Dragana Milosevic1, John R Mills1, Michael B Campion2, Noemi Vidal-Folch2, Jesse S Voss2, Kevin C Halling2, W Edward Highsmith2, Minetta C Liu3,4, Benjamin R Kipp2, Stefan K G Grebe5,6. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Division of Clinical Biochemistry and Immunology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 2. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Division of Laboratory Genetics and Genomics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 3. Department of Laboratory Meidicne and Pathology, Division of Anatomic Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 4. Department of Oncology, Division of Medical Oncology Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. 5. Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Division of Clinical Biochemistry and Immunology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; grebe.stefan@mayo.edu. 6. Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) is an emerging technology for quantitative cell-free DNA oncology applications. However, assay performance criteria must be established in a standardized manner to harness this potential. We reasoned that standard protocols used in clinical chemistry assay validation should be able to fill this need. METHODS: We validated KRAS, EGFR, and BRAF quantitative ddPCR assays based on the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act regulations for laboratory-developed tests in clinical chemistry and the matching Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. This included evaluation of limit of the blank (LOB), limit of detection (LOD), limit of quantification (LOQ), intraassay and interassay imprecision, analytical range, dilution linearity, accuracy (including comparison with orthogonal platforms), reference range study, interference, and stability studies. RESULTS: For the ddPCR assays, the LOB was 4 mutant copies, LODs were 12 to 22 copies, and LOQs were 35 to 64 copies. The upper limit of the dynamic range was 30000 copies, and dilutions were linear down to the LOQs with good accuracy of spike recovery of Horizon reference material. Method comparisons with next-generation sequencing and an alternative ddPCR platform showed complete qualitative agreement and quantitative concordance, with slopes of 0.73 to 0.97 and R 2s of 0.83 to 0.99. No substantial interferences were discovered. Wild-type copy numbers in plasma ranged from 462 to 6169/mL in healthy individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Standard clinical chemistry assay validation protocols can be applied to quantitative ddPCR assays. This should facilitate comparison of the performance of different assays and allow establishment of minimal significant change thresholds in monitoring applications.
BACKGROUND: Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) is an emerging technology for quantitative cell-free DNA oncology applications. However, assay performance criteria must be established in a standardized manner to harness this potential. We reasoned that standard protocols used in clinical chemistry assay validation should be able to fill this need. METHODS: We validated KRAS, EGFR, and BRAF quantitative ddPCR assays based on the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Act regulations for laboratory-developed tests in clinical chemistry and the matching Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute guidelines. This included evaluation of limit of the blank (LOB), limit of detection (LOD), limit of quantification (LOQ), intraassay and interassay imprecision, analytical range, dilution linearity, accuracy (including comparison with orthogonal platforms), reference range study, interference, and stability studies. RESULTS: For the ddPCR assays, the LOB was 4 mutant copies, LODs were 12 to 22 copies, and LOQs were 35 to 64 copies. The upper limit of the dynamic range was 30000 copies, and dilutions were linear down to the LOQs with good accuracy of spike recovery of Horizon reference material. Method comparisons with next-generation sequencing and an alternative ddPCR platform showed complete qualitative agreement and quantitative concordance, with slopes of 0.73 to 0.97 and R 2s of 0.83 to 0.99. No substantial interferences were discovered. Wild-type copy numbers in plasma ranged from 462 to 6169/mL in healthy individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Standard clinical chemistry assay validation protocols can be applied to quantitative ddPCR assays. This should facilitate comparison of the performance of different assays and allow establishment of minimal significant change thresholds in monitoring applications.
Authors: Michael Oellerich; Karen Sherwood; Paul Keown; Ekkehard Schütz; Julia Beck; Johannes Stegbauer; Lars Christian Rump; Philip D Walson Journal: Nat Rev Nephrol Date: 2021-05-24 Impact factor: 28.314
Authors: Jessica A Slostad; Minetta C Liu; Jacob B Allred; Lori A Erickson; Kandelaria M Rumilla; Matthew S Block; Michael Keppen; David King; Svetomir N Markovic; Robert R McWilliams Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes Date: 2021-10-13
Authors: Elmo W I Neuberger; Alexandra Brahmer; Tobias Ehlert; Katrin Kluge; Keito F A Philippi; Simone C Boedecker; Julia Weinmann-Menke; Perikles Simon Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Lingxia Jiang; Robert Lin; Steve Gallagher; Andrew Zayac; Matthew E R Butchbach; Paul Hung Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Mette Pernille Myklebust; Anna Thor; Benedikte Rosenlund; Peder Gjengstø; Ása Karlsdottir; Marianne Brydøy; Bogdan S Bercea; Christian Olsen; Ida Johnson; Mathilde I Berg; Carl W Langberg; Kristine E Andreassen; Anders Kjellman; Hege S Haugnes; Olav Dahl Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Elena Atanasova; Dragana Milosevic; Svetlana Bornschlegl; Karen P Krucker; Eapen K Jacob; Eva M Carmona Porquera; Dagny K Anderson; Ashley M Egan; Andrew H Limper; Allan B Dietz Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 6.832