An Automated Correction Algorithm (ALPACA) for ddPCR Data Using Adaptive Limit of Blank and Correction of False Positive Events Improves Specificity of Mutation Detection.

BACKGROUND Bio-Rad droplet-digital PCR is a highly sensitive method that can be used to detect tumor mutations in circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) of patients with cancer. Correct interpretation of ddPCR results is important for optimal sensitivity and specificity. Despite its widespread use, no standardized method to interpret ddPCR data is available, nor have technical artifacts affecting ddPCR results been widely studied. METHODS False positive rates were determined for 6 ddPCR assays at variable amounts of input DNA, revealing polymerase induced false positive events (PIFs) and other false positives. An in silico correction algorithm, known as the adaptive LoB and PIFs: an automated correction algorithm (ALPACA), was developed to remove PIFs and apply an adaptive limit of blank (LoB) to individual samples. Performance of ALPACA was compared to a standard strategy (no PIF correction and static LoB = 3) using data from commercial reference DNA, healthy volunteer cfDNA, and cfDNA from a real-life cohort of 209 patients with stage IV nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) whose tumor and cfDNA had been molecularly profiled. RESULTS Applying ALPACA reduced false positive results in healthy cfDNA compared to the standard strategy (specificity 98 vs 88%, P = 10-5) and stage IV NSCLC patient cfDNA (99 vs 93%, P = 10-11), while not affecting sensitivity in commercial reference DNA (70 vs 68% P = 0.77) or patient cfDNA (82 vs 88%, P = 0.13). Overall accuracy in patient samples was improved (98 vs 92%, P = 10-7). CONCLUSIONS Correction of PIFs and application of an adaptive LoB increases specificity without a loss of sensitivity in ddPCR, leading to a higher accuracy in a real-life cohort of patients with stage IV NSCLC.

[1]  H. Groen,et al.  An All-In-One Transcriptome-Based Assay to Identify Therapy-Guiding Genomic Aberrations in Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer Patients , 2020, Cancers.

[2]  Jim F Huggett,et al.  The Digital MIQE Guidelines Update: Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Digital PCR Experiments for 2020. , 2020, Clinical chemistry.

[3]  J. A. Roldán-Nofuentes Compbdt: an R program to compare two binary diagnostic tests subject to a paired design , 2020, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[4]  J. Barrett,et al.  Optimisation of robust singleplex and multiplex droplet digital PCR assays for high confidence mutation detection in circulating tumour DNA , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[5]  G. Romieu,et al.  PIK3CA mutations early persistence in cell-free tumor DNA as a negative prognostic factor in metastatic breast cancer patients treated with hormonal therapy , 2019, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[6]  M. Guan,et al.  Digital PCR-Based Detection of EGFR Mutations in Paired Plasma and CSF Samples of Lung Adenocarcinoma Patients with Central Nervous System Metastases , 2019, Targeted Oncology.

[7]  Wei Liu,et al.  Evaluation of EGFR mutations in NSCLC with highly sensitive droplet digital PCR assays , 2019, Molecular medicine reports.

[8]  Jesse S. Voss,et al.  Applying Standard Clinical Chemistry Assay Validation to Droplet Digital PCR Quantitative Liquid Biopsy Testing. , 2018, Clinical chemistry.

[9]  S Senan,et al.  Metastatic non-small cell lung cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. , 2018, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[10]  P. Laurent-Puig,et al.  Droplet-based digital PCR and next generation sequencing for monitoring circulating tumor DNA: a cancer diagnostic perspective , 2018, Expert review of molecular diagnostics.

[11]  Ying Cheng,et al.  EGFR T790M ctDNA testing platforms and their role as companion diagnostics: Correlation with clinical outcomes to EGFR-TKIs. , 2017, Cancer letters.

[12]  Vladimir Potapov,et al.  Examining Sources of Error in PCR by Single-Molecule Sequencing , 2017, PloS one.

[13]  Y. Zhang,et al.  Total DNA input is a crucial determinant of the sensitivity of plasma cell-free DNA EGFR mutation detection using droplet digital PCR , 2016, Oncotarget.

[14]  N. Normanno,et al.  Guide to detecting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in ctDNA of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer , 2016, Oncotarget.

[15]  Suzanne E Dahlberg,et al.  Prospective Validation of Rapid Plasma Genotyping for the Detection of EGFR and KRAS Mutations in Advanced Lung Cancer. , 2016, JAMA oncology.

[16]  Xianshu Gao,et al.  "Liquid biopsy"-ctDNA detection with great potential and challenges. , 2015, Annals of translational medicine.

[17]  D. Link,et al.  Determining lower limits of detection of digital PCR assays for cancer-related gene mutations , 2014, Biomolecular detection and quantification.

[18]  Masood Z. Hadi,et al.  Error Rate Comparison during Polymerase Chain Reaction by DNA Polymerase , 2014, Molecular biology international.

[19]  C. Paweletz,et al.  Noninvasive Detection of Response and Resistance in EGFR-Mutant Lung Cancer Using Quantitative Next-Generation Genotyping of Cell-Free Plasma DNA , 2014, Clinical Cancer Research.

[20]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .