Advertisement

External Quality Assurance of Current Technology for the Testing of Cancer-Associated Circulating Free DNA Variants

  • Sze Yee Chai
  • Rongxue Peng
  • Rui Zhang
  • Li Zhou
  • Nalishia Pillay
  • Kwang Hong Tay
  • Tony Badrick
  • Jinming LiEmail author
  • Martin P. HoranEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Liquid biopsy testing is rapidly emerging as a diagnostic means of identifying circulating free DNA (cfDNA) disease-associated variants. However, the reporting of cfDNA variants remains inconsistent due in part to the application of multiple testing pipelines which raise uncertainty about current cfDNA detection efficiency. External quality assurance (EQA) programs are required to monitor, evaluate and help improve laboratory performance for cfDNA variant detection and in clinical interpretation. This study therefore evaluated the performance of diagnostic laboratories currently performing cfDNA testing in China, Australia and New Zealand. A total of 89 laboratories participated in this EQA program. Reference testing material comprised of cfDNA manufactured to contain six different genotypes in four different genes (EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, NRAS). The predicted genotypic variant allelic frequencies ranged between 0.5% - 2.5%. Proficiency testing used a z-score on the laboratory consensus allelic frequency data to compare laboratory performance for the detection of the different genotypes. Allelic frequency genotyping data were received from 88 of the 89 laboratories. Next generation sequencing and digital PCR testing platforms were primarily used by participants in this pilot EQA. The average consensus data for each cfDNA genotype identified allelic frequencies ranging between 0.39% - 4.4%. Z-score proficiency testing found that >92% of clinical laboratories were concordant for detecting the cfDNA variants. The data from this pilot study suggest that current cfDNA testing platforms can detect cfDNA allelic frequency variants from 0.39% and above with high levels of confidence. In addition, these data highlight the importance of laboratories enrolling on EQA programs so that proficiency in cfDNA diagnostic testing can be determined and potential sources of error identified and addressed.

Keywords

Circulating free DNA (cfDNA) Next-generation sequencing Digital PCR External quality assurance Liquid biopsy 

Notes

Author Contributions

SYC acquired and performed data analysis, assisted in the drafting and in revisions of the updated document, approved final version and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work performed.

RP co-developed the EQA material used in this study, acquired and performed data analysis, assisted in the drafting and in revisions of the updated document, approved final version and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work performed.

RZ co-developed the EQA material used in this study, acquired and performed data analysis, assisted in the drafting and in revisions of the updated document, approved final version and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work performed.

LZ co-developed the EQA material used in this study, acquired and performed data analysis, assisted in the drafting and in revisions of the updated document, approved final version and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work performed.

NP acquired and performed data analysis, assisted in the drafting and in revisions of the updated document, approved final version and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work performed.

KHT acquired and performed data analysis, assisted in the drafting and in revisions of the updated document, approved final version and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work performed.

TB performed interpretation of data, assisted in the drafting and in revisions of the updated document, approved final version and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work performed.

JL co-developed the EQA material used in this study, performed interpretation of data, assisted in the drafting and in revisions of the updated document, approved final version and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work performed.

MPH developed initial manuscript, performed interpretation of data, assisted in the drafting and in revisions of the updated document, approved final version and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work performed.

Funding Information

This work was supported by the Beijing Natural Science Foundation (No. 7174345; R.Z.), the National Nature Science Foundation of China (No. 81601848; R.Z.), and the Quality Use of Pathology Program (QUPP) funding, Australia.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

No human or animal was used in this study. All reference testing material were synthetically derived using commercially available cells.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

