PO.CL01.07 · 临床研究
一种具有高灵敏度和特异性的全基因组肿瘤知情分子残留病检测方法的分析学评估
Analytical evaluation of a whole genome tumor-informed molecular residual disease detection assay with high sensitivity and specificity
作者与单位 Authors & Affiliations
摘要 Abstract
中文摘要
引言:分子残留病(MRD)检测涉及在癌症治疗后检测血浆中的循环肿瘤DNA(ctDNA)。用于定性检测MRD的肿瘤知情全基因组测序(WGS)工作流程已被证明具有高灵敏度。我们提出了一种针对膀胱癌、乳腺癌、黑色素瘤、非小细胞肺癌(NSCLC)和结直肠癌(CRC)患者的自动化且可扩展的解决方案,周转时间最快可达8至9天。这包括DNA提取、文库制备、测序、数据分析和报告的自动化。在此,我们总结了一项仅供研究使用的工作流程的分析性能,该流程旨在作为面向研究和临床合作伙伴(如制药公司)的服务。
方法:该工作流程需要3种不同的样本类型:福尔马林固定石蜡包埋(FFPE)、血沉棕黄层(Buffy Coat)和2至4ml血浆分装。最佳投入量为:i)来自血浆的5ng(最低2ng)细胞游离DNA(cfDNA),ii)100ng(最低50ng)肿瘤组织DNA,以及iii)来自血沉棕黄层的50ng DNA。从不同样本类型中提取DNA,制备WGS文库并在NovaSeq™ 6000上测序。测序分析、指纹生成和MRD检测使用DRAGEN™进行。该检测使用患者的肿瘤和种系样本生成患者特异性的体细胞变异列表,即指纹。随后,将cfDNA序列数据与指纹进行比对,以确定是否存在提示MRD的肿瘤DNA。使用临床样本和人工构建样本来评估准确性、分析灵敏度、分析特异性和精密度。
结果:25份临床样本(每种癌症类型5份)在MRD状态上相对于参考方法达到100%的总体符合率(OPA),ctDNA浓度低至0.035%。将20份健康血浆样本针对跨多种癌症类型的25个指纹进行评估,达到100%的阴性符合率。灵敏度分析显示,在变异等位基因频率为0.003%(NSCLC)、0.005%(膀胱癌和CRC)以及0.006%(黑色素瘤和乳腺癌样本)时达到100%的检出率。使用所有标本类型,跨多名操作员、仪器和文库制备启动日进行精密度评估。在ctDNA浓度为0.009%至0.018%时,批内和批间重复的MRD状态达到100%的OPA。
结论:我们提出了一种全基因组全自动化工作流程,能够生成具有高分析灵敏度和特异性的肿瘤知情MRD状态。该检测所需的血浆样本DNA投入量低,并使样本到报告的周转时间最快可达8至9天。结果表明,该WGS MRD检测平台是一种适用于多种癌症类型的可扩展、稳健且高灵敏度的检测方法。
查看英文原文 English abstract
Introduction: Molecular residual disease (MRD) testing involves the detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in plasma after cancer treatment. Tumor-informed Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) workflows for the qualitative detection of MRD have been shown to be highly sensitive. We present an automated and scalable solution for patients with bladder, breast, melanoma, non-small cell lung (NSCLC), and colorectal (CRC) cancers with turnaround as fast as 8 to 9 days. This includes automation of DNA extraction, library preparation, sequencing, data analyses, and reporting. Here, we summarize the analytical performance of a research use only workflow intended as a service for research and clinical partners, such as pharmaceutical companies.
Methods: The workflow requires 3 different sample types: formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE), Buffy Coat, and 2 to 4ml plasma aliquots. The optimal inputs are: i) 5ng (minimum 2ng) cell-free DNA (cfDNA) from plasma, ii) 100ng (minimum 50ng) tumor tissue DNA, and iii) 50ng DNA from Buffy Coat. DNA is extracted from different sample types with WGS libraries preparation and sequencing on NovaSeq TM 6000. Sequencing analyses, fingerprint generation, and MRD detection are performed using DRAGEN TM . The assay uses a patient's tumor and germline sample to generate a patient-specific somatic variant list, i.e. fingerprint. Subsequently, the cfDNA sequence data is evaluated against the fingerprint to determine the presence or absence of tumor DNA indicative of MRD. Both clinical and contrived samples were used to evaluate accuracy, analytical sensitivity, analytical specificity and precision.
Results: Twenty-five clinical samples (5 samples for each cancer type) resulted in 100% overall percent agreement (OPA) in MRD status relative to a reference method, with ctDNA concentration as low as 0.035%. A panel of 20 healthy plasma samples assessed against 25 fingerprints across multiple cancer types resulted in a 100% negative percent agreement. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated 100% detection rate at variant allele frequency of 0.003% for NSCLC, 0.005% for bladder and CRC, and 0.006% for melanoma and breast samples. Precision was evaluated using all specimen types across multiple operators, instruments, and library preparation start days. There was 100% OPA in MRD status across intra-run and inter-run replicates at ctDNA concentrations of 0.009% to 0.018%.
Conclusions: We present a whole genome fully automated workflow capable of generating tumor- informed MRD status with high analytical sensitivity and specificity. The assay requires low DNA input from plasma samples and enables a sample-to-report turnaround time as fast as 8 to 9 days. The results demonstrate that the WGS MRD detection platform is a scalable, robust, and highly sensitive assay for multiple cancer types.
利益披露 Disclosure
W. Gong,
Illumina Employment.
S. Kim,
Illumina Employment.
G. M. Tagliazucchi,
Illumina Employment.
T. U. Dincer,
Illumina Employment.
M. Ghildiyal,
Illumina Employment.
M. Gantuz,
Illumina Employment.
G. Kim,
Illumina Employment.
Q. Bui,
Illumina Employment.
Y. Ding,
Illumina Employment.
J. Gibson,
Illumina Employment.
L. Mencik,
Illumina Employment.
A. Vuong,
Illumina Employment.
M. Valancius,
Illumina Employment.
K. Gietzen,
Illumina Employment.
J. Becq,
Illumina Employment.
C. Davis,
Illumina Employment.
J. Bernd,
Illumina Employment.
M. Chian,
Illumina Employment.
D. Schmidt,
Illumina Employment.
E. de Feo,
Illumina Employment.