| Literature DB >> 33846644 |
Ira W Deveson1,2, Binsheng Gong3, Kevin Lai4, Jennifer S LoCoco5, Todd A Richmond6, Jeoffrey Schageman7, Zhihong Zhang8, Natalia Novoradovskaya9, James C Willey10, Wendell Jones11, Rebecca Kusko12, Guangchun Chen13, Bindu Swapna Madala14, James Blackburn15,16, Igor Stevanovski1, Ambica Bhandari17, Devin Close18, Jeffrey Conroy19, Michael Hubank20, Narasimha Marella21, Piotr A Mieczkowski22, Fujun Qiu8, Robert Sebra23, Daniel Stetson24, Lihyun Sun25, Philippe Szankasi18, Haowen Tan26, Lin-Ya Tang27, Hanane Arib23, Hunter Best18,28, Blake Burgher19, Pierre R Bushel29, Fergal Casey6, Simon Cawley30, Chia-Jung Chang31, Jonathan Choi32, Jorge Dinis32, Daniel Duncan21, Agda Karina Eterovic27, Liang Feng6, Abhisek Ghosal17, Kristina Giorda33, Sean Glenn19, Scott Happe34, Nathan Haseley5, Kyle Horvath17, Li-Yuan Hung35, Mirna Jarosz36, Garima Kushwaha6, Dan Li3, Quan-Zhen Li13, Zhiguang Li37, Liang-Chun Liu38, Zhichao Liu3, Charles Ma21, Christopher E Mason39, Dalila B Megherbi40, Tom Morrison41, Carlos Pabón-Peña42, Mehdi Pirooznia43, Paula Z Proszek20, Amelia Raymond24, Paul Rindler18, Rebecca Ringler17, Andreas Scherer44,45, Rita Shaknovich21, Tieliu Shi46, Melissa Smith23, Ping Song27, Maya Strahl23, Venkat J Thodima21, Nikola Tom45,47, Suman Verma17, Jiashi Wang48, Leihong Wu3, Wenzhong Xiao31,35, Chang Xu49, Mary Yang50, Guangliang Zhang51, Sa Zhang51, Yilin Zhang25, Leming Shi52,53,54, Weida Tong3, Donald J Johann55, Timothy R Mercer56,57,58, Joshua Xu59.
Abstract
Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) sequencing is being rapidly adopted in precision oncology, but the accuracy, sensitivity and reproducibility of ctDNA assays is poorly understood. Here we report the findings of a multi-site, cross-platform evaluation of the analytical performance of five industry-leading ctDNA assays. We evaluated each stage of the ctDNA sequencing workflow with simulations, synthetic DNA spike-in experiments and proficiency testing on standardized, cell-line-derived reference samples. Above 0.5% variant allele frequency, ctDNA mutations were detected with high sensitivity, precision and reproducibility by all five assays, whereas, below this limit, detection became unreliable and varied widely between assays, especially when input material was limited. Missed mutations (false negatives) were more common than erroneous candidates (false positives), indicating that the reliable sampling of rare ctDNA fragments is the key challenge for ctDNA assays. This comprehensive evaluation of the analytical performance of ctDNA assays serves to inform best practice guidelines and provides a resource for precision oncology.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33846644 DOI: 10.1038/s41587-021-00857-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Biotechnol ISSN: 1087-0156 Impact factor: 54.908