12253_2019_744_MOESM1_ESM.xls (36 kb)
ESM 1 (XLS 35 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Kamat AA, Bischoff FZ, Dang D, Baldwin MF, Han LY, Lin YG, Merritt WM, Landen CN Jr, Lu C, Gershenson DM, Simpson JL, Sood AK (2006) Circulating cell-free DNA: a novel biomarker for response to therapy in ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Biol Ther 5:1369–1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Warton K, Samimi G (2015) Methylation of cell-free circulating DNA in the diagnosis of cancer. Front Mol Biosci 2:13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shinozaki M, O'Day SJ, Kitago M, Amersi F, Kuo C, Kim J, Wang HJ, Hoon DS (2007) Utility of circulating B-RAF DNA mutation in serum for monitoring melanoma patients receiving biochemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 13:2068–2074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sonnenblick A, Ponde N, Piccart M (2016) Metastatic breast cancer: the odyssey of personalization. Mol Oncol 10:1147–1159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tomasetti M, Amati M, Neuzil J, Santarelli L (2017) Circulating epigenetic biomarkers in lung malignancies: from early diagnosis to therapy. Lung Cancer 107:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vendrell JA, Mau-Them FT, Beganton B, Godreuil S, Coopman P, Solassol J (2017) Circulating cell free tumor DNA detection as a routine tool for lung cancer patient management. Int J Mol Sci.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18020264
  7. 7.
    Ishii H, Azuma K, Sakai K, Kawahara A, Yamada K, Tokito T, Okamoto I, Nishio K, Hoshino T (2015) Digital PCR analysis of plasma cell-free DNA for non-invasive detection of drug resistance mechanisms in EGFR mutant NSCLC: correlation with paired tumor samples. Oncotarget 6:30850–30858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Momtaz P, Pentsova E, Abdel-Wahab O, Diamond E, Hyman D, Merghoub T, You D, Gasmi B, Viale A, Chapman PB (2016) Quantification of tumor-derived cell free DNA(cfDNA) by digital PCR (DigPCR) in cerebrospinal fluid of patients with BRAFV600 mutated malignancies. Oncotarget 7:85430–85436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhang Y, Xu Y, Zhong W, Zhao J, Chen M, Zhang L, Li L, Wang M (2017b) Total DNA input is a crucial determinant of the sensitivity of plasma cell-free DNA EGFR mutation detection using droplet digital PCR. Oncotarget. 8:5861–5873Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Thierry AR, Pastor B, Jiang ZQ, Katsiampoura AD, Parseghian C, Loree JM, Overman MJ, Sanchez C, Messaoudi SE, Ychou M, Kopetz S (2017) Circulating DNA demonstrates convergent evolution and common resistance mechanisms during treatment of colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res 23:4578–4591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fan G, Zhang K, Ding J, Li J (2017a) Prognostic value of EGFR and KRAS in circulating tumor DNA in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget 8:33922–33932Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fan G, Zhang K, Yang X, Ding J, Wang Z, Li J (2017b) Prognostic value of circulating tumor DNA in patients with colon cancer: systematic review. PLoS One 12:e0171991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Basnet S, Zhang ZY, Liao WQ, Li SH, Li PS, Ge HY (2016) The prognostic value of circulating cell-free DNA in colorectal Cancer: a meta-analysis. J Cancer 7:1105–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Normanno N, Maiello MR, Chicchinelli N, Iannaccone A, Esposito C, De Cecio R, D'alessio A, De Luca A (2017) Targeting the EGFR T790M mutation in non-small-cell lung cancer. Expert Opin Ther Targets 21:159–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ma M, Zhu H, Zhang C, Sun X, Gao X, Chen G (2015) "Liquid biopsy"-ctDNA detection with great potential and challenges. Ann Transl Med 3:235Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Iwama E, Sakai K, Azuma K, Harada D, Nosaki K, Hotta K, Nishio M, Kurata T, Fukuhara T, Akamatsu H, Goto K, Shimose T, Kishimoto J, Nakanishi Y, Nishio K, Okamoto I (2018) Exploration of resistance mechanisms for epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors based on plasma analysis by digital PCR and next-generation sequencing. Cancer Sci 109:3921–3933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bordi P, Del Re M, Danesi R, Tiseo M (2015) Circulating DNA in diagnosis and monitoring EGFR gene mutations in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Transl Lung Cancer Res 4:584–597Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Del Re M, Tiseo M, Bordi P, D'Incecco A, Camerini A, Petrini I, Lucchesi M, Inno A, Spada D, Vasile E, Citi V, Malpeli G, Testa E, Gori S, Falcone A, Amoroso D, Chella A, Cappuzzo F, Ardizzoni A, Scarpa A, Danesi R (2017) Contribution of KRAS mutations and c.2369C>T (p.T790M) EGFR to acquired resistance to EGFR-TKIs in EGFR mutant NSCLC: a study on circulating tumor DNA. Oncotarget 8:13611–13619Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Diaz LA Jr, Bardelli A (2014) Liquid biopsies: genotyping circulating tumor DNA. J Clin Oncol 32:579–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Crowley E, Di Nicolantonio F, Loupakis F, Bardelli A (2013) Liquid biopsy: monitoring cancer-genetics in the blood. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 10:472–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Esposito A, Criscitiello C, Trapani D, Curigliano G (2017) The emerging role of "liquid biopsies," circulating tumor cells, and circulating cell-free tumor DNA in lung cancer diagnosis and identification of resistance mutations. Curr Oncol Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-017-0564-y
  22. 22.
    Siravegna G, Marsoni S, Siena S, Bardelli A (2017) Integrating liquid biopsies into the management of cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 14:531–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aggarwal C, Thompson JC, Black TA et al (2018) Clinical implications of plasma-based genotyping with the delivery of personalized therapy in metastatic non–small cell lung cancer. JAMA Oncol.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2018.4305
  24. 24.
    Rolfo C, Castiglia M, Hong D, Alessandro R, Mertens I, Baggerman G, Zwaenepoel K, Gil-Bazo I, Passiglia F, Carreca AP, Taverna S, Vento R, Santini D, Peeters M, Russo A, Pauwels P (2014) Liquid biopsies in lung cancer: the new ambrosia of researchers. Biochim Biophys Acta 1846:539–546Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Haselmann V, Ahmad-Nejad P, Geilenkeuser WJ, Duda A, Gabor M, Eichner R, Patton S, Neumaier M (2018) Results of the first external quality assessment scheme (EQA) for isolation and analysis of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA). Clin Chem Lab Med 56:220–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Keppens C, Dequeker EMC, Patton SJ, Normanno N, Fenizia F, Butler R, Cheetham M, Fairley JA, Williams H, Hall JA, Schuuring E, Deans ZC, IQN Path ASBL (2018) International pilot external quality assessment scheme for analysis and reporting of circulating tumour DNA. BMC Cancer 18:804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Torga G, Pienta KJ (2018) Patient-paired sample congruence between 2 commercial liquid biopsy tests. JAMA Oncol 4:868–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kuderer NM, Burton KA, Blau S, Rose AL, Parker S, Lyman GH, Blau CA (2017) Comparison of 2 commercially available next-generation sequencing platforms in oncology. JAMA Oncol 3:996–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Roy S, LaFramboise WA, Nikiforov YE, Nikiforova MN, Routbort MJ, Pfeifer J, Nagarajan R, Carter AB, Pantanowitz L (2016) Next-generation sequencing informatics: challenges and strategies for implementation in a clinical environment. Arch Pathol Lab Med 140:958–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Samorodnitsky E, Jewell BM, Hagopian R, Miya J, Wing MR, Lyon E, Damodaran S, Bhatt D, Reeser JW, Datta J, Roychowdhury S (2015) Evaluation of hybridization capture versus amplicon-based methods for whole-exome sequencing. Hum Mutat 36:903–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goodwin S, McPherson JD, McCombie WR (2016) Coming of age: ten years of next-generation sequencing technologies. Nat Rev Genet 17:333–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Deans ZC, Butler R, Cheetham M, Dequeker EMC, Fairley JA, Fenizia F, Hall JA, Keppens C, Normanno N, Schuuring E, Patton SJ (2019) IQN path ASBL report from the first European cfDNA consensus meeting: expert opinion on the minimal requirements for clinical ctDNA testing. Virchows Arch.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-019-02571-3
  33. 33.
    Cook L, Starr K, Boonyaratanakornkit J, Hayden R, Caliendo AM (2018) Does size matter? Comparison of extraction yield for different-sized DNA fragments by seven different routine and four new circulating cell-free extraction methods. J Clin Microbiol.  https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01061-18
  34. 34.
    Lee RJ, Gremel G, Marshall A, Myers KA, Fisher N, Dunn JA, Dhomen N, Corrie PG, Middleton MR, Lorigan P, Marais R (2018) Circulating tumor DNA predicts survival in patients with resected high-risk stage II/III melanoma. Ann Oncol 29:490–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhang R, Peng R, Li Z, Gao P, Jia S, Yang X, Ding J, Han Y, Xie J, Li J (2017a) Synthetic circulating cell-free DNA as quality control materials for somatic mutation detection in liquid biopsy for cancer. Clin Chem 63:1465–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Auliac JB, Bayle S, Vergnenegre A, Le Caer H, Falchero L, Gervais R, Doubre H, Vinas F, Marin B, Chouaid C (2018) Patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring a BRAF mutation: a multicentre study exploring clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes in a real-life setting: EXPLORE GFPC 02-14. Curr Oncol 25:e398–e402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tian Y, Zhao J, Ren P, Wang B, Zhao C, Shi C, Wei B, Ma J, Guo Y (2018) Different subtypes of EGFR exon19 mutation can affect prognosis of patients with non-small cell lung adenocarcinoma. PLoS One 13:e0201682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Byeon S, Kim Y, Lim SW, Cho JH, Park S, Lee J, Sun JM, Choi YL, Lee SH, Ahn JS, Park K, Ahn MJ (2019) Clinical outcomes of EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations in advanced non-small cell lung Cancer in Korea. Cancer Res Treat 51:623–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mehrotra M, Singh RR, Loghavi S, Duose DY, Barkoh BA, Behrens C, Patel KP, Routbort MJ, Kopetz S, Broaddus RR, Medeiros LJ, Wistuba II, Luthra R (2017) Detection of somatic mutations in cell-free DNA in plasma and correlation with overall survival in patients with solid tumors. Oncotarget 9:10259–10271Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Martignetti JA, Pandya D, Nagarsheth N, Chen Y, Camacho O, Tomita S, Brodman M, Ascher-Walsh C, Kolev V, Cohen S, Harkins T, Schadt E, Reva B, Sebra R, Dottino P (2018) Detection of endometrial precancer by a targeted gynecologic cancer liquid biopsy. Cold Spring Harb Mol Case Stud.  https://doi.org/10.1101/mcs.a003269
  41. 41.
    Di Nunno V, Gatto L, Santoni M, Cimadamore A, Lopez-Beltran A, Cheng L, Scarpelli M, Montironi R, Massari F (2018) Recent advances in liquid biopsy in patients with castration resistant prostate cancer. Front Oncol 8:397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Qi ZH, Xu HX, Zhang SR, Xu JZ, Li S, Gao HL, Jin W, Wang WQ, Wu CT, Ni QX, Yu XJ, Liu L (2018) The significance of liquid biopsy in pancreatic Cancer. J Cancer 9:3417–3426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Balaji SA, Shanmugam A, Chougule A, Sridharan S, Prabhash K, Arya A, Chaubey A, Hariharan A, Kolekar P, Sen M, Ravichandran A, Katragadda S, Sankaran S, Bhargava S, Kulkarni P, Rao S, Sunkavalli C, Banavali S, Joshi A, Noronha V, Dutt A, Bahadur U, Hariharan R, Veeramachaneni V, Gupta V (2018) Analysis of solid tumor mutation profiles in liquid biopsy. Cancer Med 7:5439–5447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Guibert N, Tsukada H, Hwang DH, Chambers E, Cibas ES, Bale T, Supplee J, Ulrich B, Sholl LM, Paweletz CP, Oxnard GR (2018) Liquid biopsy of fine-needle aspiration supernatant for lung cancer genotyping. Lung Cancer 122:72–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Garcia J, Forestier J, Dusserre E, Wozny AS, Geiguer F, Merle P, Tissot C, Ferraro-Peyret C, Jones FS, Edelstein DL, Cheynet V, Bardel C, Vilchez G, Xu Z, Bringuier PP, Barritault M, Brengle-Pesce K, Guillet M, Chauvenet M, Manship B, Brevet M, Rodriguez-Lafrasse C, Hervieu V, Couraud S, Walter T, Payen L (2018) Cross-platform comparison for the detection of RAS mutations in cfDNA (ddPCR Biorad detection assay, BEAMing assay, and NGS strategy). Oncotarget 9:21122–21131Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Adalsteinsson VA, Ha G, Freeman SS, Choudhury et al (2017) Scalable whole-exome sequencing of cell-free DNA reveals high concordance with metastatic tumors. Nat Commun 8:1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Domínguez-Vigil IG, Moreno-Martínez AK, Wang JY, Roehrl MHA, Barrera-Saldaña HA (2017) The dawn of the liquid biopsy in the fight against cancer. Oncotarget 9:2912–2922Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rothwell DG, Ayub M, Cook N et al (2019) Utility of ctDNA to support patient selection for early phase clinical trials: the TARGET study. Nat Med.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-019-0380-z
  49. 49.
    Wang T, Wang D, Zhang Y, Zhang J, Sun X, Wu Y, Wang S, Zhang Y, Xu L, Kong Q, Gao Y, Wu Y, Liu F, Liu S, Zhang Y, Lei T, Liu H (2018) Dynasore-induced potent ubiquitylation of the exon 19 deletion mutant of epidermal growth factor receptor suppresses cell growth and migration in non-small cell lung cancer. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 105:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    van Veggel B, de Langen AJ, Hashemi SMS, Monkhorst K, Heideman DAM, Thunnissen E, Smit EF (2018) Afatinib and cetuximab in four patients with EGFR exon 20 insertion-positive advanced NSCLC. J Thorac Oncol 13:1222–1226CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Arányi Lajos Foundation 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.RCPAQAP Molecular GeneticsSt Leonard’sSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.National Center for Clinical Laboratories, Beijing HospitalNational Center of GerontologyBeijingP R China
  3. 3.Beijing Engineering Research Center of Laboratory MedicineBeijing HospitalBeijingP R China
  4. 4.Graduate School, Peking Union Medical CollegeChinese Academy of Medical SciencesBeijingP R China

Personalised recommendations