Liquid Biopsy for Enhanced Specificity in Identifying Somatic Mutations in Aggressive Non-Hodgkin Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Comparative Study of Cell-Free DNA and Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Tissue

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q3 HEMATOLOGY
Gayaththri Vimalathas, Oriane Cédile, Marie Louise Grube Kjeldsen, Mads Thomassen, Michael Boe Møller, Charlotte Guldborg Nyvold, Marcus Høy Hansen, Thomas Stauffer Larsen
{"title":"Liquid Biopsy for Enhanced Specificity in Identifying Somatic Mutations in Aggressive Non-Hodgkin Large B-Cell Lymphoma: A Comparative Study of Cell-Free DNA and Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Tissue","authors":"Gayaththri Vimalathas,&nbsp;Oriane Cédile,&nbsp;Marie Louise Grube Kjeldsen,&nbsp;Mads Thomassen,&nbsp;Michael Boe Møller,&nbsp;Charlotte Guldborg Nyvold,&nbsp;Marcus Høy Hansen,&nbsp;Thomas Stauffer Larsen","doi":"10.1111/ijlh.14454","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor biopsy is the current mainstay of genotyping, but is limited by its invasiveness and tumor heterogeneity. Plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) constitutes a minimally invasive alternative that may better capture tumor-derived profiles from circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). This study compares the performance and genomic concordance of cfDNA and FFPE tumor DNA in aggressive non-Hodgkin large B-cell lymphoma.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Paired diagnostic FFPE tissue and plasma samples from 15 patients were sequenced with a custom 53-gene panel.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Detection thresholds were empirically guided at 1% variant allele frequency (VAF) for cfDNA and 10% for unpaired FFPE DNA. The median number of cfDNA variants was 6 (interquartile range (IQR): 2–11) versus 63 (IQR: 15–250) in FFPE DNA at 1% VAF. Collectively, 102 somatic variants were shared between cfDNA and FFPE DNA with a median of 5 (range: 0–23). cfDNA showed a five-fold lower median VAF for shared variants than FFPE DNA (7% vs. 36%, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001). Eighty percent of patients harbored at least one cfDNA variant. A maximum cfDNA recall rate of 83% was observed at FFPE DNA VAF &gt; 50%. COSMIC database overlap was twice as high for cfDNA compared to FFPE DNA (22% vs. 11%) at 10% VAF.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>cfDNA has superior specificity for somatic mutation detection but lower sensitivity than FFPE DNA. Modest concordance was demonstrated between the two compartments. Our results support a complementary role of ctDNA in mutational profiling at a 1% VAF threshold in a pragmatic and clinically applicable setup.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14120,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Laboratory Hematology","volume":"47 4","pages":"669-679"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijlh.14454","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Laboratory Hematology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijlh.14454","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor biopsy is the current mainstay of genotyping, but is limited by its invasiveness and tumor heterogeneity. Plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) constitutes a minimally invasive alternative that may better capture tumor-derived profiles from circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA). This study compares the performance and genomic concordance of cfDNA and FFPE tumor DNA in aggressive non-Hodgkin large B-cell lymphoma.

Methods

Paired diagnostic FFPE tissue and plasma samples from 15 patients were sequenced with a custom 53-gene panel.

Results

Detection thresholds were empirically guided at 1% variant allele frequency (VAF) for cfDNA and 10% for unpaired FFPE DNA. The median number of cfDNA variants was 6 (interquartile range (IQR): 2–11) versus 63 (IQR: 15–250) in FFPE DNA at 1% VAF. Collectively, 102 somatic variants were shared between cfDNA and FFPE DNA with a median of 5 (range: 0–23). cfDNA showed a five-fold lower median VAF for shared variants than FFPE DNA (7% vs. 36%, p < 0.0001). Eighty percent of patients harbored at least one cfDNA variant. A maximum cfDNA recall rate of 83% was observed at FFPE DNA VAF > 50%. COSMIC database overlap was twice as high for cfDNA compared to FFPE DNA (22% vs. 11%) at 10% VAF.

Conclusion

cfDNA has superior specificity for somatic mutation detection but lower sensitivity than FFPE DNA. Modest concordance was demonstrated between the two compartments. Our results support a complementary role of ctDNA in mutational profiling at a 1% VAF threshold in a pragmatic and clinically applicable setup.

Abstract Image

液体活检增强特异性识别侵袭性非霍奇金大b细胞淋巴瘤的体细胞突变:无细胞DNA和福尔马林固定石蜡包埋组织的比较研究
福尔马林固定石蜡包埋(FFPE)肿瘤活检是目前基因分型的主流,但受其侵袭性和肿瘤异质性的限制。无浆细胞DNA (cfDNA)是一种微创的替代方法,可以更好地从循环肿瘤DNA (ctDNA)中捕获肿瘤来源的谱。本研究比较了cfDNA和FFPE肿瘤DNA在侵袭性非霍奇金大b细胞淋巴瘤中的表现和基因组一致性。方法:使用定制的53基因面板对15例患者的配对诊断性FFPE组织和血浆样本进行测序。结果:cfDNA的检测阈值为1%变异等位基因频率(VAF),未配对的FFPE DNA为10%。在1% VAF下,cfDNA变异的中位数为6(四分位数范围(IQR): 2-11),而FFPE DNA的中位数为63 (IQR: 15-250)。cfDNA和FFPE DNA共有102个体细胞变异,中位数为5(范围:0-23)。cfDNA显示共享变异的中位VAF比FFPE DNA低5倍(7%对36%,p 50%)。10% VAF时,cfDNA的COSMIC数据库重叠度是FFPE DNA的两倍(22%对11%)。结论:cfDNA检测体细胞突变的特异性优于FFPE DNA,但敏感性较低。两个车厢之间显示出适度的一致性。我们的研究结果支持ctDNA在1% VAF阈值下的突变谱分析中的补充作用,这是一种实用和临床应用的设置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
6.70%
发文量
211
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Laboratory Hematology provides a forum for the communication of new developments, research topics and the practice of laboratory haematology. The journal publishes invited reviews, full length original articles, and correspondence. The International Journal of Laboratory Hematology is the official journal of the International Society for Laboratory Hematology, which addresses the following sub-disciplines: cellular analysis, flow cytometry, haemostasis and thrombosis, molecular diagnostics, haematology informatics, haemoglobinopathies, point of care testing, standards and guidelines. The journal was launched in 2006 as the successor to Clinical and Laboratory Hematology, which was first published in 1979. An active and positive editorial policy ensures that work of a high scientific standard is reported, in order to bridge the gap between practical and academic aspects of laboratory haematology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信