Targeted capture-based NGS is superior to multiplex PCR-based NGS for hereditary BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene analysis in FFPE tumor samples.
BRCA1 Protein
/ genetics
BRCA2 Protein
/ genetics
Breast Neoplasms
/ blood
DNA Copy Number Variations
/ genetics
Female
Formaldehyde
/ chemistry
Germ-Line Mutation
High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing
/ methods
Humans
INDEL Mutation
Male
Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction
/ methods
Ovarian Neoplasms
/ blood
Paraffin Embedding
Pedigree
Reproducibility of Results
Tissue Fixation
BRCA1
BRCA2
CNV detection
FFPE tissue
Genetic testing
HBOC
NGS
Pathogenic germline mutations
Targeted capture-based NGS
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Apr 2019
27 Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
05
04
2018
accepted:
05
04
2019
entrez:
29
4
2019
pubmed:
29
4
2019
medline:
27
8
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
With the introduction of Olaparib treatment for BRCA-deficient recurrent ovarian cancer, testing for somatic and/or germline mutations in BRCA1/2 genes in tumor tissues became essential for treatment decisions. In most cases only formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples, containing fragmented and chemically modified DNA of minor quality, are available. Thus, multiplex PCR-based sequencing is most commonly applied in routine molecular testing, which is predominantly focused on the identification of known hot spot mutations in oncogenes. We compared the overall performance of an adjusted targeted capture-based enrichment protocol and a multiplex PCR-based approach for calling of pathogenic SNVs and InDels using DNA extracted from 13 FFPE tissue samples. We further applied both strategies to seven blood samples and five matched FFPE tumor tissues of patients with known germline exon-spanning deletions and gene-wide duplications in BRCA1/2 to evaluate CNV detection based solely on panel NGS data. Finally, we analyzed DNA from FFPE tissues of 11 index patients from families suspected of having hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, of whom no blood samples were available for testing, in order to identify underlying pathogenic germline BRCA1/2 mutations. The multiplex PCR-based protocol produced inhomogeneous coverage among targets of each sample and between samples as well as sporadic amplicon drop out, leading to insufficiently or non-covered nucleotides, which subsequently hindered variant detection. This protocol further led to detection of PCR-artifacts that could easily have been misinterpreted as pathogenic mutations. No such limitations were observed by application of an adjusted targeted capture-based protocol, which allowed for CNV calling with 86% sensitivity and 100% specificity. All pathogenic CNVs were confirmed in the five matched FFPE tumor samples from patients carrying known pathogenic germline mutations and we additionally identified somatic loss of the second allele in BRCA1/2. Furthermore we detected pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants in four the eleven FFPE samples from patients of whom no blood was available for analysis. We demonstrate that an adjusted targeted capture-based enrichment protocol is superior to commonly applied multiplex PCR-based protocols for reliable BRCA1/2 variant detection, including CNV-detection, using FFPE tumor samples.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
With the introduction of Olaparib treatment for BRCA-deficient recurrent ovarian cancer, testing for somatic and/or germline mutations in BRCA1/2 genes in tumor tissues became essential for treatment decisions. In most cases only formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples, containing fragmented and chemically modified DNA of minor quality, are available. Thus, multiplex PCR-based sequencing is most commonly applied in routine molecular testing, which is predominantly focused on the identification of known hot spot mutations in oncogenes.
