Reliability of liquid biopsy analysis: an inter-laboratory comparison of circulating tumor DNA extraction and sequencing with different platforms

Liquid biopsy, the analysis of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), is a promising tool in oncology, especially in personalized medicine. Although its main applications currently focus on selection and adjustment of therapy, ctDNA may also be used to monitor residual disease, establish prognosis, detect relapses, and possibly screen at-risk individuals. CtDNA represents a small and variable proportion of circulating cell-free DNA (ccfDNA) which is itself present at a low concentration in normal individuals and so analyzing ctDNA is technically challenging. Various commercial systems have recently appeared on the market, but it remains difficult for practitioners to compare their performance and to determine whether they yield comparable results. As a first step toward establishing national guidelines for ctDNA analyses, four laboratories in Switzerland joined a comparative exercise to assess ccfDNA extraction and ctDNA analysis by sequencing. Extraction was performed using six distinct methods and yielded ccfDNA of equally high quality, suitable for sequencing. Sequencing of synthetic samples containing predefined amounts of eight mutations was performed on three different systems, with similar results. In all four laboratories, mutations were easily identified down to 1% allele frequency, whereas detection at 0.1% proved challenging. Linearity was excellent in all cases and while molecular yield was superior with one system this did not impact on sensitivity. This study also led to several additional conclusions: First, national guidelines should concentrate on principles of good laboratory practice rather than recommend a particular system. Second, it is essential that laboratories thoroughly validate every aspect of extraction and sequencing, in particular with respect to initial amount of DNA and average sequencing depth. Finally, as software proved critical for mutation detection, laboratories should validate the performance of variant callers and underlying algorithms with respect to various types of mutations. Liquid biopsy is a novel promising, but technically challenging tool in oncology. We compared various circulating DNA extraction and sequencing systems used within four Swiss laboratories. Results were highly congruent, with perfect sensitivity down to 1% mutation frequency. We also determined several key factors to validate when implementing such tests.

[1]  J. Albanell,et al.  Plasma ctDNA RAS mutation analysis for the diagnosis and treatment monitoring of metastatic colorectal cancer patients , 2017, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[2]  J. Ptak,et al.  Circulating Tumor DNA Analyses as Markers of Recurrence Risk and Benefit of Adjuvant Therapy for Stage III Colon Cancer. , 2019, JAMA oncology.

[3]  R. Büttner,et al.  Comparison of Blood Collection Tubes from Three Different Manufacturers for the Collection of Cell-Free DNA for Liquid Biopsy Mutation Testing. , 2017, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[4]  B. Chabner,et al.  Application of Cell-free DNA Analysis to Cancer Treatment. , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  Marcus Lewis,et al.  Reducing amplification artifacts in high multiplex amplicon sequencing by using molecular barcodes , 2015, BMC Genomics.

[6]  Ash A. Alizadeh,et al.  Circulating tumour DNA profiling reveals heterogeneity of EGFR inhibitor resistance mechanisms in lung cancer patients , 2016, Nature Communications.

[7]  N. Normanno,et al.  Measuring tumor mutation burden in non-small cell lung cancer: tissue versus liquid biopsy. , 2018, Translational lung cancer research.

[8]  F. Bibeau,et al.  Circulating tumor DNA analysis detects minimal residual disease and predicts recurrence in patients with stage II colon cancer , 2017 .

[9]  Tsachy Weissman,et al.  DUDE-Seq: Fast, flexible, and robust denoising of nucleotide sequences , 2015 .

[10]  E. Vasile,et al.  Early changes in plasma DNA levels of mutant KRAS as a sensitive marker of response to chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[11]  W. Holzgreve,et al.  Molecular Cancer Levels of Plasma Circulating Cell Free Nuclear and Mitochondrial Dna as Potential Biomarkers for Breast Tumors , 2009 .

[12]  M. Choti,et al.  Detection of Circulating Tumor DNA in Early- and Late-Stage Human Malignancies , 2014, Science Translational Medicine.

[13]  K. Nishio,et al.  HER2 genomic amplification in circulating tumor DNA and estrogen receptor positivity predict primary resistance to trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer , 2018, Breast Cancer.

[14]  X. Yi,et al.  The correlations of tumor mutational burden among single-region tissue, multi-region tissues and blood in non-small cell lung cancer , 2019, Journal of Immunotherapy for Cancer.

[15]  H. Nielsen,et al.  Analysis of circulating tumour DNA to monitor disease burden following colorectal cancer surgery , 2015, Gut.

[16]  Angelita Habr-Gama,et al.  The use of personalized biomarkers and liquid biopsies to monitor treatment response and disease recurrence in locally advanced rectal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiation , 2015, Oncotarget.

[17]  M. Koehler,et al.  Early circulating tumor DNA dynamics and clonal selection with palbociclib and fulvestrant for breast cancer , 2018, Nature Communications.

[18]  M. Berger,et al.  Capturing intra-tumor genetic heterogeneity by de novo mutation profiling of circulating cell-free tumor DNA: a proof-of-principle. , 2014, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[19]  S. Goodman,et al.  Circulating mutant DNA to assess tumor dynamics , 2008, Nature Medicine.

[20]  A. Addeo,et al.  Implementing circulating tumor DNA analysis in a clinical laboratory: A user manual. , 2019, Advances in clinical chemistry.

[21]  Zhong Wu,et al.  smCounter2: an accurate low-frequency variant caller for targeted sequencing data with unique molecular identifiers , 2018, bioRxiv.

[22]  Ash A. Alizadeh,et al.  An ultrasensitive method for quantitating circulating tumor DNA with broad patient coverage , 2013, Nature Medicine.

[23]  R. Strausberg,et al.  Circulating tumor DNA analysis detects minimal residual disease and predicts recurrence in patients with stage II colon cancer , 2016, Science Translational Medicine.

[24]  S. Norton,et al.  A new methodology to preserve the original proportion and integrity of cell‐free fetal DNA in maternal plasma during sample processing and storage , 2010, Prenatal diagnosis.

[25]  B. Shapiro,et al.  Free DNA in the serum of cancer patients and the effect of therapy. , 1977, Cancer research.

[26]  Chang Xu,et al.  A review of somatic single nucleotide variant calling algorithms for next-generation sequencing data , 2018, Computational and structural biotechnology journal.

[27]  Peng Jiang,et al.  MapReduce for accurate error correction of next-generation sequencing data , 2017, Bioinform..

[28]  Bert Vogelstein,et al.  DETECTION OF CIRCULATING TUMOR DNA IN EARLY AND LATE STAGE HUMAN MALIGNANCIES , 2014 .

[29]  A. Addeo,et al.  Tissue-Plasma TMB Comparison and Plasma TMB Monitoring in Patients With Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors , 2020, Frontiers in Oncology.

[30]  T. Koessler,et al.  Circulating tumoral DNA: Preanalytical validation and quality control in a diagnostic laboratory. , 2018, Analytical biochemistry.