Helio A Costa1, Joel W Neal2, Carlos D Bustamante1,3, James L Zehnder4. 1. Department of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. 2. Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. 3. Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. 4. Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. zehnder@stanford.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: While PCR-based genotyping methods abound in molecular testing for lung cancer therapy, these approaches may not provide the robust sensitivity to detect accurate genotypes in a variable cancer genomic background. METHODS: Here, we describe a study of a clinical tumor specimen containing a novel somatic single nucleotide variant that caused allele drop-out in EGFR L858R genotyping, resulting in a false-negative interpretation and impacting patient clinical management. RESULTS: We demonstrate that a subsequent unbiased next-generation sequencing approach correctly identified the driver mutation, and therefore may be more reliable for somatic variant detection. CONCLUSIONS: These findings magnify the potential pitfalls of PCR amplification-based approaches and stress the importance of unbiased and sensitive molecular testing strategies for therapeutic marker detection as molecular testing becomes the standard for determining clinical management of cancer patients.
OBJECTIVE: While PCR-based genotyping methods abound in molecular testing for lung cancer therapy, these approaches may not provide the robust sensitivity to detect accurate genotypes in a variable cancer genomic background. METHODS: Here, we describe a study of a clinical tumor specimen containing a novel somatic single nucleotide variant that caused allele drop-out in EGFR L858R genotyping, resulting in a false-negative interpretation and impacting patient clinical management. RESULTS: We demonstrate that a subsequent unbiased next-generation sequencing approach correctly identified the driver mutation, and therefore may be more reliable for somatic variant detection. CONCLUSIONS: These findings magnify the potential pitfalls of PCR amplification-based approaches and stress the importance of unbiased and sensitive molecular testing strategies for therapeutic marker detection as molecular testing becomes the standard for determining clinical management of cancerpatients.
Authors: Daniel C Koboldt; Qunyuan Zhang; David E Larson; Dong Shen; Michael D McLellan; Ling Lin; Christopher A Miller; Elaine R Mardis; Li Ding; Richard K Wilson Journal: Genome Res Date: 2012-02-02 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Lecia V Sequist; James Chih-Hsin Yang; Nobuyuki Yamamoto; Kenneth O'Byrne; Vera Hirsh; Tony Mok; Sarayut Lucien Geater; Sergey Orlov; Chun-Ming Tsai; Michael Boyer; Wu-Chou Su; Jaafar Bennouna; Terufumi Kato; Vera Gorbunova; Ki Hyeong Lee; Riyaz Shah; Dan Massey; Victoria Zazulina; Mehdi Shahidi; Martin Schuler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E Rapp; J L Pater; A Willan; Y Cormier; N Murray; W K Evans; D I Hodson; D A Clark; R Feld; A M Arnold Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1988-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ethan Cerami; Jianjiong Gao; Ugur Dogrusoz; Benjamin E Gross; Selcuk Onur Sumer; Bülent Arman Aksoy; Anders Jacobsen; Caitlin J Byrne; Michael L Heuer; Erik Larsson; Yevgeniy Antipin; Boris Reva; Arthur P Goldberg; Chris Sander; Nikolaus Schultz Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Pasi A Jänne; James Chih-Hsin Yang; Dong-Wan Kim; David Planchard; Yuichiro Ohe; Suresh S Ramalingam; Myung-Ju Ahn; Sang-We Kim; Wu-Chou Su; Leora Horn; Daniel Haggstrom; Enriqueta Felip; Joo-Hang Kim; Paul Frewer; Mireille Cantarini; Kathryn H Brown; Paul A Dickinson; Serban Ghiorghiu; Malcolm Ranson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Simon A Forbes; David Beare; Prasad Gunasekaran; Kenric Leung; Nidhi Bindal; Harry Boutselakis; Minjie Ding; Sally Bamford; Charlotte Cole; Sari Ward; Chai Yin Kok; Mingming Jia; Tisham De; Jon W Teague; Michael R Stratton; Ultan McDermott; Peter J Campbell Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2014-10-29 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Adam Auton; Lisa D Brooks; Richard M Durbin; Erik P Garrison; Hyun Min Kang; Jan O Korbel; Jonathan L Marchini; Shane McCarthy; Gil A McVean; Gonçalo R Abecasis Journal: Nature Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Monkol Lek; Konrad J Karczewski; Eric V Minikel; Kaitlin E Samocha; Eric Banks; Timothy Fennell; Anne H O'Donnell-Luria; James S Ware; Andrew J Hill; Beryl B Cummings; Taru Tukiainen; Daniel P Birnbaum; Jack A Kosmicki; Laramie E Duncan; Karol Estrada; Fengmei Zhao; James Zou; Emma Pierce-Hoffman; Joanne Berghout; David N Cooper; Nicole Deflaux; Mark DePristo; Ron Do; Jason Flannick; Menachem Fromer; Laura Gauthier; Jackie Goldstein; Namrata Gupta; Daniel Howrigan; Adam Kiezun; Mitja I Kurki; Ami Levy Moonshine; Pradeep Natarajan; Lorena Orozco; Gina M Peloso; Ryan Poplin; Manuel A Rivas; Valentin Ruano-Rubio; Samuel A Rose; Douglas M Ruderfer; Khalid Shakir; Peter D Stenson; Christine Stevens; Brett P Thomas; Grace Tiao; Maria T Tusie-Luna; Ben Weisburd; Hong-Hee Won; Dongmei Yu; David M Altshuler; Diego Ardissino; Michael Boehnke; John Danesh; Stacey Donnelly; Roberto Elosua; Jose C Florez; Stacey B Gabriel; Gad Getz; Stephen J Glatt; Christina M Hultman; Sekar Kathiresan; Markku Laakso; Steven McCarroll; Mark I McCarthy; Dermot McGovern; Ruth McPherson; Benjamin M Neale; Aarno Palotie; Shaun M Purcell; Danish Saleheen; Jeremiah M Scharf; Pamela Sklar; Patrick F Sullivan; Jaakko Tuomilehto; Ming T Tsuang; Hugh C Watkins; James G Wilson; Mark J Daly; Daniel G MacArthur Journal: Nature Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 49.962