BACKGROUND: Molecular technologies have allowed laboratories to detect and establish the profiles of human cancers by identifying a variety of somatic variants. In order to improve personalized patient care, we have established a next-generation sequencing (NGS) test to screen for somatic variants in primary or advanced cancers. In this study, we describe the laboratory quality management program for NGS testing, and also provide an overview of the somatic variants identified in over 1000 patient samples as well as their implications in clinical practice. METHODS: Over the past one-and-a-half years, our laboratory received a total of 1028 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor tissues, which consisted of non-small-cell lung carcinomas (NSCLCs), colon adenocarcinomas, glioma/glioblastomas, melanomas, breast carcinomas, and other tumor types. During this time period, we implemented a series of quality control (QC) checks that included (1) pre-DNA extraction, (2) DNA quantification, (3) DNA quality, (4) library quantification, (5) post-emulsification PCR, and (6) post-sequencing metrics. At least 10 ng of genomic DNA (gDNA) were used to prepare barcoded libraries using the AmpliSeq CHPv2. Samples were multiplexed and sequenced on Ion Torrent 318 chips using the Ion PGM System. Variants were identified using the Variant Caller Plugin, and annotation and functional predictions were performed using the Golden Helix SVS. RESULTS: A total of 1005 samples passed QC1-3, and following additional library preparation QC checkpoints, 877 samples were sequenced. Samples were classified into two categories: wild-type (127) and positive for somatic variants (750). Somatic variants were classified into clinically actionable (60%) and non-actionable (40%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of NGS in routine clinical laboratory practice allowed for the detection of tumor profiles that are essential for the selection of targeted therapies and identification of applicable clinical trials, contributing to the improvement of personalized patient care in oncology.
BACKGROUND: Molecular technologies have allowed laboratories to detect and establish the profiles of humancancers by identifying a variety of somatic variants. In order to improve personalized patient care, we have established a next-generation sequencing (NGS) test to screen for somatic variants in primary or advanced cancers. In this study, we describe the laboratory quality management program for NGS testing, and also provide an overview of the somatic variants identified in over 1000 patient samples as well as their implications in clinical practice. METHODS: Over the past one-and-a-half years, our laboratory received a total of 1028 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor tissues, which consisted of non-small-cell lung carcinomas (NSCLCs), colon adenocarcinomas, glioma/glioblastomas, melanomas, breast carcinomas, and other tumor types. During this time period, we implemented a series of quality control (QC) checks that included (1) pre-DNA extraction, (2) DNA quantification, (3) DNA quality, (4) library quantification, (5) post-emulsification PCR, and (6) post-sequencing metrics. At least 10 ng of genomic DNA (gDNA) were used to prepare barcoded libraries using the AmpliSeq CHPv2. Samples were multiplexed and sequenced on Ion Torrent 318 chips using the Ion PGM System. Variants were identified using the Variant Caller Plugin, and annotation and functional predictions were performed using the Golden Helix SVS. RESULTS: A total of 1005 samples passed QC1-3, and following additional library preparation QC checkpoints, 877 samples were sequenced. Samples were classified into two categories: wild-type (127) and positive for somatic variants (750). Somatic variants were classified into clinically actionable (60%) and non-actionable (40%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of NGS in routine clinical laboratory practice allowed for the detection of tumor profiles that are essential for the selection of targeted therapies and identification of applicable clinical trials, contributing to the improvement of personalized patient care in oncology.
