Laure Sorber1,2, Karen Zwaenepoel3,4, Julie Jacobs3,4, Koen De Winne4, Kaat Van Casteren3,4,5, Elien Augustus3,4, Filip Lardon3, Hans Prenen6, Marc Peeters3,7, Jan Van Meerbeeck3,8, Geert Roeyen9, Christian Rolfo3,10, Patrick Pauwels3,4,11. 1. Center for Oncological Research (CORE) Antwerp, University of Antwerp (UAntwerp), Universiteitsplein 1, 2610, Wilrijk, Belgium. Laure.Sorber@uantwerpen.be. 2. Laboratory of Pathological Anatomy, Antwerp University Hospital (UZA), 2650, Edegem, Belgium. Laure.Sorber@uantwerpen.be. 3. Center for Oncological Research (CORE) Antwerp, University of Antwerp (UAntwerp), Universiteitsplein 1, 2610, Wilrijk, Belgium. 4. Laboratory of Pathological Anatomy, Antwerp University Hospital (UZA), 2650, Edegem, Belgium. 5. Biomedical Quality Assurance Research Unit, KU Leuven (KUL), 3000, Louvain, Belgium. 6. Clinical Trials Unit, Department of Oncology and Phase 1, Antwerp University Hospital (UZA), 2650, Edegem, Belgium. 7. Department of Oncology, Multidisciplinary Oncological Center Antwerp (MOCA), Antwerp University Hospital (UZA), 2650, Edegem, Belgium. 8. Department of Pulmonology and Thoracic Oncology, Antwerp University Hospital (UZA), 2650, Edegem, Belgium. 9. Hepatobiliary Transplantation and Endocrine Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital (UZA), 2650, Edegem, Belgium. 10. Thoracic Medical Oncology and Early Clinical Trials, Marlene and Steward Greenebaum Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 21201, Baltimore, MD, USA. 11. Biobank UZA/UAntwerpen, Antwerp University Hospital (UZA), 2650, Edegem, Belgium.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The potential of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis as a liquid biopsy has led to the development of several specialized measuring tools. Interest in the (pre-)analytical conditions of the liquid biopsy workflow has increased over the past few years. METHODS: In this study, we performed a systematic review of the cfDNA stabilizing efficacy in standard EDTA and specialized blood collection tubes (BCTs), namely CellSave, Norgen, PAXgene, Roche, and Streck tubes, and compared the efficacy of the latter three BCTs in a situation resembling the clinical setting. Blood samples were collected from ten KRAS-mutated metastatic cancer patients and stored for 72 h. During this time, samples were shaken and kept at either 6 °C or at room temperature for 24 h to mimic transport. RESULTS: We demonstrated that while cfDNA levels in EDTA tubes are only stable for a couple of (≤ 6) hours, they could be sustained for at least 48-72 h in all three specialized BCTs, irrespective of temperature. This timespan enables a fast turnaround time, which is one of the advantages of liquid biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: The choice between these specialized BCTs is less vital when they are processed correctly within a few days.
INTRODUCTION: The potential of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis as a liquid biopsy has led to the development of several specialized measuring tools. Interest in the (pre-)analytical conditions of the liquid biopsy workflow has increased over the past few years. METHODS: In this study, we performed a systematic review of the cfDNA stabilizing efficacy in standard EDTA and specialized blood collection tubes (BCTs), namely CellSave, Norgen, PAXgene, Roche, and Streck tubes, and compared the efficacy of the latter three BCTs in a situation resembling the clinical setting. Blood samples were collected from ten KRAS-mutated metastatic cancerpatients and stored for 72 h. During this time, samples were shaken and kept at either 6 °C or at room temperature for 24 h to mimic transport. RESULTS: We demonstrated that while cfDNA levels in EDTA tubes are only stable for a couple of (≤ 6) hours, they could be sustained for at least 48-72 h in all three specialized BCTs, irrespective of temperature. This timespan enables a fast turnaround time, which is one of the advantages of liquid biopsy. CONCLUSIONS: The choice between these specialized BCTs is less vital when they are processed correctly within a few days.
Authors: Sonya Parpart-Li; Bjarne Bartlett; Maria Popoli; Vilmos Adleff; Laura Tucker; Rebecca Steinberg; Andrew Georgiadis; Jill Phallen; Julie Brahmer; Nilo Azad; Ilene Browner; Daniel Laheru; Victor E Velculescu; Mark Sausen; Luis A Diaz Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Lise B Ahlborn; Mette Madsen; Lars Jonson; Finn C Nielsen; Ulrik Lassen; Christina W Yde; Morten Mau-Sorensen Journal: Clin Lab Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 1.138
Authors: Bente Risberg; Dana W Y Tsui; Heather Biggs; Andrea Ruiz-Valdepenas Martin de Almagro; Sarah-Jane Dawson; Charlotte Hodgkin; Linda Jones; Christine Parkinson; Anna Piskorz; Francesco Marass; Dineika Chandrananda; Elizabeth Moore; James Morris; Vincent Plagnol; Nitzan Rosenfeld; Carlos Caldas; James D Brenton; Davina Gale Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2018-08-28 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Charu Aggarwal; Christian D Rolfo; Geoffrey R Oxnard; Jhanelle E Gray; Lynette M Sholl; David R Gandara Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2020-09-11 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Zuzana Pös; Ondrej Pös; Jakub Styk; Angelika Mocova; Lucia Strieskova; Jaroslav Budis; Ludevit Kadasi; Jan Radvanszky; Tomas Szemes Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 5.923