评估用于同源重组缺陷检测的 Oncomine Comprehensive Assay Plus NGS Panel 和 OncoScan CNV Assay。

IF 4.1 3区 医学 Q1 GENETICS & HEREDITY
Lone Schejbel, Tim Svenstrup Poulsen, Lau Kræsing Vestergaard, Ib Jarle Christensen, Estrid Høgdall
{"title":"评估用于同源重组缺陷检测的 Oncomine Comprehensive Assay Plus NGS Panel 和 OncoScan CNV Assay。","authors":"Lone Schejbel, Tim Svenstrup Poulsen, Lau Kræsing Vestergaard, Ib Jarle Christensen, Estrid Høgdall","doi":"10.1007/s40291-024-00745-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Testing for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) as a biomarker in relation to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) treatment in ovarian cancer is done by sequencing of the BRCA1/2 genes and/or by assessing a genomic instability signature. Here we present data obtained with two different methods for genomic instability testing: the Oncomine™ Comprehensive Assay Plus (OCA Plus) NGS panel and the OncoScan CNV assay.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The retrospective analytical study included 80 ovarian cancer samples of patients previously referred to clinical Myriad testing (reference cohort), and 50 ovarian cancer samples from patients collected as part of the Pelvic Mass study. OCA Plus NGS libraries were sequenced with the Ion S5™XL Sequencer and analyzed with the Ion Reporter™ Software v5.20 for calculation of the genomic instability metric (GIM). In addition, all samples were tested with the OncoScan CNV FFPE Assay and analyzed with a previously published R-algorithm for generation of an in-house genomic instability score (in-house GIS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The OCA Plus assay had a concordance to the reference of 89% on samples with a tumor fraction ≥ 30% (auto-calculated or via molecular estimation). A total of 15 samples in the reference cohort had a calculated tumor fraction < 30% in the OCA Plus assay. In these, the concordance to reference was only 60%. For the OncoScan CNV in-house GIS a local cutoff point of ≥ 50 was calculated. This gave a concordance to the reference of 85%, with 91% of the samples in the reference cohort passing quality control (QC) on tumor fraction. Both assays had a high sensitivity for the detection of genomic instability in samples with pathogenic or likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations, with 12/13 being GIM positive (OCA Plus assay) and 13/13 being in-house GIS positive (OncoScan CNV assay).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The OCA Plus assay and the OncoScan CNV assay show a high but not complete concordance to reference standard homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) detection. The main reason for QC failure or non-concordance in our study was a low tumor fraction estimated in the assay, despite the selection of material by a pathologist with an inclusion criterion of > 30% tumor. QC steps should include careful tumor content evaluation, and results on samples with < 30% tumor should not be reported.</p>","PeriodicalId":49797,"journal":{"name":"Molecular Diagnosis & Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the Oncomine Comprehensive Assay Plus NGS Panel and the OncoScan CNV Assay for Homologous Recombination Deficiency Detection.\",\"authors\":\"Lone Schejbel, Tim Svenstrup Poulsen, Lau Kræsing Vestergaard, Ib Jarle Christensen, Estrid Høgdall\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40291-024-00745-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Testing for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) as a biomarker in relation to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) treatment in ovarian cancer is done by sequencing of the BRCA1/2 genes and/or by assessing a genomic instability signature. Here we present data obtained with two different methods for genomic instability testing: the Oncomine™ Comprehensive Assay Plus (OCA Plus) NGS panel and the OncoScan CNV assay.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The retrospective analytical study included 80 ovarian cancer samples of patients previously referred to clinical Myriad testing (reference cohort), and 50 ovarian cancer samples from patients collected as part of the Pelvic Mass study. OCA Plus NGS libraries were sequenced with the Ion S5™XL Sequencer and analyzed with the Ion Reporter™ Software v5.20 for calculation of the genomic instability metric (GIM). In addition, all samples were tested with the OncoScan CNV FFPE Assay and analyzed with a previously published R-algorithm for generation of an in-house genomic instability score (in-house GIS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The OCA Plus assay had a concordance to the reference of 89% on samples with a tumor fraction ≥ 30% (auto-calculated or via molecular estimation). A total of 15 samples in the reference cohort had a calculated tumor fraction < 30% in the OCA Plus assay. In these, the concordance to reference was only 60%. For the OncoScan CNV in-house GIS a local cutoff point of ≥ 50 was calculated. This gave a concordance to the reference of 85%, with 91% of the samples in the reference cohort passing quality control (QC) on tumor fraction. Both assays had a high sensitivity for the detection of genomic instability in samples with pathogenic or likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations, with 12/13 being GIM positive (OCA Plus assay) and 13/13 being in-house GIS positive (OncoScan CNV assay).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The OCA Plus assay and the OncoScan CNV assay show a high but not complete concordance to reference standard homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) detection. The main reason for QC failure or non-concordance in our study was a low tumor fraction estimated in the assay, despite the selection of material by a pathologist with an inclusion criterion of > 30% tumor. QC steps should include careful tumor content evaluation, and results on samples with < 30% tumor should not be reported.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49797,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Molecular Diagnosis & Therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Molecular Diagnosis & Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40291-024-00745-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Molecular Diagnosis & Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40291-024-00745-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:同源重组缺陷(HRD)作为与多(ADP-核糖)聚合酶抑制剂(PARPi)治疗卵巢癌相关的生物标志物,其检测方法是对 BRCA1/2 基因进行测序和/或评估基因组不稳定性特征。在此,我们介绍两种不同的基因组不稳定性检测方法获得的数据:Oncomine™ Comprehensive Assay Plus (OCA Plus) NGS 面板和 OncoScan CNV 检测:回顾性分析研究包括以前转诊到 Myriad 临床检测的 80 例卵巢癌患者样本(参考队列)和盆腔肿块研究收集的 50 例卵巢癌患者样本。OCA Plus NGS 文库用 Ion S5™XL 测序仪测序,并用 Ion Reporter™ 软件 v5.20 进行分析,以计算基因组不稳定性指标 (GIM)。此外,所有样本都用 OncoScan CNV FFPE 分析仪进行了检测,并用以前发表的 R 算法进行了分析,以生成内部基因组不稳定性评分(in-house GIS):结果:在肿瘤比例≥30%(自动计算或通过分子估算)的样本中,OCA Plus测定与参考值的一致性为89%。参考队列中共有 15 个样本的肿瘤分数计算结果为结论:OCA Plus检测法和OncoScan CNV检测法与参考标准同源重组缺陷(HRD)检测法的一致性很高,但并不完全一致。在我们的研究中,质控失败或不一致的主要原因是,尽管病理学家以肿瘤含量大于 30% 为纳入标准来选择材料,但检测中估计的肿瘤比例较低。质控步骤应包括对肿瘤含量的仔细评估,并对具有以下特征的样本进行结果分析
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of the Oncomine Comprehensive Assay Plus NGS Panel and the OncoScan CNV Assay for Homologous Recombination Deficiency Detection.

