| Literature DB >> 33075099 |
Nikhil Shri Sahajpal1, Ashis K Mondal1, Sudha Ananth1, Allan Njau1,2, Pankaj Ahluwalia1, Kimya Jones1, Meenakshi Ahluwalia1, Nwogbo Okechukwu1, Natasha M Savage1, Vamsi Kota3, Amyn M Rojiani1, Ravindra Kolhe1.
Abstract
The extensively employed limited-gene coverage NGS panels lead to clinically inadequate molecular profiling of myeloid neoplasms. The aim of the present investigation was to assess performance and clinical utility of a comprehensive DNA panel for myeloid neoplasms. Sixty-one previously well characterized samples were sequenced using TSO500 library preparation kit on NextSeq550 platform. Variants with a VAF ≥ 5% and a total read depth of >50X were filtered for analysis. The following results were recorded-for clinical samples: clinical sensitivity (97%), specificity (100%), precision (100%) and accuracy (99%) whereas reference control results were 100% for analytical sensitivity, specificity, precision and accuracy, with high intra- and inter-run reproducibility. The panel identified 880 variants across 292 genes, of which, 749 variants were in genes not covered in the 54 gene panel. The investigation revealed 14 variants in ten genes, and at least one was present in 96.2% patient samples that were pathogenic/ likely pathogenic in myeloid neoplasms. Also, 15 variants in five genes were found to be pathogenic/ likely pathogenic in other tumor types. Further, the TMB and MSI scores ranged from 0-7 and 0-9, respectively. The high analytical performance and clinical utility of this comprehensive NGS panel makes it practical and clinically relevant for adoption in clinical laboratories for routine molecular profiling of myeloid neoplasms.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33075099 PMCID: PMC7571681 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240976
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Clinical characteristics of patients included in the study.
| Parameters/Characteristics | Groups | Number (n) |
|---|---|---|
| Patients | 27 | |
| Age | <68 | 14 |
| >68 | 13 | |
| Sex | Male | 17 |
| Female | 10 | |
| Ethnicity | Caucasian | 18 |
| African American | 9 | |
| Classification | Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) | |
| AML with mutated NPM1 | 5 | |
| AML, NOS | 7 | |
| APL with PML-RARA | 1 | |
| Mixed phenotype acute leukemia (MPAL), T/myeloid, NOS | 1 | |
| AML with myelodysplasia-related changes | 2 | |
| Myeloid sarcoma | 1 | |
| Acute myeloid leukemia with monocytic differentiation | 2 | |
| Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) | ||
| MDS with excess blasts | 2 | |
| MDS with multilineage dysplasia | 1 | |
| MDS with ring sideroblasts (MDS-RS) | 1 | |
| Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) | ||
| Primary myelofibrosis (PMF) | 2 | |
| Essential thrombocythemia (ET) | 1 | |
| Polycythemia vera (PV) | 1 | |
| Survival | Deceased | 4 |
| Alive | 23 | |
| Cytogenetics | Normal | 13 |
| Abnormal | 13 | |
| Management | Transplant | 7 |
| No transplant | 19 |
*Information not available for one patient.
Fig 1The run metrics for DNA library QC parameters.
PCT: Percentage reads passing filter, MSI: Microsatellite Instability.
Performance metric evaluation in clinical samples.
| Performance Criterion | Single nucleotide variants (SNVs) | *Indels/Duplication (Without Flt3 ITD) |
|---|---|---|
| PPA/ Sensitivity (%) | 96.5 | 100 |
| NPA/ Specificity (%) | 100 | 100 |
| PPV/ Precision (%) | 100 | 100 |
| NPV (%) | 99.8 | 100 |
| Accuracy (%) | 99.8 | 100 |
| FNR (%) | 3.4 | 0 |
| FPR (%) | 0 | 0 |
Positive percentage agreement (PPA) = TP/ (TP+FN).
Negative percentage agreement (NPA) = TN/ (TN+FP).
Positive predictive value (PPV) = TP/ (TP+FP).
Negative predictive value (NPV) = TN/ (TN+FN).
Accuracy = TP+TN/All Results.
False Negative Rate (FNR) = FN/ (FN+TP).
False Positive Rate (FPR) = FP/ (FP+TN).
Performance metric evaluation in Seraseq myeloid mutation DNA, AcroMetrix oncology hotspot control and myeloid neoplasm control samples.
| Variant Type | Dilution | PPA % | NPA% | PPV % | NPV % | Accuracy % | FNR % | FPR % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seraseq myeloid mutation DNA (SNVs) | 100% | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| 100% | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 0 | |
| 100% | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 0 | |
| 50% | 42.8 | 100 | 100 | 84 | 85.7 | 57.1 | 0 | |
| 25% | 0 | 100 | 0 | 75 | 75 | 100 | 0 | |
| 10% | 0 | 100 | 0 | 75 | 75 | 100 | 0 | |
| Seraseq myeloid mutation DNA *Indels/duplications (Without Flt3 ITDs, and CALR) | 100% | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| 100% | 85.7 | 100 | 100 | 75 | 90 | 14.2 | 0 | |
| 100% | 85.7 | 100 | 100 | 75 | 90 | 14.2 | 0 | |
| 50% | 14.2 | 100 | 100 | 33.3 | 40 | 85.7 | 0 | |
| 25% | 0 | 100 | 100 | 30 | 30 | 100 | 0 | |
| 10% | 0 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 0 | |
| AcroMetrix Oncology Hotspot Control (SNVs) | 100% | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| 62.5% | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 0 | |
| 62.5% | 85.7 | 100 | 100 | 98 | 98.2 | 14.2 | 0 | |
| 62.5% | 85.7 | 100 | 100 | 98 | 98.2 | 14.2 | 0 | |
| 50% | 14.2 | 100 | 100 | 89 | 89.2 | 85.7 | 0 | |
| 25% | 0 | 100 | 100 | 87.5 | 87.5 | 100 | 0 | |
| 25% | 0 | 100 | 100 | 87.5 | 87.5 | 100 | 0 | |
| 25% | 0 | 100 | 100 | 87.5 | 87.5 | 100 | 0 | |
| 12.5% | 0 | 100 | 100 | 87.5 | 87.5 | 100 | 0 | |
| 10% | 0 | 100 | 100 | 87.5 | 87.5 | 100 | 0 | |
| 1% | 0 | 100 | 100 | 87.5 | 87.5 | 100 | 0 | |
| Myeloid neoplasm control samples (SNVs) | 100% | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
Positive percentage agreement (PPA) = TP/ (TP+FN).
Negative percentage agreement (NPA) = TN/ (TN+FP).
Positive predictive value (PPV) = TP/ (TP+FP).
Negative predictive value (NPV) = TN/ (TN+FN).
Accuracy = TP+TN/All Results.
False Negative Rate (FNR) = FN/ (FN+TP).
False Positive Rate (FPR) = FP/ (FP+TN).
Fig 2Limit of detection (LOD) study using Seraseq Myeloid Mutation DNA sequentially diluted to 50%, 25% and 10%.
Fig 3Limit of detection (LOD) study using AcroMetrix Oncology Hotspot Control sequentially diluted to 62.5%, 50%, and 25%.
Fig 4Intra-run performance using Seraseq Myeloid Mutation DNA run in triplicate.
Fig 5Inter-run performance using clinical samples.