Identification of Major Factors Associated with Failed Clinical Molecular Oncology Testing Performed by Next Generation Sequencing (NGS)

Overview

Journal Mol Oncol

Specialties Molecular Biology
Oncology

Date 2015 Jun 14

PMID 26071350

Citations 39

Authors

Hussam Al-Kateb

TuDung T Nguyen

Karen Steger-May

John D Pfeifer

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: DNA analysis by NGS has become important to direct the clinical care of cancer patients. However, NGS is not successful in all cases, and the factors responsible for test failures have not been systematically evaluated.

Materials And Methods: A series of 1528 solid and hematolymphoid tumor specimens was tested by an NGS comprehensive cancer panel during 2012-2014. DNA was extracted and 2×101 bp paired-end sequence reads were generated on cancer-related genes utilizing Illumina HiSeq and MiSeq platforms.

Results: Testing was unsuccessful in 343 (22.5%) specimens. The failure was due to insufficient tissue (INST) in 223/343 (65%) cases, insufficient DNA (INS-DNA) in 99/343 (28.9%) cases, and failed library (FL) in 21/343 (6.1%) cases. 87/99 (88%) of the INS-DNA cases had below 10 ng DNA available for testing. Factors associated with INST and INS-DNA failures were site of biopsy (SOB) and type of biopsy (TOB) (both p < 0.0001), and clinical setting of biopsy (CSB, initial diagnosis or recurrence) (p < 0.0001). Factors common to INST and FL were age of specimen (p ≤ 0.006) and tumor viability (p ≤ 0.05). Factors common to INS-DNA and FL were DNA purity and DNA degradation (all p ≤ 0.005). In multivariate analysis, common predictors for INST and INS-DNA included CSB (p = 0.048 and p < 0.0001) and TOB (both p ≤ 0.003), respectively. SOB (p = 0.004) and number of cores (p = 0.001) were specific for INS-DNA, whereas TOB and DNA degradation were associated with FL (p = 0.04 and 0.02, respectively).

Conclusions: Pre-analytical causes (INST and INS-DNA) accounted for about 90% of all failed cases; independent of test design. Clinical setting; site and type of biopsy; and number of cores used for testing all correlated with failure. Accounting for these factors at the time of tissue biopsy acquisition could improve the analytic success rate.

Citing Articles

From Genomic Exploration to Personalized Treatment: Next-Generation Sequencing in Oncology.

Vashisht V, Vashisht A, Mondal A, Woodall J, Kolhe R Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2024; 46(11):12527-12549.

PMID: 39590338 PMC: 11592618. DOI: 10.3390/cimb46110744.

Cell-free DNA from ascites identifies clinically relevant variants and tumour evolution in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

Werner B, Powell E, Duggan J, Cortesi M, Lee Y, Arora V Mol Oncol. 2024; 18(11):2668-2683.

PMID: 39115191 PMC: 11547227. DOI: 10.1002/1878-0261.13710.

Using early on-treatment circulating tumor DNA measurements as response assessment in metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer.

Tolmeijer S, Boerrigter E, Van Erp N, Mehra N Oncotarget. 2024; 15:421-423.

PMID: 38953903 PMC: 11218791. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.28599.

Toward Informed Selection and Interpretation of Clinical Genomic Tests in Prostate Cancer.

Vandekerkhove G, Giri V, Halabi S, McNair C, Hamade K, Bitting R JCO Precis Oncol. 2024; 8:e2300654.

PMID: 38547422 PMC: 10994438. DOI: 10.1200/PO.23.00654.

Mutations in the Serine/Threonine Kinase BRAF: Oncogenic Drivers in Solid Tumors.

Roa P, Bremer N, Foglizzo V, Cocco E Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(6).

PMID: 38539548 PMC: 10968748. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16061215.