Authors: Maria Schwaederle; Gregory A Daniels; David E Piccioni; Paul T Fanta; Richard B Schwab; Kelly A Shimabukuro; Barbara A Parker; Razelle Kurzrock Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Douglas B Johnson; Kimberly H Dahlman; Jared Knol; Jill Gilbert; Igor Puzanov; Julie Means-Powell; Justin M Balko; Christine M Lovly; Barbara A Murphy; Laura W Goff; Vandana G Abramson; Marta A Crispens; Ingrid A Mayer; Jordan D Berlin; Leora Horn; Vicki L Keedy; Nishitha M Reddy; Carlos L Arteaga; Jeffrey A Sosman; William Pao Journal: Oncologist Date: 2014-05-05
Authors: Erin L Stewart; Celine Mascaux; Nhu-An Pham; Shingo Sakashita; Jenna Sykes; Lucia Kim; Naoki Yanagawa; Ghassan Allo; Kota Ishizawa; Dennis Wang; Chang-Qi Zhu; Ming Li; Christine Ng; Ni Liu; Melania Pintilie; Petra Martin; Tom John; Igor Jurisica; Natasha B Leighl; Benjamin G Neel; Thomas K Waddell; Frances A Shepherd; Geoffrey Liu; Ming-Sound Tsao Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Laura J Tafe; Ivan P Gorlov; Francine B de Abreu; Joel A Lefferts; Xiaoying Liu; Jason R Pettus; Jonathan D Marotti; Kasia J Bloch; Vincent A Memoli; Arief A Suriawinata; Konstantin H Dragnev; Camilo E Fadul; Gary N Schwartz; Clinton R Morgan; Britt M Holderness; Jason D Peterson; Gregory J Tsongalis; Todd W Miller; Mary D Chamberlin Journal: Oncologist Date: 2015-07-23
Authors: Heidi L Rehm; Jonathan S Berg; Lisa D Brooks; Carlos D Bustamante; James P Evans; Melissa J Landrum; David H Ledbetter; Donna R Maglott; Christa Lese Martin; Robert L Nussbaum; Sharon E Plon; Erin M Ramos; Stephen T Sherry; Michael S Watson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eliezer M Van Allen; Nikhil Wagle; Petar Stojanov; Danielle L Perrin; Kristian Cibulskis; Sara Marlow; Judit Jane-Valbuena; Dennis C Friedrich; Gregory Kryukov; Scott L Carter; Aaron McKenna; Andrey Sivachenko; Mara Rosenberg; Adam Kiezun; Douglas Voet; Michael Lawrence; Lee T Lichtenstein; Jeff G Gentry; Franklin W Huang; Jennifer Fostel; Deborah Farlow; David Barbie; Leena Gandhi; Eric S Lander; Stacy W Gray; Steven Joffe; Pasi Janne; Judy Garber; Laura MacConaill; Neal Lindeman; Barrett Rollins; Philip Kantoff; Sheila A Fisher; Stacey Gabriel; Gad Getz; Levi A Garraway Journal: Nat Med Date: 2014-05-18 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Mansour A Alsaleem; Graham Ball; Michael S Toss; Sara Raafat; Mohammed Aleskandarany; Chitra Joseph; Angela Ogden; Shristi Bhattarai; Padmashree C G Rida; Francesca Khani; Melissa Davis; Olivier Elemento; Ritu Aneja; Ian O Ellis; Andrew Green; Nigel P Mongan; Emad Rakha Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Yuriy O Alekseyev; Roghayeh Fazeli; Shi Yang; Raveen Basran; Thomas Maher; Nancy S Miller; Daniel Remick Journal: Acad Pathol Date: 2018-05-06
Authors: Laura J Tafe; Kirsten J Pierce; Jason D Peterson; Francine de Abreu; Vincent A Memoli; Candice C Black; Jason R Pettus; Jonathan D Marotti; Edward J Gutmann; Xiaoying Liu; Keisuke Shirai; Konstantin H Dragnev; Christopher I Amos; Gregory J Tsongalis Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 5.715
Authors: Karen L Kaul; Linda M Sabatini; Gregory J Tsongalis; Angela M Caliendo; Randall J Olsen; Edward R Ashwood; Sherri Bale; Robert Benirschke; Dean Carlow; Birgit H Funke; Wayne W Grody; Randall T Hayden; Madhuri Hegde; Elaine Lyon; Kazunori Murata; Melissa Pessin; Richard D Press; Richard B Thomson Journal: Acad Pathol Date: 2017-07-16