| Literature DB >> 35328282 |
Audrey Audetat1, Chérie Tschida1, Sarah Kreston1, Adam Stephen1, Brittany D'Alessio1, Madeline Bondy1, Leisa Jackson1, Hestia Mellert1, Niki Givens1, Ubaradka G Sathyanarayana1, Gary A Pestano1.
Abstract
Liquid biopsies are an integral part of the diagnosis of cancer. Here, we have extended previous validation studies of a new targeted NGS panel to include the detection of copy number amplifications (CNAs), fusions, and exon skipping variants. Detection of these gene classes included specimens from clinical and healthy donors and cell lines (fusions: ROS1, EML4-ALK, NTRK1; exon skipping: MET exon 14; CNAs: HER2, CDK6, EGFR, MYC, and MET). The limit of detection (LOD) for fusion/skipping was 42 copies (QC threshold was three copies) and was verified using three additional fusion/skipping variants. LOD for CNAs was 1.40-fold-change (QC threshold = 1.15-fold change) and was verified with three additional CNAs. In repeatability and intermediate precision (within lab) studies, all fusion/skipping variants were detected in all runs and all days of testing (n = 18/18; 100%); average CV for repeatability was 20.5% (range 8.7-34.8%), and for intermediate precision it was 20.8% (range 15.7-30.5%). For CNAs, 28/29 (96.6%) copy gains were detected. For CNAs, the average CV was 1.85% (range 0% to 5.49%) for repeatability and 6.59% (range 1.65% to 9.22%) for intermediate precision. The test panel meets the criteria for being highly sensitive and specific and extends its utility for the serial detection of clinically relevant variants in cancer.Entities:
Keywords: CNA (copy number amplifications); cell-free nucleic acid (cfNA); exon-skipping; fusions; liquid biopsy; next generation sequencing (NGS); non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)
Year: 2022 PMID: 35328282 PMCID: PMC8947661 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12030729
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Figure 1Control charts for CNA and fusion/skipping variant types. (a) CCDC6-RET fusion, (b) EML4-ALK fusion, (c) CD74-ROS1 fusion, (d) ERBB2/HER2 amplification, and (e) MYC amplification detected within the positive control over seven days of testing.
Analytic sensitivity for the fusion/skipping variant type.
| Dilution | Replicate | Detected/Not Detected above Bioinformatic Analysis Cutoff (≥3 Copies) | SLC34A2-ROS1 Molecular Coverage | Average | CV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | R1 | Detected | 549 | ||
| R2 | Detected | 652 | 601 | 12.1% | |
| D2 | R1 | Detected | 272 | ||
| R2 | Detected | 321 | |||
| R3 | Detected | 287 | 293 | 8.6% | |
| D3 | R1 | Detected | 158 | ||
| R2 | Detected | 171 | |||
| R3 | Detected | 141 | 157 | 9.6% | |
| D4 | R1 | Detected | 66 | ||
| R2 | Detected | 98 | |||
| R3 | Detected | 81 | 82 | 19.6% | |
| D5 | R1 | Detected | 49 | ||
| R2 | Detected | 46 | |||
| R3 | Detected | 31 | 42 | 23.0% |
Analytic sensitivity for the CNA variant type.
| Dilution | Replicate | Detected/Not Detected above Bioinformatic Analysis Cutoff (≥1.15-Fold Gain) | ERBB2/HER2 Fold Change | Average | CV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | R1 | Detected | 5.64 | ||
| R2 | Detected | 5.08 | 5.36 | 7.4% | |
| D2 | R1 | Detected | 2.27 | ||
| R2 | Detected | 2.35 | |||
| R3 | Detected | 2.27 | 2.30 | 2.0% | |
| D3 | R1 | Detected | 1.4 | ||
| R2 | Detected | 1.42 | |||
| R3 | Detected | 1.38 | 1.40 | 1.4% | |
| D4 | R1 | None detected | Not detected | ||
| R2 | None detected | Not detected | |||
| R3 | None detected | Not detected | Not detected | Not detected | |
| D5 | R1 | None detected | Not detected | Not detected | Not detected |
| R2 | None detected | Not detected | |||
| R3 | None detected | Not detected |
Figure 2QC threshold evaluation and limit of detection verification. (a) Fusion/skipping variant types measured as molecular copies and (b) CNA variant types measured as fold-change were evaluated using the pre-set QC thresholds in the Oncomine Pan-Cancer assay bioinformatic pipeline and assessed detection at or near the pre-determined LOD.
Assay specificity in normal healthy donor specimens (NHD).
| Sample ID | Fusion/Skipping | CNA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assayed | Detected | Specificity | Assayed | Detected | Specificity | |
| NHD1 | 95 | 0 | 100% | 12 | 0 | 100% |
| NHD2 | 95 | 0 | 100% | 12 | 0 | 100% |
| NHD3 | 95 | 0 | 100% | 12 | 0 | 100% |
| NHD4 | 95 | 0 | 100% | 12 | 0 | 100% |
| NHD5 | 95 | 0 | 100% | 12 | 0 | 100% |
| NHD6 | 95 | 0 | 100% | 12 | 0 | 100% |
| NHD7 | 95 | 0 | 100% | 12 | 0 | 100% |
| NHD8 | 95 | 0 | 100% | 12 | 0 | 100% |
| NHD9 | 95 | 0 | 100% | 12 | 0 | 100% |
| NHD10 | 95 | 0 | 100% | 12 | 0 | 100% |
| NHD11 | 95 | 0 | 100% | 12 | 0 | 100% |
| NHD12 | 95 | 0 | 100% | 12 | 0 | 100% |
| Overall | 1140 | 0 | 100% | 144 | 0 | 100% |
Figure 3Repeatability and intermediate precision study results for the fusion/skipping variant type. (a) Repeatability, (b) inter-day, (c) inter-operator, and (d) inter-instrument variability were evaluated using a high, medium, and low contrived specimen.
Figure 4Repeatability and intermediate precision study results for the CNA variant type. (a) Repeatability, (b) inter-day, (c) inter-operator, and (d) inter-instrument variability were evaluated using two contrived specimens representing five unique amplification events. Overall, the study demonstrated acceptable consistency in the detection of both the CNA and fusion/exon-skipping variant types in biologically relevant specimens.