Multicentric pilot study to standardize clinical whole exome sequencing (WES) for cancer patients
-
Published:2023-10-20
Issue:1
Volume:7
Page:
-
ISSN:2397-768X
-
Container-title:npj Precision Oncology
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:npj Precis. Onc.
Author:
Menzel MichaelORCID, Ossowski Stephan, Kral SebastianORCID, Metzger PatrickORCID, Horak PeterORCID, Marienfeld Ralf, Boerries MelanieORCID, Wolter SteffenORCID, Ball MarkusORCID, Neumann OlafORCID, Armeanu-Ebinger Sorin, Schroeder ChristopherORCID, Matysiak Uta, Goldschmid Hannah, Schipperges Vincent, Fürstberger AxelORCID, Allgäuer Michael, Eberhardt Timo, Niewöhner Jakob, Blaumeiser Andreas, Ploeger Carolin, Haack Tobias Bernd, Tay Timothy Kwang Yong, Kelemen Olga, Pauli Thomas, Kirchner Martina, Kluck KlausORCID, Ott Alexander, Renner Marcus, Admard JakobORCID, Gschwind AxelORCID, Lassmann Silke, Kestler Hans, Fend FalkoORCID, Illert Anna Lena, Werner Martin, Möller Peter, Seufferlein Thomas Theodor Werner, Malek Nisar, Schirmacher Peter, Fröhling StefanORCID, Kazdal DanielORCID, Budczies JanORCID, Stenzinger AlbrechtORCID
Abstract
AbstractA growing number of druggable targets and national initiatives for precision oncology necessitate broad genomic profiling for many cancer patients. Whole exome sequencing (WES) offers unbiased analysis of the entire coding sequence, segmentation-based detection of copy number alterations (CNAs), and accurate determination of complex biomarkers including tumor mutational burden (TMB), homologous recombination repair deficiency (HRD), and microsatellite instability (MSI). To assess the inter-institution variability of clinical WES, we performed a comparative pilot study between German Centers of Personalized Medicine (ZPMs) from five participating institutions. Tumor and matched normal DNA from 30 patients were analyzed using custom sequencing protocols and bioinformatic pipelines. Calling of somatic variants was highly concordant with a positive percentage agreement (PPA) between 91 and 95% and a positive predictive value (PPV) between 82 and 95% compared with a three-institution consensus and full agreement for 16 of 17 druggable targets. Explanations for deviations included low VAF or coverage, differing annotations, and different filter protocols. CNAs showed overall agreement in 76% for the genomic sequence with high wet-lab variability. Complex biomarkers correlated strongly between institutions (HRD: 0.79–1, TMB: 0.97–0.99) and all institutions agreed on microsatellite instability. This study will contribute to the development of quality control frameworks for comprehensive genomic profiling and sheds light onto parameters that require stringent standardization.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Cancer Research,Oncology
Reference65 articles.
1. Mateo, J. et al. Delivering precision oncology to patients with cancer. Nat. Med. 28, 658–665 (2022). 2. Tsimberidou, A. M., Fountzilas, E., Nikanjam, M. & Kurzrock, R. Review of precision cancer medicine: Evolution of the treatment paradigm. Cancer Treat. Rev. 86, 102019 (2020). 3. Koboldt, D. C. Best practices for variant calling in clinical sequencing. Genome Med. 12, 91 (2020). 4. Mosele, F. et al. Recommendations for the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) for patients with metastatic cancers: a report from the ESMO Precision Medicine Working Group. Ann. Oncol. 31, 1491–1505 (2020). 5. Jennings, L. J. et al. Guidelines for Validation of Next-Generation Sequencing–Based Oncology Panels: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology and College of American Pathologists. J. Mol. Diagn. 19, 341–365 (2017).
Cited by
14 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|