METHODS
METHODS
We compared the overall performance of an adjusted targeted capture-based enrichment protocol and a multiplex PCR-based approach for calling of pathogenic SNVs and InDels using DNA extracted from 13 FFPE tissue samples. We further applied both strategies to seven blood samples and five matched FFPE tumor tissues of patients with known germline exon-spanning deletions and gene-wide duplications in BRCA1/2 to evaluate CNV detection based solely on panel NGS data. Finally, we analyzed DNA from FFPE tissues of 11 index patients from families suspected of having hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, of whom no blood samples were available for testing, in order to identify underlying pathogenic germline BRCA1/2 mutations.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The multiplex PCR-based protocol produced inhomogeneous coverage among targets of each sample and between samples as well as sporadic amplicon drop out, leading to insufficiently or non-covered nucleotides, which subsequently hindered variant detection. This protocol further led to detection of PCR-artifacts that could easily have been misinterpreted as pathogenic mutations. No such limitations were observed by application of an adjusted targeted capture-based protocol, which allowed for CNV calling with 86% sensitivity and 100% specificity. All pathogenic CNVs were confirmed in the five matched FFPE tumor samples from patients carrying known pathogenic germline mutations and we additionally identified somatic loss of the second allele in BRCA1/2. Furthermore we detected pathogenic BRCA1/2 variants in four the eleven FFPE samples from patients of whom no blood was available for analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We demonstrate that an adjusted targeted capture-based enrichment protocol is superior to commonly applied multiplex PCR-based protocols for reliable BRCA1/2 variant detection, including CNV-detection, using FFPE tumor samples.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31029168
doi: 10.1186/s12885-019-5584-6
pii: 10.1186/s12885-019-5584-6
pmc: PMC6487025
doi:
Substances chimiques
BRCA1 Protein
0
BRCA2 Protein
0
Formaldehyde
1HG84L3525
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
396Références
PLoS Genet. 2016 Aug 09;12(8):e1006248
pubmed: 27504877
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 22;11(2):e0149756
pubmed: 26901314
J Mol Diagn. 2017 May;19(3):341-365
pubmed: 28341590
JAMA. 2017 Jun 20;317(23):2402-2416
pubmed: 28632866
Nat Rev Genet. 2007 Oct;8(10):735-48
pubmed: 17768402
Eur J Hum Genet. 2016 Aug;24(8):1104-11
pubmed: 26733283
Nucleic Acids Res. 2012 May;40(9):e69
pubmed: 22302147
Cancer Control. 2012 Oct;19(4):255-66
pubmed: 23037493
PLoS Comput Biol. 2012 Jan;8(1):e1002286
pubmed: 22253580
Hum Mutat. 2017 Jul;38(7):889-897
pubmed: 28449315
Nat Rev Genet. 2014 Feb;15(2):121-32
pubmed: 24434847
Science. 1994 Oct 7;266(5182):66-71
pubmed: 7545954
Mol Pathol. 2001 Oct;54(5):351-3
pubmed: 11577179
Oncogene. 2006 Sep 25;25(43):5864-74
pubmed: 16998501
Int J Mol Sci. 2016 Sep 20;17(9):
pubmed: 27657050
Br J Cancer. 2014 Nov 11;111(10):2014-23
pubmed: 25314059
Clin Chem. 2015 Jan;61(1):64-71
pubmed: 25421801
Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 Jan;43(Database issue):D670-81
pubmed: 25428374
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015 Jul;152(1):129-136
pubmed: 26022348
Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2009 Feb;2009(2):pdb.prot5138
pubmed: 20147068
Prz Menopauzalny. 2016 Dec;15(4):215-219
pubmed: 28250726
Mayo Clin Proc. 2010 Dec;85(12):1111-20
pubmed: 21123638
J Mol Diagn. 2014 Sep;16(5):541-549
pubmed: 25017478
Lab Invest. 2005 Sep;85(9):1130-8
pubmed: 16025146
Breast Cancer Res. 2017 Nov 28;19(1):127
pubmed: 29183387
Nat Genet. 1996 Mar;12(3):333-7
pubmed: 8589730
Oncotarget. 2016 May 24;7(21):30084-93
pubmed: 27029036
PLoS One. 2014 Apr 03;9(4):e92820
pubmed: 24699316
Br J Cancer. 2016 Nov 8;115(10):1157-1173
pubmed: 27736844
Hum Mutat. 2016 Dec;37(12):1318-1328
pubmed: 27633797
PLoS One. 2014 Jun 23;9(6):e100295
pubmed: 24955771
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Oct;159(3):585-90
pubmed: 27581129
Int J Biol Sci. 2017 Feb 17;13(2):198-208
pubmed: 28255272
Oncotarget. 2015 Sep 22;6(28):25943-61
pubmed: 26305677
J Med Genet. 2016 Jul;53(7):465-71
pubmed: 26928436