Comparison of digital PCR systems for the analysis of liquid biopsy samples of patients affected by lung and colorectal cancer

•Digital PCR is useful for tumor molecular characterization via liquid biopsy.•A moderate agreement between droplet and solid digital PCR was observed.•Solid digital PCR has a higher sensitivity in the detection of mutated cases. Highly sensitive technologies are available for the molecular characte...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinica chimica acta 2023-02, Vol.541, p.117239-117239, Article 117239
Hauptverfasser: Crucitta, Stefania, Ruglioni, Martina, Novi, Claudia, Manganiello, Mascia, Arici, Roberta, Petrini, Iacopo, Pardini, Eleonora, Cucchiara, Federico, Marmorino, Federica, Cremolini, Chiara, Fogli, Stefano, Danesi, Romano, Del Re, Marzia
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 117239
container_issue
container_start_page 117239
container_title Clinica chimica acta
container_volume 541
creator Crucitta, Stefania
Ruglioni, Martina
Novi, Claudia
Manganiello, Mascia
Arici, Roberta
Petrini, Iacopo
Pardini, Eleonora
Cucchiara, Federico
Marmorino, Federica
Cremolini, Chiara
Fogli, Stefano
Danesi, Romano
Del Re, Marzia
description •Digital PCR is useful for tumor molecular characterization via liquid biopsy.•A moderate agreement between droplet and solid digital PCR was observed.•Solid digital PCR has a higher sensitivity in the detection of mutated cases. Highly sensitive technologies are available for the molecular characterization of solid tumors, including digital PCR (dPCR). Liquid biopsy, based on the analysis of cell-free DNA (cfDNA), is often used to assess EGFR or RAS alterations in lung and colorectal cancers. Our study aimed to compare the results of two different dPCR platforms for the detection of mutations in cfDNA. Plasma samples from lung and colorectal cancer patients collected as per routine procedures have been tested. cfDNA Was extracted from plasma, and samples were screened on the droplet digital PCR (ddPCR, BioRad) and solid dPCR QIAcuity (Qiagen). A total of 42 samples were analyzed, obtained from 20 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients carrying an EGFR or a KRAS mutation on tissue at diagnosis, and from 22 samples of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, 10 of which presenting a KRAS mutation. EGFR mutation detection was 58.8% for ddPCR and 100% for dPCR (κ = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37–0.71), compared to tissue results. The detection rate for RAS mutations was 72.7% for ddPCR and 86.4% for dPCR (κ = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.01–0.68), compared to tissue results. This study showed moderate agreement between dPCR and ddPCR. Sampling effect or threshold settings may potentially explain the differences in the cfDNA data between the two different platforms.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.cca.2023.117239
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2773116044</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0009898123000414</els_id><sourcerecordid>2773116044</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-746de3de7fa3845c27db2cf28a089da0dc7989c18eb4d531b4b32991226e3b513</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEuLFDEURoMoTjv6A9xIlm6qzavzwJU04wMGFNF1SCW3xjSpSk1SJdTG327aHl26Cjf3fF_IQeglJXtKqHxz2nvv9owwvqdUMW4eoR3VindcGPYY7QghptNG0yv0rNZTGwWR9Cm64lJxKbXYoV_HPM6uxJonnAcc4l1cXMJfjl9x3eoCY8VDLnj5AdhNLm011jOX4v0aA-5jnuuGqxvnBH8Ws1siTEvFbhjAL9CYDad1umvxgH1OubTr9oJ3k4fyHD0ZXKrw4uG8Rt_f33w7fuxuP3_4dHx323lu5NIpIQPwAGpwXIuDZyr0zA9MO6JNcCR4ZbTxVEMvwoHTXvScGUMZk8D7A-XX6PWldy75foW62DFWDym5CfJaLVOKUyqJEA2lF9SXXGuBwc4ljq5slhJ71m5Ptmm3Z-32or1lXj3Ur_0I4V_ir-cGvL0A0D75M0Kx1TdPHkI8-7Ahx__U_waqoJP4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2773116044</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of digital PCR systems for the analysis of liquid biopsy samples of patients affected by lung and colorectal cancer</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Crucitta, Stefania ; Ruglioni, Martina ; Novi, Claudia ; Manganiello, Mascia ; Arici, Roberta ; Petrini, Iacopo ; Pardini, Eleonora ; Cucchiara, Federico ; Marmorino, Federica ; Cremolini, Chiara ; Fogli, Stefano ; Danesi, Romano ; Del Re, Marzia</creator><creatorcontrib>Crucitta, Stefania ; Ruglioni, Martina ; Novi, Claudia ; Manganiello, Mascia ; Arici, Roberta ; Petrini, Iacopo ; Pardini, Eleonora ; Cucchiara, Federico ; Marmorino, Federica ; Cremolini, Chiara ; Fogli, Stefano ; Danesi, Romano ; Del Re, Marzia</creatorcontrib><description>•Digital PCR is useful for tumor molecular characterization via liquid biopsy.•A moderate agreement between droplet and solid digital PCR was observed.•Solid digital PCR has a higher sensitivity in the detection of mutated cases. Highly sensitive technologies are available for the molecular characterization of solid tumors, including digital PCR (dPCR). Liquid biopsy, based on the analysis of cell-free DNA (cfDNA), is often used to assess EGFR or RAS alterations in lung and colorectal cancers. Our study aimed to compare the results of two different dPCR platforms for the detection of mutations in cfDNA. Plasma samples from lung and colorectal cancer patients collected as per routine procedures have been tested. cfDNA Was extracted from plasma, and samples were screened on the droplet digital PCR (ddPCR, BioRad) and solid dPCR QIAcuity (Qiagen). A total of 42 samples were analyzed, obtained from 20 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients carrying an EGFR or a KRAS mutation on tissue at diagnosis, and from 22 samples of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, 10 of which presenting a KRAS mutation. EGFR mutation detection was 58.8% for ddPCR and 100% for dPCR (κ = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37–0.71), compared to tissue results. The detection rate for RAS mutations was 72.7% for ddPCR and 86.4% for dPCR (κ = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.01–0.68), compared to tissue results. This study showed moderate agreement between dPCR and ddPCR. Sampling effect or threshold settings may potentially explain the differences in the cfDNA data between the two different platforms.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0009-8981</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-3492</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2023.117239</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36736684</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung ; Cell-Free Nucleic Acids ; cfDNA ; Colorectal cancer ; Colorectal Neoplasms - genetics ; Digital PCR ; ErbB Receptors - genetics ; Humans ; Liquid Biopsy ; Lung ; Lung - pathology ; Lung Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Mutation ; Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods ; Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras) - genetics</subject><ispartof>Clinica chimica acta, 2023-02, Vol.541, p.117239-117239, Article 117239</ispartof><rights>2023 The Authors</rights><rights>Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-746de3de7fa3845c27db2cf28a089da0dc7989c18eb4d531b4b32991226e3b513</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-746de3de7fa3845c27db2cf28a089da0dc7989c18eb4d531b4b32991226e3b513</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2023.117239$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36736684$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Crucitta, Stefania</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruglioni, Martina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Novi, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manganiello, Mascia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arici, Roberta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Petrini, Iacopo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pardini, Eleonora</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cucchiara, Federico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marmorino, Federica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cremolini, Chiara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fogli, Stefano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Danesi, Romano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Del Re, Marzia</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of digital PCR systems for the analysis of liquid biopsy samples of patients affected by lung and colorectal cancer</title><title>Clinica chimica acta</title><addtitle>Clin Chim Acta</addtitle><description>•Digital PCR is useful for tumor molecular characterization via liquid biopsy.•A moderate agreement between droplet and solid digital PCR was observed.