INTRODUCTION: Gene expression profiling (GEP) is widely used for prognostication in patients with uveal melanoma (UM). Because biopsy tissue is limited, it is critical to obtain as much genomic information as possible from each sample. Combined application of both GEP and next-generation sequencing (NGS) allows for analysis of RNA and DNA from a single biopsy sample, offers additional prognostic information, and can potentially inform therapy selection. This study evaluated the analytical performance of a targeted custom NGS panel for mutational profiling of 7 genes commonly mutated in UM. METHODS: One hundred five primary UM tumors were analyzed, including 37 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) and 68 fine-needle aspiration biopsy specimens. Sequencing was performed on the Ion GeneStudio S5 platform to an average read depth of >500X per region of interest. RESULTS: The 7-gene panel achieved a positive percent agreement of 100% for detection of both single-nucleotide variants and insertions/deletions, with a technical positive predictive value of 98.8% and 100%, respectively. Intra-assay and inter-assay concordance studies confirmed the assay's reproducibility and repeatability. DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSION: The 7-gene panel is a robust, highly accurate NGS test that can be successfully performed, along with GEP, from a single small-gauge needle biopsy sample or FFPE specimen.
INTRODUCTION: Gene expression profiling (GEP) is widely used for prognostication in patients with uveal melanoma (UM). Because biopsy tissue is limited, it is critical to obtain as much genomic information as possible from each sample. Combined application of both GEP and next-generation sequencing (NGS) allows for analysis of RNA and DNA from a single biopsy sample, offers additional prognostic information, and can potentially inform therapy selection. This study evaluated the analytical performance of a targeted custom NGS panel for mutational profiling of 7 genes commonly mutated in UM. METHODS: One hundred five primary UM tumors were analyzed, including 37 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) and 68 fine-needle aspiration biopsy specimens. Sequencing was performed on the Ion GeneStudio S5 platform to an average read depth of >500X per region of interest. RESULTS: The 7-gene panel achieved a positive percent agreement of 100% for detection of both single-nucleotide variants and insertions/deletions, with a technical positive predictive value of 98.8% and 100%, respectively. Intra-assay and inter-assay concordance studies confirmed the assay's reproducibility and repeatability. DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSION: The 7-gene panel is a robust, highly accurate NGS test that can be successfully performed, along with GEP, from a single small-gauge needle biopsy sample or FFPE specimen.
Authors: Lawrence J Jennings; Maria E Arcila; Christopher Corless; Suzanne Kamel-Reid; Ira M Lubin; John Pfeifer; Robyn L Temple-Smolkin; Karl V Voelkerding; Marina N Nikiforova Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Catherine D Van Raamsdonk; Klaus G Griewank; Michelle B Crosby; Maria C Garrido; Swapna Vemula; Thomas Wiesner; Anna C Obenauf; Werner Wackernagel; Gary Green; Nancy Bouvier; M Mert Sozen; Gail Baimukanova; Ritu Roy; Adriana Heguy; Igor Dolgalev; Raya Khanin; Klaus Busam; Michael R Speicher; Joan O'Brien; Boris C Bastian Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marilyn M Li; Michael Datto; Eric J Duncavage; Shashikant Kulkarni; Neal I Lindeman; Somak Roy; Apostolia M Tsimberidou; Cindy L Vnencak-Jones; Daynna J Wolff; Anas Younes; Marina N Nikiforova Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Michael D Onken; Lori A Worley; Devron H Char; James J Augsburger; Zelia M Correa; Eric Nudleman; Thomas M Aaberg; Michael M Altaweel; David S Bardenstein; Paul T Finger; Brenda L Gallie; George J Harocopos; Peter G Hovland; Hugh D McGowan; Tatyana Milman; Prithvi Mruthyunjaya; E Rand Simpson; Morton E Smith; David J Wilson; William J Wirostko; J William Harbour Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-04-21 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Ivo F A C Fokkema; Peter E M Taschner; Gerard C P Schaafsma; J Celli; Jeroen F J Laros; Johan T den Dunnen Journal: Hum Mutat Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 4.878
Authors: A Gordon Robertson; Juliann Shih; Christina Yau; Ewan A Gibb; Junna Oba; Karen L Mungall; Julian M Hess; Vladislav Uzunangelov; Vonn Walter; Ludmila Danilova; Tara M Lichtenberg; Melanie Kucherlapati; Patrick K Kimes; Ming Tang; Alexander Penson; Ozgun Babur; Rehan Akbani; Christopher A Bristow; Katherine A Hoadley; Lisa Iype; Matthew T Chang; Andrew D Cherniack; Christopher Benz; Gordon B Mills; Roel G W Verhaak; Klaus G Griewank; Ina Felau; Jean C Zenklusen; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Lynn Schoenfield; Alexander J Lazar; Mohamed H Abdel-Rahman; Sergio Roman-Roman; Marc-Henri Stern; Colleen M Cebulla; Michelle D Williams; Martine J Jager; Sarah E Coupland; Bita Esmaeli; Cyriac Kandoth; Scott E Woodman Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Peter Johansson; Lauren G Aoude; Karin Wadt; William J Glasson; Sunil K Warrier; Alex W Hewitt; Jens Folke Kiilgaard; Steffen Heegaard; Tim Isaacs; Maria Franchina; Christian Ingvar; Tersia Vermeulen; Kevin J Whitehead; Christopher W Schmidt; Jane M Palmer; Judith Symmons; Anne-Marie Gerdes; Göran Jönsson; Nicholas K Hayward Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-01-26
Authors: Armin R Afshar; Bertil E Damato; Jay M Stewart; Lydia B Zablotska; Ritu Roy; Adam B Olshen; Nancy M Joseph; Boris C Bastian Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2019-04-17 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: John G Tate; Sally Bamford; Harry C Jubb; Zbyslaw Sondka; David M Beare; Nidhi Bindal; Harry Boutselakis; Charlotte G Cole; Celestino Creatore; Elisabeth Dawson; Peter Fish; Bhavana Harsha; Charlie Hathaway; Steve C Jupe; Chai Yin Kok; Kate Noble; Laura Ponting; Christopher C Ramshaw; Claire E Rye; Helen E Speedy; Ray Stefancsik; Sam L Thompson; Shicai Wang; Sari Ward; Peter J Campbell; Simon A Forbes Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2019-01-08 Impact factor: 16.971