Search

Background: Identification of tumor-derived variants in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has potential as a sensitive and reliable surrogate for tumor tissue-based routine diagnostic testing. However, variations in pre(analytical) procedures affect the efficiency of ctDNA recovery. Here, an external quality assessment (EQA) was performed to determine the performance of ctDNA mutation detection work flows that are used in current diagnostic settings across laboratories within the Dutch COIN consortium (ctDNA on the road to implementation in The Netherlands)., Methods: Aliquots of 3 high-volume diagnostic leukapheresis (DLA) plasma samples and 3 artificial reference plasma samples with predetermined mutations were distributed among 16 Dutch laboratories. Participating laboratories were requested to perform ctDNA analysis for BRAF exon 15, EGFR exon 18-21, and KRAS exon 2-3 using their regular circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) analysis work flow. Laboratories were assessed based on adherence to the study protocol, overall detection rate, and overall genotyping performance., Results: A broad range of preanalytical conditions (e.g., plasma volume, elution volume, and extraction methods) and analytical methodologies (e.g., droplet digital PCR [ddPCR], small-panel PCR assays, and next-generation sequencing [NGS]) were used. Six laboratories (38%) had a performance score of >0.90; all other laboratories scored between 0.26 and 0.80. Although 13 laboratories (81%) reached a 100% overall detection rate, the therapeutically relevant EGFR p.(S752_I759del) (69%), EGFR p.(N771_H773dup) (50%), and KRAS p.(G12C) (48%) mutations were frequently not genotyped accurately., Conclusions: Divergent (pre)analytical protocols could lead to discrepant clinical outcomes when using the same plasma samples. Standardization of (pre)analytical work flows can facilitate the implementation of reproducible liquid biopsy testing in the clinical routine., (© Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine 2024.)

Background: Efficient recovery of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) depends on the quantity and quality of circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA). Here, we evaluated whether various ccfDNA extraction methods routinely applied in Dutch laboratories affect ccfDNA yield, ccfDNA integrity, and mutant ctDNA detection, using identical lung cancer patient-derived plasma samples., Methods: Aliquots of 4 high-volume diagnostic leukapheresis plasma samples and one artificial reference plasma sample with predetermined tumor-derived mutations were distributed among 14 Dutch laboratories. Extractions of ccfDNA were performed according to local routine standard operating procedures and were analyzed at a central reference laboratory for mutant detection and assessment of ccfDNA quantity and integrity., Results: Mutant molecule levels in extracted ccfDNA samples varied considerably between laboratories, but there was no indication of consistent above or below average performance. Compared to silica membrane-based methods, samples extracted with magnetic beads-based kits revealed an overall lower total ccfDNA yield (-29%; P < 0.0001) and recovered fewer mutant molecules (-41%; P < 0.01). The variant allelic frequency and sample integrity were similar. In samples with a higher-than-average total ccfDNA yield, an augmented recovery of mutant molecules was observed., Conclusions: In the Netherlands, we encountered diversity in preanalytical workflows with potential consequences on mutant ctDNA detection in clinical practice. Silica membrane-based methodologies resulted in the highest total ccfDNA yield and are therefore preferred to detect low copy numbers of relevant mutations. Harmonization of the extraction workflow for accurate quantification and sensitive detection is required to prevent introduction of technical divergence in the preanalytical phase and reduce interlaboratory discrepancies., (© American Association for Clinical Chemistry 2022.)

Primary high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) DNA testing has been introduced in several countries worldwide, including The Netherlands. The objective of this study was to compare three automated workflow procedures for hrHPV testing of which the hrHPV detection assays meet the international guidelines for HPV testing. To mimic a realistic screening situation, we aimed to process 15 000 residual PreservCyt cervical samples in a period of 3 months. During a 3 months period, four technicians were involved in processing 5000 specimens per month on three automated platforms, (1) Qiagen Digene® HC2 HPV DNA test (HC2, signal amplification); (2) Roche Cobas® HPV test (DNA amplification), and (3) Hologic Aptima® HPV test (RNA amplification). We measured and scored general aspects (time-to-results, hands-on-time (HOT)), maintenance, pre-run, run and post-run aspects, inventory (orders, storage), and number of errors on a scale from 1 to 10. As determined for one complete workflow each, maximum processing capacity and HOT were 296 samples and 2 h:55 m, 282 samples and 3 h:20 m, and 264 samples and 4 h:15 m for Aptima, Cobas, and HC2, respectively. The mean throughput time per run was 5 h:51 m for Cobas in which 94 samples could be processed. For Aptima, the mean throughput time per run was 6 h:30 m for 60 samples. Mean throughput time for HC2 is longer since results were provided on day 2. In this study, the fully automated Aptima workflow scores best with a 7.2, followed by Cobas with a score of 7.1 and HC2 with a score of 5.8. Although all HPV tests used in this comparison meet the international test guidelines, the performance (workflow) characteristics of the assays vary widely. A specific choice of a laboratory for high-throughput testing can be different based on the laboratory's demands, but also hands-on-time, time-to-results/ # samples, maintenance, pre-run, run and post-run parameters, consumables, technical support, and number of errors are important operational factors for the selection of a fully automated workflow for hrHPV testing., (© 2020 APMIS. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel analysis on DNA from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue is increasingly used to also identify actionable copy number gains (gene amplifications) in addition to sequence variants. While guidelines for the reporting of sequence variants are available, guidance with respect to reporting copy number gains from gene-panel NGS data is limited. Here, we report on Dutch consensus recommendations obtained in the context of the national Predictive Analysis for THerapy (PATH) project, which aims to optimize and harmonize routine diagnostics in molecular pathology. We briefly discuss two common approaches to detect gene copy number gains from NGS data, i.e., the relative coverage and B-allele frequencies. In addition, we provide recommendations for reporting gene copy gains for clinical purposes. In addition to general QC metrics associated with NGS in routine diagnostics, it is recommended to include clinically relevant quantitative parameters of copy number gains in the clinical report, such as (i) relative coverage and estimated copy numbers in neoplastic cells, (ii) statistical scores to show significance (e.g., z-scores), and (iii) the sensitivity of the assay and restrictions of NGS-based detection of copy number gains. Collectively, this information can guide clinical and analytical decisions such as the reliable detection of high-level gene amplifications and the requirement for additional in situ assays in case of borderline results or limited sensitivity.