Hussam Al-Kateb1, TuDung T Nguyen2, Karen Steger-May3, John D Pfeifer2. 1. Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, USA. Electronic address: halkateb@wustl.edu. 2. Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, USA. 3. Division of Biostatistics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: DNA analysis by NGS has become important to direct the clinical care of cancer patients. However, NGS is not successful in all cases, and the factors responsible for test failures have not been systematically evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A series of 1528 solid and hematolymphoid tumor specimens was tested by an NGS comprehensive cancer panel during 2012-2014. DNA was extracted and 2×101 bp paired-end sequence reads were generated on cancer-related genes utilizing Illumina HiSeq and MiSeq platforms. RESULTS: Testing was unsuccessful in 343 (22.5%) specimens. The failure was due to insufficient tissue (INST) in 223/343 (65%) cases, insufficient DNA (INS-DNA) in 99/343 (28.9%) cases, and failed library (FL) in 21/343 (6.1%) cases. 87/99 (88%) of the INS-DNA cases had below 10 ng DNA available for testing. Factors associated with INST and INS-DNA failures were site of biopsy (SOB) and type of biopsy (TOB) (both p < 0.0001), and clinical setting of biopsy (CSB, initial diagnosis or recurrence) (p < 0.0001). Factors common to INST and FL were age of specimen (p ≤ 0.006) and tumor viability (p ≤ 0.05). Factors common to INS-DNA and FL were DNA purity and DNA degradation (all p ≤ 0.005). In multivariate analysis, common predictors for INST and INS-DNA included CSB (p = 0.048 and p < 0.0001) and TOB (both p ≤ 0.003), respectively. SOB (p = 0.004) and number of cores (p = 0.001) were specific for INS-DNA, whereas TOB and DNA degradation were associated with FL (p = 0.04 and 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-analytical causes (INST and INS-DNA) accounted for about 90% of all failed cases; independent of test design. Clinical setting; site and type of biopsy; and number of cores used for testing all correlated with failure. Accounting for these factors at the time of tissue biopsy acquisition could improve the analytic success rate.
PURPOSE: DNA analysis by NGS has become important to direct the clinical care of cancerpatients. However, NGS is not successful in all cases, and the factors responsible for test failures have not been systematically evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A series of 1528 solid and hematolymphoid tumor specimens was tested by an NGS comprehensive cancer panel during 2012-2014. DNA was extracted and 2×101 bp paired-end sequence reads were generated on cancer-related genes utilizing Illumina HiSeq and MiSeq platforms. RESULTS: Testing was unsuccessful in 343 (22.5%) specimens. The failure was due to insufficient tissue (INST) in 223/343 (65%) cases, insufficient DNA (INS-DNA) in 99/343 (28.9%) cases, and failed library (FL) in 21/343 (6.1%) cases. 87/99 (88%) of the INS-DNA cases had below 10 ng DNA available for testing. Factors associated with INST and INS-DNA failures were site of biopsy (SOB) and type of biopsy (TOB) (both p < 0.0001), and clinical setting of biopsy (CSB, initial diagnosis or recurrence) (p < 0.0001). Factors common to INST and FL were age of specimen (p ≤ 0.006) and tumor viability (p ≤ 0.05). Factors common to INS-DNA and FL were DNA purity and DNA degradation (all p ≤ 0.005). In multivariate analysis, common predictors for INST and INS-DNA included CSB (p = 0.048 and p < 0.0001) and TOB (both p ≤ 0.003), respectively. SOB (p = 0.004) and number of cores (p = 0.001) were specific for INS-DNA, whereas TOB and DNA degradation were associated with FL (p = 0.04 and 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-analytical causes (INST and INS-DNA) accounted for about 90% of all failed cases; independent of test design. Clinical setting; site and type of biopsy; and number of cores used for testing all correlated with failure. Accounting for these factors at the time of tissue biopsy acquisition could improve the analytic success rate.
