Ronak H Shah1, Sasinya N Scott1, A Rose Brannon1, Douglas A Levine2, Oscar Lin1, Michael F Berger1,3. 1. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 2. Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 3. Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mutation analysis for personalized treatment has become increasingly important in the management of different types of cancer. The advent of new DNA extraction protocols and sequencing platforms with reduced DNA input requirements might allow the use of cytology specimens for high-throughput mutation analysis. In this study, the authors evaluated the use of effusion fluid for next-generation sequencing-based, multigene mutation profiling. METHODS: Four specimens from each of 5 patients who had at least stage III, high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma were selected: effusion fluid; frozen tumor; formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded tumor; and matched normal blood. Frozen tumors from each patient were previously characterized by The Cancer Genomic Atlas (TCGA). DNA was extracted from all specimens and was sequenced using a custom hybridization capture-based assay. Genomic alterations were compared among all specimens from each patient as well as with mutations reported in TCGA for the same tumors. RESULTS: In total, 17 distinct somatic mutations were identified in the cohort. Ten of 17 mutations were reported in TCGA and were called in all 3 malignant specimens procured from the patients. Of the remaining 7 mutations, 2 were called in all 3 specimens, and the other 5 were sample-specific. Two mutations were detected only in the cytology specimens. Copy number profiles were concordant among the tumors analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Cytology specimens represent suitable material for high-throughput sequencing, because all mutations described by TCGA were independently identified in the effusion fluid. Differences in mutations detected in samples procured from the same patient may reflect tumor heterogeneity.
BACKGROUND: Mutation analysis for personalized treatment has become increasingly important in the management of different types of cancer. The advent of new DNA extraction protocols and sequencing platforms with reduced DNA input requirements might allow the use of cytology specimens for high-throughput mutation analysis. In this study, the authors evaluated the use of effusion fluid for next-generation sequencing-based, multigene mutation profiling. METHODS: Four specimens from each of 5 patients who had at least stage III, high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma were selected: effusion fluid; frozen tumor; formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded tumor; and matched normal blood. Frozen tumors from each patient were previously characterized by The Cancer Genomic Atlas (TCGA). DNA was extracted from all specimens and was sequenced using a custom hybridization capture-based assay. Genomic alterations were compared among all specimens from each patient as well as with mutations reported in TCGA for the same tumors. RESULTS: In total, 17 distinct somatic mutations were identified in the cohort. Ten of 17 mutations were reported in TCGA and were called in all 3 malignant specimens procured from the patients. Of the remaining 7 mutations, 2 were called in all 3 specimens, and the other 5 were sample-specific. Two mutations were detected only in the cytology specimens. Copy number profiles were concordant among the tumors analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Cytology specimens represent suitable material for high-throughput sequencing, because all mutations described by TCGA were independently identified in the effusion fluid. Differences in mutations detected in samples procured from the same patient may reflect tumor heterogeneity.
Authors: Aaron McKenna; Matthew Hanna; Eric Banks; Andrey Sivachenko; Kristian Cibulskis; Andrew Kernytsky; Kiran Garimella; David Altshuler; Stacey Gabriel; Mark Daly; Mark A DePristo Journal: Genome Res Date: 2010-07-19 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Andrea Sottoriva; Inmaculada Spiteri; Sara G M Piccirillo; Anestis Touloumis; V Peter Collins; John C Marioni; Christina Curtis; Colin Watts; Simon Tavaré Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Mark D Adams; Martina L Veigl; Zhenghe Wang; Neil Molyneux; Shuying Sun; Kishore Guda; Xiaoqing Yu; Sanford D Markowitz; Joseph Willis Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2012-08-10 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Katja Tuononen; Satu Mäki-Nevala; Virinder Kaur Sarhadi; Aino Wirtanen; Mikko Rönty; Kaisa Salmenkivi; Jenny M Andrews; Aino I Telaranta-Keerie; Sari Hannula; Sonja Lagström; Pekka Ellonen; Aija Knuuttila; Sakari Knuutila Journal: Genes Chromosomes Cancer Date: 2013-01-30 Impact factor: 5.006
Authors: Lennart Raman; Annelies Dheedene; Matthias De Smet; Jo Van Dorpe; Björn Menten Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2019-02-28 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Viswam S Nair; Angela Bik-Yu Hui; Pierre P Massion; Jacob J Chabon; Mohammad S Esfahani; Henning Stehr; Barzin Y Nabet; Li Zhou; Aadel A Chaudhuri; Jalen Benson; Kelsey Ayers; Harmeet Bedi; Meghan Ramsey; Ryan Van Wert; Sanja Antic; Natalie Lui; Leah Backhus; Mark Berry; Arthur W Sung; Joseph B Shrager; Ash A Alizadeh; Maximilian Diehn Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2022-08-16 Impact factor: 13.312
Authors: Bridget K Marcellino; Noushin Farnoud; Bruno Cassinat; Min Lu; Emanuelle Verger; Erin McGovern; Minal Patel; Juan Medina-Martinez; Max Fine Levine; Juanes E Arango Ossa; Yangyu Zhou; Heidi Kosiorek; Meenakshi Mehrotra; Jane Houldsworth; Amylou Dueck; Michael Rossi; John Mascarenhas; Jean-Jacques Kiladjian; Raajit K Rampal; Ronald Hoffman Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2020-11-24
Authors: Melissa Schwartz; Olga Camacho-Vanegas; Ashley M Wood; Matthew Dashkoff; Courtney Whitelock; Timothy T Harkins; Carmel J Cohen; Ann Marie Beddoe; Peter Dottino; John A Martignetti Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Lorenza Mittempergher; Anna M Piskorz; Astrid J Bosma; Magali Michaut; G Bea A Wisman; Roelof J C Kluin; Marja Nieuwland; Wim Brugman; Kevin J W van der Ven; Francesco Marass; James Morris; Nitzan Rosenfeld; Mercedes Jimenez-Linan; Steven de Jong; Ate G J van der Zee; James D Brenton; René Bernards Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 3.240