish; Timothy M Pawlik; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Martin G Pomper; Derek Raghavan; Christine Ritchie; Sally W Schwarz; Richard Sullivan; Richard Wahl; Jedd D Wolchok; Sandra L Wong; Alfred Yung Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-10-31 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Sharon D Stoker; Zlata Novalić; Maarten A Wildeman; Alwin D R Huitema; Sandra A W M Verkuijlen; Hedy Juwana; Astrid E Greijer; I Bing Tan; Jaap M Middeldorp; Jan Paul de Boer Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: J P Jaworski; A Pluta; M Rola-Łuszczak; S L McGowan; C Finnegan; K Heenemann; H A Carignano; I Alvarez; K Murakami; L Willems; T W Vahlenkamp; K G Trono; B Choudhury; J Kuźmak Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Kelly Y Kim; Quynh-Thu Le; Sue S Yom; Benjamin A Pinsky; Scott V Bratman; Raymond H W Ng; Haja S El Mubarak; K C Allen Chan; Miriam Sander; Barbara A Conley Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Caitlin M Stewart; Prachi D Kothari; Florent Mouliere; Richard Mair; Saira Somnay; Ryma Benayed; Ahmet Zehir; Britta Weigelt; Sarah-Jane Dawson; Maria E Arcila; Michael F Berger; Dana Wy Tsui Journal: J Pathol Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 7.996