Introduction: Testing for homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) as a biomarker in relation to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi) treatment in ovarian cancer is done by sequencing of the BRCA1/2 genes and/or by assessing a genomic instability signature. Here we present data obtained with two different methods for genomic instability testing: the Oncomine™ Comprehensive Assay Plus (OCA Plus) NGS panel and the OncoScan CNV assay.

Methods: The retrospective analytical study included 80 ovarian cancer samples of patients previously referred to clinical Myriad testing (reference cohort), and 50 ovarian cancer samples from patients collected as part of the Pelvic Mass study. OCA Plus NGS libraries were sequenced with the Ion S5™XL Sequencer and analyzed with the Ion Reporter™ Software v5.20 for calculation of the genomic instability metric (GIM). In addition, all samples were tested with the OncoScan CNV FFPE Assay and analyzed with a previously published R-algorithm for generation of an in-house genomic instability score (in-house GIS).

Results: The OCA Plus assay had a concordance to the reference of 89% on samples with a tumor fraction ≥ 30% (auto-calculated or via molecular estimation). A total of 15 samples in the reference cohort had a calculated tumor fraction < 30% in the OCA Plus assay. In these, the concordance to reference was only 60%. For the OncoScan CNV in-house GIS a local cutoff point of ≥ 50 was calculated. This gave a concordance to the reference of 85%, with 91% of the samples in the reference cohort passing quality control (QC) on tumor fraction. Both assays had a high sensitivity for the detection of genomic instability in samples with pathogenic or likely pathogenic BRCA1/2 mutations, with 12/13 being GIM positive (OCA Plus assay) and 13/13 being in-house GIS positive (OncoScan CNV assay).

Conclusions: The OCA Plus assay and the OncoScan CNV assay show a high but not complete concordance to reference standard homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) detection. The main reason for QC failure or non-concordance in our study was a low tumor fraction estimated in the assay, despite the selection of material by a pathologist with an inclusion criterion of > 30% tumor. QC steps should include careful tumor content evaluation, and results on samples with < 30% tumor should not be reported.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
2.50%
发文量
53
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Molecular Diagnosis & Therapy welcomes current opinion articles on emerging or contentious issues, comprehensive narrative reviews, systematic reviews (as outlined by the PRISMA statement), original research articles (including short communications) and letters to the editor. All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信