分析验证和测序覆盖研究表明,液体活检检测的性能是肿瘤不可知的(dna是dna)。

IF 2.6 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2025-08-01 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0329392
Wei Meng, Russell Petry, Norberto Pantoja Galicia, Allison van den Hout, Jessie Yu, Siliang Gong, Dhara Shah, Daokun Sun, Cui Guo, Shannon Bailey, Daniela Munafo, Ryan Woodhouse, Elizabeth Mansfield, Varun Pattani, Steven Perrault, Jun Zhou, Christine Vietz, Meijuan Li, Richard S P Huang
{"title":"分析验证和测序覆盖研究表明,液体活检检测的性能是肿瘤不可知的(dna是dna)。","authors":"Wei Meng, Russell Petry, Norberto Pantoja Galicia, Allison van den Hout, Jessie Yu, Siliang Gong, Dhara Shah, Daokun Sun, Cui Guo, Shannon Bailey, Daniela Munafo, Ryan Woodhouse, Elizabeth Mansfield, Varun Pattani, Steven Perrault, Jun Zhou, Christine Vietz, Meijuan Li, Richard S P Huang","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0329392","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Per regulatory and standard requirements (e.g., Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) correspondence), analytical validation (AV) for each companion diagnostic (CDx) biomarker should be repeated using a clinical sample set for each cancer type listed as an indication in labelling for a CDx. Using data from AV studies and Foundation Medicine (FMI)'s clinical database, we evaluated the hypothesis that analytical performance of the FoundationOne®Liquid CDx (F1LCDx) assay is not impacted by cancer type and that large sets of clinical, tumor-specific samples might not be necessary for analytical validation of specific CDx biomarkers. We retrospectively evaluated all liquid biopsy samples from F1LCDx assay AV studies that were executed between April 2019 and November 2021 and clinical samples processed by F1LCDx between September 2020 and October 2021. For the samples from AV studies, we evaluated the precision and concordance performance by F1LCDx between tumor types; and for the clinical samples, we performed analyses comparing the distribution of coverage between tumor types. A total of 31,247 F1LCDx clinical samples and 579 samples from F1LCDx AV studies with a total of 335 disease ontologies (DOs) were included in this study. For precision: the median absolute pairwise difference of mean reproducibility between any pairs of two tumor types is 0.94% [0.01%-2.63%] and the median absolute pairwise difference of mean repeatability between any pairs of two tumor types is 0.91% [0.03%-2.98%]. For concordance: the median absolute [Formula: see text] between any pairs of two tumor types is 1.39% [0.1%-4.1%] and the median absolute [Formula: see text] between any pairs of two tumor types is 0.05% [0%-1%]. For coverage, a similar distribution was observed between tumor types using F1LCDx clinical samples. Herein, the results based on the extensive cohort of 31,826 liquid biopsy samples sequenced by the F1LCDx assay demonstrated that both analytical assessment of precision and concordance and coverage are comparable among tumor types (i.e., deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is DNA). The tumor type that circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) was derived from is therefore not a vital consideration for AV studies for F1LCDx assay.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 8","pages":"e0329392"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12316276/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analytical validation and sequencing coverage studies suggest that performance of a liquid biopsy assay is tumor agnostic (DNA-is-DNA).\",\"authors\":\"Wei Meng, Russell Petry, Norberto Pantoja Galicia, Allison van den Hout, Jessie Yu, Siliang Gong, Dhara Shah, Daokun Sun, Cui Guo, Shannon Bailey, Daniela Munafo, Ryan Woodhouse, Elizabeth Mansfield, Varun Pattani, Steven Perrault, Jun Zhou, Christine Vietz, Meijuan Li, Richard S P Huang\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pone.0329392\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Per regulatory and standard requirements (e.g., Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) correspondence), analytical validation (AV) for each companion diagnostic (CDx) biomarker should be repeated using a clinical sample set for each cancer type listed as an indication in labelling for a CDx. Using data from AV studies and Foundation Medicine (FMI)'s clinical database, we evaluated the hypothesis that analytical performance of the FoundationOne®Liquid CDx (F1LCDx) assay is not impacted by cancer type and that large sets of clinical, tumor-specific samples might not be necessary for analytical validation of specific CDx biomarkers. We retrospectively evaluated all liquid biopsy samples from F1LCDx assay AV studies that were executed between April 2019 and November 2021 and clinical samples processed by F1LCDx between September 2020 and October 2021. For the samples from AV studies, we evaluated the precision and concordance performance by F1LCDx between tumor types; and for the clinical samples, we performed analyses comparing the distribution of coverage between tumor types. A total of 31,247 F1LCDx clinical samples and 579 samples from F1LCDx AV studies with a total of 335 disease ontologies (DOs) were included in this study. For precision: the median absolute pairwise difference of mean reproducibility between any pairs of two tumor types is 0.94% [0.01%-2.63%] and the median absolute pairwise difference of mean repeatability between any pairs of two tumor types is 0.91% [0.03%-2.98%]. For concordance: the median absolute [Formula: see text] between any pairs of two tumor types is 1.39% [0.1%-4.1%] and the median absolute [Formula: see text] between any pairs of two tumor types is 0.05% [0%-1%]. For coverage, a similar distribution was observed between tumor types using F1LCDx clinical samples. Herein, the results based on the extensive cohort of 31,826 liquid biopsy samples sequenced by the F1LCDx assay demonstrated that both analytical assessment of precision and concordance and coverage are comparable among tumor types (i.e., deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is DNA). The tumor type that circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) was derived from is therefore not a vital consideration for AV studies for F1LCDx assay.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"volume\":\"20 8\",\"pages\":\"e0329392\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12316276/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLoS ONE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329392\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0329392","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

