Search

Analysis of somatic mutations in solid tumors and hematologic malignancies using targeted next generation sequencing (NGS)-based assays has become part of routine oncology practice as well as clinical trials. The use of paired tumor-normal DNA samples increases confidence of somatic calls. NGS assays that utilize unique patient identifiers (SNP IDs) allow further comparison of samples within a run or paired tumor/normal samples. The sources of germline DNA include peripheral blood (PB) and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue (FFPE). However, the source of normal can be problematic, especially in transplant setting. Herein, we report two cases of NGS-based molecular testing in a patient with mycosis fungoides treated with stem cell transplant [SCT] (Pt1) and a patient with lung adenocarcinoma who previously had acute leukemia cured by SCT. These cases highlight the importance of selecting an appropriate normal sample for excluding germline polymorphisms during somatic mutation testing. Initial analyses that included concurrent PB sample failed to filter known germline polymorphisms. Repeat analyses using pre-transplant PB/bone marrow allowed for the successful subtraction of germline variants. Somatic mutations in PTEN and ERBB4 (Pt1) and CDKN2A, KRAS, KDR, and TP53 (Pt2) were reported with confidence. Selection of an appropriate source of germline DNA for NGS-based somatic mutation testing for patients with SCT transplant can be challenging. Particular attention to the clinical history is crucial for accurate interpretation and reporting., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Increasing use of fine needle aspiration for oncological diagnosis, while minimally invasive, poses a challenge for molecular testing by traditional sequencing platforms due to high sample requirements. The advent of affordable benchtop next-generation sequencing platforms such as the semiconductor-based Ion Personal Genome Machine (PGM) Sequencer has facilitated multi-gene mutational profiling using only nanograms of DNA. We describe successful next-generation sequencing-based testing of fine needle aspiration cytological specimens in a clinical laboratory setting. We selected 61 tumor specimens, obtained by fine needle aspiration, with known mutational status for clinically relevant genes; of these, 31 specimens yielded sufficient DNA for next-generation sequencing testing. Ten nanograms of DNA from each sample was tested for mutations in the hotspot regions of 46 cancer-related genes using a 318-chip on Ion PGM Sequencer. All tested samples underwent successful targeted sequencing of 46 genes. We showed 100% concordance of results between next-generation sequencing and conventional test platforms for all previously known point mutations that included BRAF, EGFR, KRAS, MET, NRAS, PIK3CA, RET and TP53, deletions of EGFR and wild-type calls. Furthermore, next-generation sequencing detected variants in 19 of the 31 (61%) patient samples that were not detected by traditional platforms, thus increasing the utility of mutation analysis; these variants involved the APC, ATM, CDKN2A, CTNNB1, FGFR2, FLT3, KDR, KIT, KRAS, MLH1, NRAS, PIK3CA, SMAD4, STK11 and TP53 genes. The results of this study show that next-generation sequencing-based mutational profiling can be performed on fine needle aspiration cytological smears and cell blocks. Next-generation sequencing can be performed with only nanograms of DNA and has better sensitivity than traditional sequencing platforms. Use of next-generation sequencing also enhances the power of fine needle aspiration by providing gene mutation results that can direct personalized cancer therapy.

Objectives: Clinical laboratories are rapidly implementing next-generation sequencing (NGS) tests for mutation analysis, but there are few guidelines regarding sample quality for successful results.Methods: We aimed to establish tissue quality parameters for successful NGS in solid tumors and to improve NGS performance.Results: Analysis of 614 clinical cases tested in 2013 using a 50-gene hotspot mutation panel identified the major cause for unsuccessful NGS analysis was DNA less than 10 ng (91%, 67/74) associated with extremely small and low cellularity samples. High success rates were associated with resection procedures (333/342, 97%) and biopsied tumor larger than 10 mm(2) (77/77, 100%). NGS can be successfully performed on bone specimens processed with formic acid-based decalcification procedures (8/11, 73%). Tumor type and paraffin block age did not affect success. We demonstrated that NGS can be carried out on samples with less than 10 ng DNA. Analysis of 408 cases tested in 2014 using an optimized workflow showed improved NGS success rates from 88% to 95% (387/408) with pronounced improvement among tiny (<10 mm(2)) samples (from 76% to 94%) as well as cytology samples (from 58% to 87%).Conclusions: Identifying preanalytical tissue factors allows us to improve NGS performance and to successfully test tumors obtained from minimally invasive procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]