•Solid digital PCR has a higher sensitivity in the detection of mutated cases. Highly sensitive technologies are available for the molecular characterization of solid tumors, including digital PCR (dPCR). Liquid biopsy, based on the analysis of cell-free DNA (cfDNA), is often used to assess EGFR or RAS alterations in lung and colorectal cancers. Our study aimed to compare the results of two different dPCR platforms for the detection of mutations in cfDNA. Plasma samples from lung and colorectal cancer patients collected as per routine procedures have been tested. cfDNA Was extracted from plasma, and samples were screened on the droplet digital PCR (ddPCR, BioRad) and solid dPCR QIAcuity (Qiagen). A total of 42 samples were analyzed, obtained from 20 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients carrying an EGFR or a KRAS mutation on tissue at diagnosis, and from 22 samples of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, 10 of which presenting a KRAS mutation. EGFR mutation detection was 58.8% for ddPCR and 100% for dPCR (κ = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37–0.71), compared to tissue results. The detection rate for RAS mutations was 72.7% for ddPCR and 86.4% for dPCR (κ = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.01–0.68), compared to tissue results. This study showed moderate agreement between dPCR and ddPCR. Sampling effect or threshold settings may potentially explain the differences in the cfDNA data between the two different platforms.</description><subject>Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung</subject><subject>Cell-Free Nucleic Acids</subject><subject>cfDNA</subject><subject>Colorectal cancer</subject><subject>Colorectal Neoplasms - genetics</subject><subject>Digital PCR</subject><subject>ErbB Receptors - genetics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Liquid Biopsy</subject><subject>Lung</subject><subject>Lung - pathology</subject><subject>Lung Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Mutation</subject><subject>Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods</subject><subject>Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras) - genetics</subject><issn>0009-8981</issn><issn>1873-3492</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEuLFDEURoMoTjv6A9xIlm6qzavzwJU04wMGFNF1SCW3xjSpSk1SJdTG327aHl26Cjf3fF_IQeglJXtKqHxz2nvv9owwvqdUMW4eoR3VindcGPYY7QghptNG0yv0rNZTGwWR9Cm64lJxKbXYoV_HPM6uxJonnAcc4l1cXMJfjl9x3eoCY8VDLnj5AdhNLm011jOX4v0aA-5jnuuGqxvnBH8Ws1siTEvFbhjAL9CYDad1umvxgH1OubTr9oJ3k4fyHD0ZXKrw4uG8Rt_f33w7fuxuP3_4dHx323lu5NIpIQPwAGpwXIuDZyr0zA9MO6JNcCR4ZbTxVEMvwoHTXvScGUMZk8D7A-XX6PWldy75foW62DFWDym5CfJaLVOKUyqJEA2lF9SXXGuBwc4ljq5slhJ71m5Ptmm3Z-32or1lXj3Ur_0I4V_ir-cGvL0A0D75M0Kx1TdPHkI8-7Ahx__U_waqoJP4</recordid><startdate>20230215</startdate><enddate>20230215</enddate><creator>Crucitta, Stefania</creator><creator>Ruglioni, Martina</creator><creator>Novi, Claudia</creator><creator>Manganiello, Mascia</creator><creator>Arici, Roberta</creator><creator>Petrini, Iacopo</creator><creator>Pardini, Eleonora</creator><creator>Cucchiara, Federico</creator><creator>Marmorino, Federica</creator><creator>Cremolini, Chiara</creator><creator>Fogli, Stefano</creator><creator>Danesi, Romano</creator><creator>Del Re, Marzia</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20230215</creationdate><title>Comparison of digital PCR systems for the analysis of liquid biopsy samples of patients affected by lung and colorectal cancer</title><author>Crucitta, Stefania ; Ruglioni, Martina ; Novi, Claudia ; Manganiello, Mascia ; Arici, Roberta ; Petrini, Iacopo ; Pardini, Eleonora ; Cucchiara, Federico ; Marmorino, Federica ; Cremolini, Chiara ; Fogli, Stefano ; Danesi, Romano ; Del Re, Marzia</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c396t-746de3de7fa3845c27db2cf28a089da0dc7989c18eb4d531b4b32991226e3b513</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung</topic><topic>Cell-Free Nucleic Acids</topic><topic>cfDNA</topic><topic>Colorectal cancer</topic><topic>Colorectal Neoplasms - genetics</topic><topic>Digital PCR</topic><topic>ErbB Receptors - genetics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Liquid Biopsy</topic><topic>Lung</topic><topic>Lung - pathology</topic><topic>Lung Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Mutation</topic><topic>Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods</topic><topic>Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras) - genetics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Crucitta, Stefania</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruglioni, Martina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Novi, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Manganiello, Mascia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arici, Roberta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Petrini, Iacopo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pardini, Eleonora</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cucchiara, Federico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marmorino, Federica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cremolini, Chiara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fogli, Stefano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Danesi, Romano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Del Re, Marzia</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinica chimica acta</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Crucitta, Stefania</au><au>Ruglioni, Martina</au><au>Novi, Claudia</au><au>Manganiello, Mascia</au><au>Arici, Roberta</au><au>Petrini, Iacopo</au><au>Pardini, Eleonora</au><au>Cucchiara, Federico</au><au>Marmorino, Federica</au><au>Cremolini, Chiara</au><au>Fogli, Stefano</au><au>Danesi, Romano</au><au>Del Re, Marzia</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of digital PCR systems for the analysis of liquid biopsy samples of patients affected by lung and colorectal cancer</atitle><jtitle>Clinica chimica acta</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Chim Acta</addtitle><date>2023-02-15</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>541</volume><spage>117239</spage><epage>117239</epage><pages>117239-117239</pages><artnum>117239</artnum><issn>0009-8981</issn><eissn>1873-3492</eissn><abstract>•Digital PCR is useful for tumor molecular characterization via liquid biopsy.•A moderate agreement between droplet and solid digital PCR was observed.•Solid digital PCR has a higher sensitivity in the detection of mutated cases. Highly sensitive technologies are available for the molecular characterization of solid tumors, including digital PCR (dPCR). Liquid biopsy, based on the analysis of cell-free DNA (cfDNA), is often used to assess EGFR or RAS alterations in lung and colorectal cancers. Our study aimed to compare the results of two different dPCR platforms for the detection of mutations in cfDNA. Plasma samples from lung and colorectal cancer patients collected as per routine procedures have been tested. cfDNA Was extracted from plasma, and samples were screened on the droplet digital PCR (ddPCR, BioRad) and solid dPCR QIAcuity (Qiagen). A total of 42 samples were analyzed, obtained from 20 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients carrying an EGFR or a KRAS mutation on tissue at diagnosis, and from 22 samples of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients, 10 of which presenting a KRAS mutation. EGFR mutation detection was 58.8% for ddPCR and 100% for dPCR (κ = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37–0.71), compared to tissue results. The detection rate for RAS mutations was 72.7% for ddPCR and 86.4% for dPCR (κ = 0.34; 95% CI, 0.01–0.68), compared to tissue results. This study showed moderate agreement between dPCR and ddPCR. Sampling effect or threshold settings may potentially explain the differences in the cfDNA data between the two different platforms.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><pmid>36736684</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.cca.2023.117239</doi><tpages>1</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0009-8981
ispartof Clinica chimica acta, 2023-02, Vol.541, p.117239-117239, Article 117239
issn 0009-8981
1873-3492
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2773116044
source MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)
subjects Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung
Cell-Free Nucleic Acids
cfDNA
Colorectal cancer
Colorectal Neoplasms - genetics
Digital PCR
ErbB Receptors - genetics
Humans
Liquid Biopsy
Lung
Lung - pathology
Lung Neoplasms - diagnosis
Mutation
Polymerase Chain Reaction - methods
Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras) - genetics
title Comparison of digital PCR systems for the analysis of liquid biopsy samples of patients affected by lung and colorectal cancer
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T03%3A23%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20digital%20PCR%20systems%20for%20the%20analysis%20of%20liquid%20biopsy%20samples%20of%20patients%20affected%20by%20lung%20and%20colorectal%20cancer&rft.jtitle=Clinica%20chimica%20acta&rft.au=Crucitta,%20Stefania&rft.date=2023-02-15&rft.volume=541&rft.spage=117239&rft.epage=117239&rft.pages=117239-117239&rft.artnum=117239&rft.issn=0009-8981&rft.eissn=1873-3492&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.cca.2023.117239&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2773116044%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2773116044&rft_id=info:pmid/36736684&rft_els_id=S0009898123000414&rfr_iscdi=true