Authors: Jennifer K Sehn; Ian S Hagemann; John D Pfeifer; Catherine E Cottrell; Christina M Lockwood Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Ian S Hagemann; Siddhartha Devarakonda; Christina M Lockwood; David H Spencer; Kalin Guebert; Andrew J Bredemeyer; Hussam Al-Kateb; TuDung T Nguyen; Eric J Duncavage; Catherine E Cottrell; Shashikant Kulkarni; Rakesh Nagarajan; Karen Seibert; Maria Baggstrom; Saiama N Waqar; John D Pfeifer; Daniel Morgensztern; Ramaswamy Govindan Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-10-24 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Birgitte B Simen; Lina Yin; Chirayu P Goswami; Kathleen O Davis; Renu Bajaj; Jerald Z Gong; Stephen C Peiper; Erica S Johnson; Zi-Xuan Wang Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2014-10-30 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Rajesh R Singh; Keyur P Patel; Mark J Routbort; Neelima G Reddy; Bedia A Barkoh; Brian Handal; Rashmi Kanagal-Shamanna; Wesley O Greaves; L Jeffrey Medeiros; Kenneth D Aldape; Rajyalakshmi Luthra Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Ming-Tseh Lin; Stacy L Mosier; Michele Thiess; Katie F Beierl; Marija Debeljak; Li-Hui Tseng; Guoli Chen; Srinivasan Yegnasubramanian; Hao Ho; Leslie Cope; Sarah J Wheelan; Christopher D Gocke; James R Eshleman Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Joaquin Martinez-Lopez; Juan J Lahuerta; François Pepin; Marcos González; Santiago Barrio; Rosa Ayala; Noemí Puig; María A Montalban; Bruno Paiva; Li Weng; Cristina Jiménez; María Sopena; Martin Moorhead; Teresa Cedena; Immaculada Rapado; María Victoria Mateos; Laura Rosiñol; Albert Oriol; María J Blanchard; Rafael Martínez; Joan Bladé; Jesús San Miguel; Malek Faham; Ramón García-Sanz Journal: Blood Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Shinichi Yachida; Siân Jones; Ivana Bozic; Tibor Antal; Rebecca Leary; Baojin Fu; Mihoko Kamiyama; Ralph H Hruban; James R Eshleman; Martin A Nowak; Victor E Velculescu; Kenneth W Kinzler; Bert Vogelstein; Christine A Iacobuzio-Donahue Journal: Nature Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Lee S Schwartzberg; Hidehito Horinouchi; David Chan; Sara Chernilo; Michaela L Tsai; Dolores Isla; Carles Escriu; John P Bennett; Kim Clark-Langone; Christer Svedman; Pascale Tomasini Journal: NPJ Precis Oncol Date: 2020-06-24
Authors: S Yip; A Christofides; S Banerji; M R Downes; I Izevbaye; B Lo; A MacMillan; J McCuaig; T Stockley; G M Yousef; A Spatz Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Alexandra M Miller; Luca Szalontay; Nancy Bouvier; Katherine Hill; Hamza Ahmad; Johnathan Rafailov; Alex J Lee; M Irene Rodriguez-Sanchez; Onur Yildirim; Arti Patel; Tejus A Bale; Jamal K Benhamida; Ryma Benayed; Maria E Arcila; Maria Donzelli; Ira J Dunkel; Stephen W Gilheeney; Yasmin Khakoo; Kim Kramer; Sameer F Sait; Jeffrey P Greenfield; Mark M Souweidane; Sofia Haque; Audrey Mauguen; Michael F Berger; Ingo K Mellinghoff; Matthias A Karajannis Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2022-10-03 Impact factor: 13.029
Authors: Rick Kamps; Rita D Brandão; Bianca J van den Bosch; Aimee D C Paulussen; Sofia Xanthoulea; Marinus J Blok; Andrea Romano Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 5.923