Concordance between genomic alterations assessed by next-generation sequencing in tumor tissue or circulating cell-free DNA
Genomic analysis of tumor tissue is the standard technique for identifying DNA alterations in malignancies. Genomic analysis of circulating tumor cell-free DNA (cfDNA) represents a relatively non-invasive method of assessing genomic alterations using peripheral blood. We compared the concordance of...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Oncotarget 2016-10, Vol.7 (40), p.65364-65373 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 65373 |
---|---|
container_issue | 40 |
container_start_page | 65364 |
container_title | Oncotarget |
container_volume | 7 |
creator | Chae, Young Kwang Davis, Andrew A Carneiro, Benedito A Chandra, Sunandana Mohindra, Nisha Kalyan, Aparna Kaplan, Jason Matsangou, Maria Pai, Sachin Costa, Ricardo Jovanovic, Borko Cristofanilli, Massimo Platanias, Leonidas C Giles, Francis J |
description | Genomic analysis of tumor tissue is the standard technique for identifying DNA alterations in malignancies. Genomic analysis of circulating tumor cell-free DNA (cfDNA) represents a relatively non-invasive method of assessing genomic alterations using peripheral blood. We compared the concordance of genomic alterations between cfDNA and tissue biopsies in this retrospective study. Twenty-eight patients with advanced solid tumors with paired next-generation sequencing tissue and cfDNA biopsies were identified. Sixty-five genes were common to both assays. Concordance was defined as the presence or absence of the identical genomic alteration(s) in a single gene on both molecular platforms. Including all aberrations, the average number of alterations per patient for tissue and cfDNA analysis was 4.82 and 2.96, respectively. When eliminating alterations not detectable in the cfDNA assay, mean number of alterations for tissue and cfDNA was 3.21 and 2.96, respectively. Overall, concordance was 91.9-93.9%. However, the concordance rate decreased to 11.8-17.1% when considering only genes with reported genomic alterations in either assay. Over 50% of mutations detected in either technique were not detected using the other biopsy technique, indicating a potential complementary role of each assay. Across 5 genes (TP53, EGFR, KRAS, APC, CDKN2A), sensitivity and specificity were 59.1% and 94.8%, respectively. Potential explanations for the lack of concordance include differences in assay platform, spatial and temporal factors, tumor heterogeneity, interval treatment, subclones, and potential germline DNA contamination. These results highlight the importance of prospective studies to evaluate concordance of genomic findings between distinct platforms that ultimately may inform treatment decisions. |
doi_str_mv | 10.18632/oncotarget.11692 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5323161</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1854802004</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c492t-34d4f305747a36990e8eefe050bb186f5f1be7088d48b4921ab1851c5e4116e23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVUctO3DAUtaqiMgI-gA3ykk2on4mzqTSatrQSKhtYW45zM7hK7MF2oKP-PAamMLUs-cr3nHMfB6FTSi6oqjn7HLwN2cQ15AtK65Z9QAvairZiUvKPe_EhOknpNylHikax9hM6ZI1USjT1Av1dPcvE3ngLuIP8CODxGnyYnMVmzBBNdsEnbFKCcnvcbbGHP7kqoF0SJ7ifwVvn19h5nOcpRJxdSjPgElkX7TwWZElbGMdqiAD466_lMToYzJjgZPceodvv325WP6qr68ufq-VVZUXLcsVFLwZOZCMaw-u2JaAABiCSdF3ZxCAH2kFDlOqF6gqDmvItqZUgyl6A8SP05VV3M3cT9BZ8jmbUm-gmE7c6GKf_z3h3p9fhQUvOOK1pETjfCcRQJk1ZTy49j2I8hDnpUk4owggRBUpfoTaGlCIMb2Uo0S--6Xff9ItvhXO2398b459L_AlvxZoJ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1854802004</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Concordance between genomic alterations assessed by next-generation sequencing in tumor tissue or circulating cell-free DNA</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free E- Journals</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><creator>Chae, Young Kwang ; Davis, Andrew A ; Carneiro, Benedito A ; Chandra, Sunandana ; Mohindra, Nisha ; Kalyan, Aparna ; Kaplan, Jason ; Matsangou, Maria ; Pai, Sachin ; Costa, Ricardo ; Jovanovic, Borko ; Cristofanilli, Massimo ; Platanias, Leonidas C ; Giles, Francis J</creator><creatorcontrib>Chae, Young Kwang ; Davis, Andrew A ; Carneiro, Benedito A ; Chandra, Sunandana ; Mohindra, Nisha ; Kalyan, Aparna ; Kaplan, Jason ; Matsangou, Maria ; Pai, Sachin ; Costa, Ricardo ; Jovanovic, Borko ; Cristofanilli, Massimo ; Platanias, Leonidas C ; Giles, Francis J</creatorcontrib><description>Genomic analysis of tumor tissue is the standard technique for identifying DNA alterations in malignancies. Genomic analysis of circulating tumor cell-free DNA (cfDNA) represents a relatively non-invasive method of assessing genomic alterations using peripheral blood. We compared the concordance of genomic alterations between cfDNA and tissue biopsies in this retrospective study. Twenty-eight patients with advanced solid tumors with paired next-generation sequencing tissue and cfDNA biopsies were identified. Sixty-five genes were