References

Sehn J, Hagemann I, Pfeifer J, Cottrell C, Lockwood C . Diagnostic utility of targeted next-generation sequencing in problematic cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014; 38(4):534-41. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0000000000000161. View

Martinez-Lopez J, Lahuerta J, Pepin F, Gonzalez M, Barrio S, Ayala R . Prognostic value of deep sequencing method for minimal residual disease detection in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2014; 123(20):3073-9. PMC: 4023416. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2014-01-550020. View

Lin M, Mosier S, Thiess M, Beierl K, Debeljak M, Tseng L . Clinical validation of KRAS, BRAF, and EGFR mutation detection using next-generation sequencing. Am J Clin Pathol. 2014; 141(6):856-66. PMC: 4332779. DOI: 10.1309/AJCPMWGWGO34EGOD. View

Hagemann I, Devarakonda S, Lockwood C, Spencer D, Guebert K, Bredemeyer A . Clinical next-generation sequencing in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer. 2014; 121(4):631-9. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.29089. View

Macaulay I, Voet T . Single cell genomics: advances and future perspectives. PLoS Genet. 2014; 10(1):e1004126. PMC: 3907301. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004126. View

Nawy T . Single-cell sequencing. Nat Methods. 2014; 11(1):18. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.2771. View

Sims D, Sudbery I, Ilott N, Heger A, Ponting C . Sequencing depth and coverage: key considerations in genomic analyses. Nat Rev Genet. 2014; 15(2):121-32. DOI: 10.1038/nrg3642. View

Singh R, Patel K, Routbort M, Reddy N, Barkoh B, Handal B . Clinical validation of a next-generation sequencing screen for mutational hotspots in 46 cancer-related genes. J Mol Diagn. 2013; 15(5):607-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2013.05.003. View

Yachida S, Jones S, Bozic I, Antal T, Leary R, Fu B . Distant metastasis occurs late during the genetic evolution of pancreatic cancer. Nature. 2010; 467(7319):1114-7. PMC: 3148940. DOI: 10.1038/nature09515. View

10.

Simen B, Yin L, Goswami C, Davis K, Bajaj R, Gong J . Validation of a next-generation-sequencing cancer panel for use in the clinical laboratory. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014; 139(4):508-17. DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2013-0710-OA. View

11.

Frampton G, Fichtenholtz A, Otto G, Wang K, Downing S, He J . Development and validation of a clinical cancer genomic profiling test based on massively parallel DNA sequencing. Nat Biotechnol. 2013; 31(11):1023-31. PMC: 5710001. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.2696. View

12.

Benavides J, Garcia-Pariente C, Gelmetti D, Fuertes M, Ferreras M, Garcia-Marin J . Effects of fixative type and fixation time on the detection of Maedi Visna virus by PCR and immunohistochemistry in paraffin-embedded ovine lung samples. J Virol Methods. 2006; 137(2):317-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2006.07.009. View

13.

Karnes H, Duncavage E, Bernadt C . Targeted next-generation sequencing using fine-needle aspirates from adenocarcinomas of the lung. Cancer Cytopathol. 2013; 122(2):104-13. DOI: 10.1002/cncy.21361. View

14.

Jackson V . Studies on histone organization in the nucleosome using formaldehyde as a reversible cross-linking agent. Cell. 1978; 15(3):945-54. DOI: 10.1016/0092-8674(78)90278-7. View

15.

Yarmus L, Akulian J, Gilbert C, Feller-Kopman D, Lee H, Zarogoulidis P . Optimizing endobronchial ultrasound for molecular analysis. How many passes are needed?. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2013; 10(6):636-43. DOI: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201305-130OC. View

16.

Renovanz M, Kim E . Intratumoral heterogeneity, its contribution to therapy resistance and methodological caveats to assessment. Front Oncol. 2014; 4:142. PMC: 4050363. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2014.00142. View

17.

Gerlinger M, Rowan A, Horswell S, Math M, Larkin J, Endesfelder D . Intratumor heterogeneity and branched evolution revealed by multiregion sequencing. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366(10):883-892. PMC: 4878653. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113205. View

18.

Tsimberidou A, Iskander N, Hong D, Wheler J, Falchook G, Fu S . Personalized medicine in a phase I clinical trials program: the MD Anderson Cancer Center initiative. Clin Cancer Res. 2012; 18(22):6373-83. PMC: 4454458. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-1627. View

19.

Cottrell C, Al-Kateb H, Bredemeyer A, Duncavage E, Spencer D, Abel H . Validation of a next-generation sequencing assay for clinical molecular oncology. J Mol Diagn. 2013; 16(1):89-105. PMC: 5762937. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2013.10.002. View

20.

Kanagal-Shamanna R, Portier B, Singh R, Routbort M, Aldape K, Handal B . Next-generation sequencing-based multi-gene mutation profiling of solid tumors using fine needle aspiration samples: promises and challenges for routine clinical diagnostics. Mod Pathol. 2013; 27(2):314-27. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2013.122. View