An optimized BRCA1/2 next-generation sequencing for different clinical sample types

被引:2
|
作者
Kim, Yoonjung [1 ]
Cho, Chi-Heum [2 ]
Ha, Jung-Sook [3 ]
Kim, Do-Hoon [3 ]
Kwon, Sun Young [4 ]
Oh, Seoung Chul [5 ]
Lee, Kyung-A [1 ]
机构
[1] Yonsei Univ, Dept Lab Med, Coll Med, 211 Eonju Ro, Seoul 06273, South Korea
[2] Keimyung Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Sch Med, Daegu, South Korea
[3] Keimyung Univ, Dept Lab Med, Sch Med, Daegu, South Korea
[4] Keimyung Univ, Dept Pathol, Sch Med, Daegu, South Korea
[5] Gangnam Severance Hosp, Dept Lab Med, Seoul, South Korea
关键词
BRCA1; BRCA2; Blood Buffy Coat; Tissue Preservation; High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing; SEROUS OVARIAN-CANCER; SOMATIC MUTATIONS; VALIDATION; WORKFLOW; IDENTIFICATION; GUIDELINES; GERMLINE; RECOMMENDATIONS; HETEROZYGOSITY; IMPLEMENTATION;
D O I
10.3802/jgo.2020.31.e9
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Objective: A simultaneous detection of germline and somatic mutations in ovarian cancer (OC) using tumor materials is considered to be cost-effective for BRCA1/2 testing. However, there are limited studies of the analytical performances according to various sample types. The aim of this study is to propose a strategy for routine BRCA1/2 next-generation sequencing (NGS) screening based on analytical performance according to different sample types. Methods: We compared BRCA1/2 NGS screening assay using buffy coat, fresh-frozen (FF) and fonnalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) from 130 samples. Results: The rate of repeated tests in a total of buffy coat, FF and FFPE was 0%, 8%, and 34%, respectively. The accuracy of BRCA1/2 NGS testing was 100.0%, 99.9% and 99.9% in buffy coat, FFPE and FF, respectively. However, due to the presence of variant allele frequency (VAF) shifted heterozygous variants, tumor materials (FFPE and FF) showed lower sensitivity (95.5%-99.0%) than buffy coat (100%). Furthermore, FFPE showed 51.4% of the positive predictive value (PPV) on account of sequence artifacts. When performed in the post-filtration process, PPV was increased by approximately 20% in FFPE. Buffy coat showed 100% of sensitivity, specificity and accuracy in BRCA1/2NGS test. Conclusions: On the comparison of the analytical performance according to different sample types, the buffy coat was not affected by sequencing artifacts and VAF shifted variants. Therefore, the blood test should be given priority in detecting germline BRCA1/2 mutation, and tumor materials could be suitable to detect somatic mutations in OC patients without identifying germline BRCA1/2 mutation.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Development and Validation of a Next-Generation Sequencing Assay for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Variants for the Clinical Laboratory
    Strom, Charles M.
    Rivera, Steven
    Elzinga, Christopher
    Angeloni, Taraneh
    Rosenthal, Sun Hee
    Goos-Root, Dana
    Siaw, Martin
    Platt, Jamie
    Braastadt, Cory
    Cheng, Linda
    Ross, David
    Sun, Weimin
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (08):
  • [2] Evaluation of a Next-Generation Sequencing Assay for BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Detection
    Capone, Gabriele Lorenzo
    Putignano, Anna Laura
    Saavedra, Sharon Trujillo
    Paganini, Irene
    Sestini, Roberta
    Gensini, Francesca
    De Rienzo, Irene
    Papi, Laura
    Porfirio, Berardino
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS, 2018, 20 (01): : 87 - 94
  • [3] Next-generation sequencing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in breast cancer patients and control subjects
    Balabanski, Lubomir
    Antov, Georgi
    Dimova, Ivanka
    Ivanov, Samuil
    Nacheva, Maria
    Gavrilov, Ivan
    Nesheva, Desislava
    Rukova, Blaga
    Hadjidekova, Savina
    Malinov, Maxim
    Toncheva, Draga
    [J]. MOLECULAR AND CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2014, 2 (03) : 435 - 439
  • [4] IDENTIFICATION OF BRCA1/2 MUTATIONS IN BREAST CANCER PATIENTS BY NEXT-GENERATION SEQUENCING
    Stetsenko, I. F.
    Krasnenko, A. Yu
    Stanoevich, U. S.
    Mescheryakov, A. A.
    Vorotnikov, I. K.
    Druzhilovskaya, O. S.
    Belova, V. A.
    Churov, A., V
    [J]. BULLETIN OF RUSSIAN STATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, 2018, (06): : 183 - 189
  • [5] The molecular analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2: Next-generation sequencing supersedes conventional approaches
    D'Argenio, Valeria
    Esposito, Maria Valeria
    Telese, Antonella
    Precone, Vincenza
    Starnone, Flavio
    Nunziato, Marcella
    Cantiello, Piergiuseppe
    Iorio, Mariangela
    Evangelista, Eloisa
    D'Aiuto, Massimiliano
    Calabrese, Alessandra
    Frisso, Giulia
    D'Aiuto, Giuseppe
    Salvatore, Francesco
    [J]. CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA, 2015, 446 : 221 - 225
  • [6] Comparison of Targeted Next-Generation and Sanger Sequencing for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Screening
    Park, Joonhong
    Jang, Woori
    Chae, Hyojin
    Kim, Yonggoo
    Chi, Hyun Young
    Kim, Myungshin
    [J]. ANNALS OF LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2016, 36 (02) : 197 - 201
  • [7] Detection of BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations in Japanese population using next-generation sequencing
    Hirotsu, Yosuke
    Nakagomi, Hiroshi
    Sakamoto, Ikuko
    Amemiya, Kenji
    Mochizuki, Hitoshi
    Omata, Masao
    [J]. MOLECULAR GENETICS & GENOMIC MEDICINE, 2015, 3 (02): : 121 - 129
  • [8] Long-Range PCR and Next-Generation Sequencing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 in Breast Cancer
    Ozcelik, Hilmi
    Shi, Xuejiang
    Chang, Martin C.
    Tram, Eric
    Vlasschaert, Matt
    Di Nicola, Nando
    Kiselova, Anna
    Yee, Denise
    Goldman, Aaron
    Dowar, Mark
    Sukhu, Balram
    Kandel, Rita
    Siminovitch, Kathy
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR DIAGNOSTICS, 2012, 14 (05): : 467 - 475
  • [9] Reliable assessment of BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline variants by next-generation sequencing: a multicenter study
    Zhang, Rui
    Gao, Peng
    Han, Yanxi
    Zhang, Runling
    Tan, Ping
    Zhou, Li
    Zhang, Jiawei
    Xie, Jiehong
    Li, Jinming
    [J]. BREAST CANCER, 2021, 28 (03) : 672 - 683
  • [10] Reliable assessment of BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline variants by next-generation sequencing: a multicenter study
    Rui Zhang
    Peng Gao
    Yanxi Han
    Runling Zhang
    Ping Tan
    Li Zhou
    Jiawei Zhang
    Jiehong Xie
    Jinming Li
    [J]. Breast Cancer, 2021, 28 : 672 - 683