common to both assays. Concordance was defined as the presence or absence of the identical genomic alteration(s) in a single gene on both molecular platforms. Including all aberrations, the average number of alterations per patient for tissue and cfDNA analysis was 4.82 and 2.96, respectively. When eliminating alterations not detectable in the cfDNA assay, mean number of alterations for tissue and cfDNA was 3.21 and 2.96, respectively. Overall, concordance was 91.9-93.9%. However, the concordance rate decreased to 11.8-17.1% when considering only genes with reported genomic alterations in either assay. Over 50% of mutations detected in either technique were not detected using the other biopsy technique, indicating a potential complementary role of each assay. Across 5 genes (TP53, EGFR, KRAS, APC, CDKN2A), sensitivity and specificity were 59.1% and 94.8%, respectively. Potential explanations for the lack of concordance include differences in assay platform, spatial and temporal factors, tumor heterogeneity, interval treatment, subclones, and potential germline DNA contamination. These results highlight the importance of prospective studies to evaluate concordance of genomic findings between distinct platforms that ultimately may inform treatment decisions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1949-2553</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1949-2553</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.11692</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27588476</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Impact Journals LLC</publisher><subject>Adenocarcinoma - diagnosis ; Adenocarcinoma - genetics ; Adenomatous Polyposis Coli Protein - genetics ; Biopsy ; Cell-Free Nucleic Acids - analysis ; Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p18 - genetics ; ErbB Receptors - genetics ; Female ; Genome ; High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing - methods ; Humans ; Lung Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Lung Neoplasms - genetics ; Male ; Mutation - genetics ; Pathology, Molecular ; Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras) - genetics ; Reproducibility of Results ; Research Paper ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Tumor Suppressor Protein p53 - genetics</subject><ispartof>Oncotarget, 2016-10, Vol.7 (40), p.65364-65373</ispartof><rights>Copyright: © 2016 Chae et al. 2016</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c492t-34d4f305747a36990e8eefe050bb186f5f1be7088d48b4921ab1851c5e4116e23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c492t-34d4f305747a36990e8eefe050bb186f5f1be7088d48b4921ab1851c5e4116e23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5323161/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5323161/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27588476$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chae, Young Kwang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Andrew A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carneiro, Benedito A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chandra, Sunandana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mohindra, Nisha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kalyan, Aparna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaplan, Jason</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matsangou, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pai, Sachin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Costa, Ricardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jovanovic, Borko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cristofanilli, Massimo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Platanias, Leonidas C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giles, Francis J</creatorcontrib><title>Concordance between genomic alterations assessed by next-generation sequencing in tumor tissue or circulating cell-free DNA</title><title>Oncotarget</title><addtitle>Oncotarget</addtitle><description>Genomic analysis of tumor tissue is the standard technique for identifying DNA alterations in malignancies. Genomic analysis of circulating tumor cell-free DNA (cfDNA) represents a relatively non-invasive method of assessing genomic alterations using peripheral blood. We compared the concordance of genomic alterations between cfDNA and tissue biopsies in this retrospective study. Twenty-eight patients with advanced solid tumors with paired next-generation sequencing tissue and cfDNA biopsies were identified. Sixty-five genes were common to both assays. Concordance was defined as the presence or absence of the identical genomic alteration(s) in a single gene on both molecular platforms. Including all aberrations, the average number of alterations per patient for tissue and cfDNA analysis was 4.82 and 2.96, respectively. When eliminating alterations not detectable in the cfDNA assay, mean number of alterations for tissue and cfDNA was 3.21 and 2.96, respectively. Overall, concordance was 91.9-93.9%. However, the concordance rate decreased to 11.8-17.1% when considering only genes with reported genomic alterations in either assay. Over 50% of mutations detected in either technique were not detected using the other biopsy technique, indicating a potential complementary role of each assay. Across 5 genes (TP53, EGFR, KRAS, APC, CDKN2A), sensitivity and specificity were 59.1% and 94.8%, respectively. Potential explanations for the lack of concordance include differences in assay platform, spatial and temporal factors, tumor heterogeneity, interval treatment, subclones, and potential germline DNA contamination. These results highlight the importance of prospective studies to evaluate concordance of genomic findings between distinct platforms that ultimately may inform treatment decisions.