根据法规和标准要求(例如,临床与实验室标准协会(CLSI)指南,美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)通信),每种伴随诊断(CDx)生物标志物的分析验证(AV)应使用CDx标签中列出的每种癌症类型的临床样品集进行重复。利用来自AV研究和基础医学(FMI)临床数据库的数据,我们评估了FoundationOne®Liquid CDx (F1LCDx)检测的分析性能不受癌症类型影响的假设,以及特异性CDx生物标志物的分析验证可能不需要大量临床肿瘤特异性样本。我们回顾性评估了2019年4月至2021年11月期间进行的F1LCDx检测AV研究的所有液体活检样本,以及2020年9月至2021年10月期间由F1LCDx处理的临床样本。对于来自AV研究的样本,我们评估了F1LCDx在肿瘤类型之间的准确性和一致性;对于临床样本,我们进行了分析,比较了肿瘤类型之间的覆盖分布。本研究共纳入31247份F1LCDx临床样本和579份来自F1LCDx病毒研究的样本,共335种疾病本体(DOs)。精密度方面:两种肿瘤类型任意对平均可重复性的绝对中位数差值为0.94%[0.01% ~ 2.63%],两种肿瘤类型任意对平均可重复性的绝对中位数差值为0.91%[0.03% ~ 2.98%]。对于一致性,两种肿瘤类型任意对之间的绝对中位数[公式:见文]为1.39%[0.1%-4.1%],两种肿瘤类型任意对之间的绝对中位数[公式:见文]为0.05%[0%-1%]。对于覆盖率,使用F1LCDx临床样本在肿瘤类型之间观察到类似的分布。在此,基于F1LCDx测序的31826个液体活检样本的广泛队列研究结果表明,在不同肿瘤类型(即脱氧核糖核酸(DNA)是DNA)中,精确度、一致性和覆盖率的分析评估具有可比性。因此,循环肿瘤DNA (ctDNA)来源的肿瘤类型不是F1LCDx检测AV研究的重要考虑因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Analytical validation and sequencing coverage studies suggest that performance of a liquid biopsy assay is tumor agnostic (DNA-is-DNA).

Analytical validation and sequencing coverage studies suggest that performance of a liquid biopsy assay is tumor agnostic (DNA-is-DNA).

Analytical validation and sequencing coverage studies suggest that performance of a liquid biopsy assay is tumor agnostic (DNA-is-DNA).

Analytical validation and sequencing coverage studies suggest that performance of a liquid biopsy assay is tumor agnostic (DNA-is-DNA).

Per regulatory and standard requirements (e.g., Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines, United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) correspondence), analytical validation (AV) for each companion diagnostic (CDx) biomarker should be repeated using a clinical sample set for each cancer type listed as an indication in labelling for a CDx. Using data from AV studies and Foundation Medicine (FMI)'s clinical database, we evaluated the hypothesis that analytical performance of the FoundationOne®Liquid CDx (F1LCDx) assay is not impacted by cancer type and that large sets of clinical, tumor-specific samples might not be necessary for analytical validation of specific CDx biomarkers. We retrospectively evaluated all liquid biopsy samples from F1LCDx assay AV studies that were executed between April 2019 and November 2021 and clinical samples processed by F1LCDx between September 2020 and October 2021. For the samples from AV studies, we evaluated the precision and concordance performance by F1LCDx between tumor types; and for the clinical samples, we performed analyses comparing the distribution of coverage between tumor types. A total of 31,247 F1LCDx clinical samples and 579 samples from F1LCDx AV studies with a total of 335 disease ontologies (DOs) were included in this study. For precision: the median absolute pairwise difference of mean reproducibility between any pairs of two tumor types is 0.94% [0.01%-2.63%] and the median absolute pairwise difference of mean repeatability between any pairs of two tumor types is 0.91% [0.03%-2.98%]. For concordance: the median absolute [Formula: see text] between any pairs of two tumor types is 1.39% [0.1%-4.1%] and the median absolute [Formula: see text] between any pairs of two tumor types is 0.05% [0%-1%]. For coverage, a similar distribution was observed between tumor types using F1LCDx clinical samples. Herein, the results based on the extensive cohort of 31,826 liquid biopsy samples sequenced by the F1LCDx assay demonstrated that both analytical assessment of precision and concordance and coverage are comparable among tumor types (i.e., deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is DNA). The tumor type that circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) was derived from is therefore not a vital consideration for AV studies for F1LCDx assay.

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
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
×
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