Kuenyoul Park1, Min Kyu Kim2, Taegeun Lee1, Jinyoung Hong1, Hyun-Ki Kim1, Sunyoung Ahn3, Young-Jae Lee4, Jisun Kim5, Shin-Wha Lee4, Jong Won Lee5, Woochang Lee1, Sail Chun1, Byung Ho Son5, Kyung Hae Jung6, Yong-Man Kim4, Won-Ki Min1, Sei-Hyun Ahn5. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 2. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Changwon-Si, Korea. 3. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Kangwon National University School of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 5. Department of Surgery, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. 6. Department of Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology matures, various amplicon-based NGS tests for BRCA1/2 genotyping have been introduced. This study was designed to evaluate an NGS test using a newly released amplicon-based panel, AmpliSeq for Illumina BRCA Panel (AmpliSeq panel), for detection of clinically significant BRCA variants, and to compare it to another amplicon-based NGS test confirmed by Sanger sequencing. METHODS: We reviewed BRCA test results done by NGS using the TruSeq Custom Amplicon kit from patients suspected of hereditary breast/ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) in 2018. Of those, 96 residual samples with 100 clinically significant variants were included in this study using predefined criteria: 100 variants were distributed throughout the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. All target variants were confirmed by Sanger sequencing. Duplicate NGS testing of these samples was performed using the AmpliSeq panel, and the concordance of results from the two amplicon-based NGS tests was assessed. RESULTS: Ninety-nine of 100 variants were detected in duplicate BRCA1/2 genotyping using the AmpliSeq panel (sensitivity, 99%; specificity, 100%). In the discordant case, one variant (BRCA1 c.3627dupA) was found only in repeat 1, but not in repeat 2. Automated nomenclature of all variants, except for two indel variants, was in consensus with Human Genome Variation Society nomenclature. CONCLUSION: Our findings confirm that the analytic performance of the AmpliSeq panel is satisfactory, with high sensitivity and specificity.
BACKGROUND: As next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology matures, various amplicon-based NGS tests for BRCA1/2 genotyping have been introduced. This study was designed to evaluate an NGS test using a newly released amplicon-based panel, AmpliSeq for Illumina BRCA Panel (AmpliSeq panel), for detection of clinically significant BRCA variants, and to compare it to another amplicon-based NGS test confirmed by Sanger sequencing. METHODS: We reviewed BRCA test results done by NGS using the TruSeq Custom Amplicon kit from patients suspected of hereditary breast/ovarian cancer syndrome (HBOC) in 2018. Of those, 96 residual samples with 100 clinically significant variants were included in this study using predefined criteria: 100 variants were distributed throughout the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. All target variants were confirmed by Sanger sequencing. Duplicate NGS testing of these samples was performed using the AmpliSeq panel, and the concordance of results from the two amplicon-based NGS tests was assessed. RESULTS: Ninety-nine of 100 variants were detected in duplicate BRCA1/2 genotyping using the AmpliSeq panel (sensitivity, 99%; specificity, 100%). In the discordant case, one variant (BRCA1 c.3627dupA) was found only in repeat 1, but not in repeat 2. Automated nomenclature of all variants, except for two indel variants, was in consensus with Human Genome Variation Society nomenclature. CONCLUSION: Our findings confirm that the analytic performance of the AmpliSeq panel is satisfactory, with high sensitivity and specificity.
Authors: Steven J Isakoff; Erica L Mayer; Lei He; Tiffany A Traina; Lisa A Carey; Karen J Krag; Hope S Rugo; Minetta C Liu; Vered Stearns; Steven E Come; Kirsten M Timms; Anne-Renee Hartman; Darrel R Borger; Dianne M Finkelstein; Judy E Garber; Paula D Ryan; Eric P Winer; Paul E Goss; Leif W Ellisen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-04-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Marcia S Brose; Timothy R Rebbeck; Kathleen A Calzone; Jill E Stopfer; Katherine L Nathanson; Barbara L Weber Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2002-09-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Sue Richards; Nazneen Aziz; Sherri Bale; David Bick; Soma Das; Julie Gastier-Foster; Wayne W Grody; Madhuri Hegde; Elaine Lyon; Elaine Spector; Karl Voelkerding; Heidi L Rehm Journal: Genet Med Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Richard M Brohet; Maria E Velthuizen; Frans B L Hogervorst; Hanne E J Meijers-Heijboer; Caroline Seynaeve; Margriet J Collée; Senno Verhoef; Margreet G E M Ausems; Nicoline Hoogerbrugge; Christi J van Asperen; Encarna Gómez García; Fred Menko; Jan C Oosterwijk; Peter Devilee; Laura J van't Veer; Flora E van Leeuwen; Douglas F Easton; Matti A Rookus; Antonis C Antoniou Journal: J Med Genet Date: 2013-11-27 Impact factor: 6.318