</description><subject>Adenocarcinoma - diagnosis</subject><subject>Adenocarcinoma - genetics</subject><subject>Adenomatous Polyposis Coli Protein - genetics</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Cell-Free Nucleic Acids - analysis</subject><subject>Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p18 - genetics</subject><subject>ErbB Receptors - genetics</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Genome</subject><subject>High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Lung Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Lung Neoplasms - genetics</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mutation - genetics</subject><subject>Pathology, Molecular</subject><subject>Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras) - genetics</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Research Paper</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Tumor Suppressor Protein p53 - genetics</subject><issn>1949-2553</issn><issn>1949-2553</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpVUctO3DAUtaqiMgI-gA3ykk2on4mzqTSatrQSKhtYW45zM7hK7MF2oKP-PAamMLUs-cr3nHMfB6FTSi6oqjn7HLwN2cQ15AtK65Z9QAvairZiUvKPe_EhOknpNylHikax9hM6ZI1USjT1Av1dPcvE3ngLuIP8CODxGnyYnMVmzBBNdsEnbFKCcnvcbbGHP7kqoF0SJ7ifwVvn19h5nOcpRJxdSjPgElkX7TwWZElbGMdqiAD466_lMToYzJjgZPceodvv325WP6qr68ufq-VVZUXLcsVFLwZOZCMaw-u2JaAABiCSdF3ZxCAH2kFDlOqF6gqDmvItqZUgyl6A8SP05VV3M3cT9BZ8jmbUm-gmE7c6GKf_z3h3p9fhQUvOOK1pETjfCcRQJk1ZTy49j2I8hDnpUk4owggRBUpfoTaGlCIMb2Uo0S--6Xff9ItvhXO2398b459L_AlvxZoJ</recordid><startdate>20161004</startdate><enddate>20161004</enddate><creator>Chae, Young Kwang</creator><creator>Davis, Andrew A</creator><creator>Carneiro, Benedito A</creator><creator>Chandra, Sunandana</creator><creator>Mohindra, Nisha</creator><creator>Kalyan, Aparna</creator><creator>Kaplan, Jason</creator><creator>Matsangou, Maria</creator><creator>Pai, Sachin</creator><creator>Costa, Ricardo</creator><creator>Jovanovic, Borko</creator><creator>Cristofanilli, Massimo</creator><creator>Platanias, Leonidas C</creator><creator>Giles, Francis J</creator><general>Impact Journals LLC</general><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><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20161004</creationdate><title>Concordance between genomic alterations assessed by next-generation sequencing in tumor tissue or circulating cell-free DNA</title><author>Chae, Young Kwang ; Davis, Andrew A ; Carneiro, Benedito A ; Chandra, Sunandana ; Mohindra, Nisha ; Kalyan, Aparna ; Kaplan, Jason ; Matsangou, Maria ; Pai, Sachin ; Costa, Ricardo ; Jovanovic, Borko ; Cristofanilli, Massimo ; Platanias, Leonidas C ; Giles, Francis J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c492t-34d4f305747a36990e8eefe050bb186f5f1be7088d48b4921ab1851c5e4116e23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adenocarcinoma - diagnosis</topic><topic>Adenocarcinoma - genetics</topic><topic>Adenomatous Polyposis Coli Protein - genetics</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Cell-Free Nucleic Acids - analysis</topic><topic>Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p18 - genetics</topic><topic>ErbB Receptors - genetics</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Genome</topic><topic>High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Lung Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Lung Neoplasms - genetics</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mutation - genetics</topic><topic>Pathology, Molecular</topic><topic>Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras) - genetics</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Research Paper</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Tumor Suppressor Protein p53 - genetics</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chae, Young Kwang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Andrew A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carneiro, Benedito A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chandra, Sunandana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mohindra, Nisha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kalyan, Aparna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kaplan, Jason</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matsangou, Maria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pai, Sachin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Costa, Ricardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jovanovic, Borko</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cristofanilli, Massimo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Platanias, Leonidas