Literature DB >> 30055348

Describing the Reportable Range Is Important for Reliable Treatment Decisions: A Multiple Laboratory Study for Molecular Tumor Profiling Using Next-Generation Sequencing.

Véronique Tack1, Lien Spans2, Ed Schuuring3, Cleo Keppens1, Karen Zwaenepoel4, Patrick Pauwels5, Jeroen Van Houdt6, Elisabeth M C Dequeker7.   

Abstract

Because interpretation of next-generation sequencing (NGS) data remains challenging, optimization of the NGS process is needed to obtain correct sequencing results. Therefore, extensive validation and continuous monitoring of the quality is essential. NGS performance was compared with traditional detection methods and technical quality of nine NGS technologies was assessed. First, nine formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded patient samples were analyzed by 114 laboratories by using different detection methods. No significant differences in performance were observed between analyses with NGS and traditional techniques. Second, two DNA control samples were analyzed for a selected number of variants by 26 participants with the use of nine different NGS technologies. Quality control metrics were analyzed from raw data files and a survey about routine procedures. Results showed large differences in coverages, but observed variant allele frequencies in raw data files were in line with predefined variant allele frequencies. Many false negative results were found because of low-quality regions, which were not reported as such. It is recommended to disclose the reportable range, the fraction of targeted genomic regions for which calls of acceptable quality can be generated, to avoid any errors in therapy decisions. NGS can be a reliable technique, only if essential quality control during analysis is applied and reported.
Copyright © 2018 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30055348     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2018.06.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Mol Diagn        ISSN: 1525-1578            Impact factor:   5.568


  4 in total

1.  European follow-up of incorrect biomarker results for colorectal cancer demonstrates the importance of quality improvement projects.

Authors:  Cleo Keppens; Kelly Dufraing; Han J van Krieken; Albert G Siebers; George Kafatos; Kimberly Lowe; Gaston Demonty; Elisabeth M C Dequeker
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2019-02-05       Impact factor: 4.064

Review 2.  Biomarker testing in oncology - Requirements for organizing external quality assessment programs to improve the performance of laboratory testing: revision of an expert opinion paper on behalf of IQNPath ABSL.

Authors:  K Dufraing; F Fenizia; E Torlakovic; N Wolstenholme; Z C Deans; E Rouleau; M Vyberg; S Parry; E Schuuring; Elisabeth M C Dequeker
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2020-10-13       Impact factor: 4.064

3.  Precision cancer genome testing needs proficiency testing involving all stakeholders.

Authors:  Masato Maekawa; Terumi Taniguchi; Kazuto Nishio; Kazuko Sakai; Kazuyuki Matsushita; Kaname Nakatani; Takayuki Ishige; Makoto Ikejiri; Hiroshi Nishihara; Kuniko Sunami; Yasushi Yatabe; Kanako C Hatanaka; Yutaka Hatanaka; Yoshihiro Yamamoto; Keita Fukuyama; Shinya Oda; Kayoko Saito; Mamoru Yokomura; Yuji Kubo; Hiroko Sato; Yoshinori Tanaka; Misa Fuchioka; Tadashi Yamasaki; Koichiro Matsuda; Kiyotaka Kurachi; Kazuhiro Funai; Satoshi Baba; Moriya Iwaizumi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-01-27       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  Analytical performance evaluation of a commercial next generation sequencing liquid biopsy platform using plasma ctDNA, reference standards, and synthetic serial dilution samples derived from normal plasma.

Authors:  Suman Verma; Mathew W Moore; Rebecca Ringler; Abhisek Ghosal; Kyle Horvath; Theodore Naef; Sheri Anvari; Philip D Cotter; Shelly Gunn
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2020-10-01       Impact factor: 4.430

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.