C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giles, Francis J</creatorcontrib><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><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Oncotarget</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chae, Young Kwang</au><au>Davis, Andrew A</au><au>Carneiro, Benedito A</au><au>Chandra, Sunandana</au><au>Mohindra, Nisha</au><au>Kalyan, Aparna</au><au>Kaplan, Jason</au><au>Matsangou, Maria</au><au>Pai, Sachin</au><au>Costa, Ricardo</au><au>Jovanovic, Borko</au><au>Cristofanilli, Massimo</au><au>Platanias, Leonidas C</au><au>Giles, Francis J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Concordance between genomic alterations assessed by next-generation sequencing in tumor tissue or circulating cell-free DNA</atitle><jtitle>Oncotarget</jtitle><addtitle>Oncotarget</addtitle><date>2016-10-04</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>7</volume><issue>40</issue><spage>65364</spage><epage>65373</epage><pages>65364-65373</pages><issn>1949-2553</issn><eissn>1949-2553</eissn><abstract>Genomic analysis of tumor tissue is the standard technique for identifying DNA alterations in malignancies. Genomic analysis of circulating tumor cell-free DNA (cfDNA) represents a relatively non-invasive method of assessing genomic alterations using peripheral blood. We compared the concordance of genomic alterations between cfDNA and tissue biopsies in this retrospective study. Twenty-eight patients with advanced solid tumors with paired next-generation sequencing tissue and cfDNA biopsies were identified. Sixty-five genes were common to both assays. Concordance was defined as the presence or absence of the identical genomic alteration(s) in a single gene on both molecular platforms. Including all aberrations, the average number of alterations per patient for tissue and cfDNA analysis was 4.82 and 2.96, respectively. When eliminating alterations not detectable in the cfDNA assay, mean number of alterations for tissue and cfDNA was 3.21 and 2.96, respectively. Overall, concordance was 91.9-93.9%. However, the concordance rate decreased to 11.8-17.1% when considering only genes with reported genomic alterations in either assay. Over 50% of mutations detected in either technique were not detected using the other biopsy technique, indicating a potential complementary role of each assay. Across 5 genes (TP53, EGFR, KRAS, APC, CDKN2A), sensitivity and specificity were 59.1% and 94.8%, respectively. Potential explanations for the lack of concordance include differences in assay platform, spatial and temporal factors, tumor heterogeneity, interval treatment, subclones, and potential germline DNA contamination. These results highlight the importance of prospective studies to evaluate concordance of genomic findings between distinct platforms that ultimately may inform treatment decisions.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Impact Journals LLC</pub><pmid>27588476</pmid><doi>10.18632/oncotarget.11692</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1949-2553 |
ispartof | Oncotarget, 2016-10, Vol.7 (40), p.65364-65373 |
issn | 1949-2553 1949-2553 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5323161 |
source | MEDLINE; PubMed Central; Free E- Journals; EZB Electronic Journals Library; PubMed Central Open Access |
subjects | Adenocarcinoma - diagnosis Adenocarcinoma - genetics Adenomatous Polyposis Coli Protein - genetics Biopsy Cell-Free Nucleic Acids - analysis Cyclin-Dependent Kinase Inhibitor p18 - genetics ErbB Receptors - genetics Female Genome High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing - methods Humans Lung Neoplasms - diagnosis Lung Neoplasms - genetics Male Mutation - genetics Pathology, Molecular Proto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras) - genetics Reproducibility of Results Research Paper Sensitivity and Specificity Tumor Suppressor Protein p53 - genetics |
title | Concordance between genomic alterations assessed by next-generation sequencing in tumor tissue or circulating cell-free DNA |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T19%3A51%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Concordance%20between%20genomic%20alterations%20assessed%20by%20next-generation%20sequencing%20in%20tumor%20tissue%20or%20circulating%20cell-free%20DNA&rft.jtitle=Oncotarget&rft.au=Chae,%20Young%20Kwang&rft.date=2016-10-04&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=40&rft.spage=65364&rft.epage=65373&rft.pages=65364-65373&rft.issn=1949-2553&rft.eissn=1949-2553&rft_id=info:doi/10.18632/oncotarget.11692&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1854802004%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1854802004&rft_id=info:pmid/27588476&rfr_iscdi=true |