ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Genet., 09 February 2023

Sec. Genomic Assay Technology

Volume 14 - 2023 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2023.1067457

Analytical validation and implementation of a pan cancer next-generation sequencing panel, CANSeqTMKids for molecular profiling of childhood malignancies

  • 1. Precision Medicine Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States

  • 2. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, United States

Article metrics

View details

3

Citations

3,2k

Views

1,1k

Downloads

Abstract

Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) allows rapid analysis of multiple genes for the detection of clinically actionable variants. This study reports the analytical validation of a targeted pan cancer NGS panel CANSeqTMKids for molecular profiling of childhood malignancies. Analytical validation included DNA and RNA extracted from de-identified clinical specimens including formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue, bone marrow and whole blood as well as commercially available reference materials. The DNA component of the panel evaluates 130 genes for the detection of single nucleotide variants (SNVs), Insertion and Deletions (INDELs), and 91 genes for fusion variants associated with childhood malignancies. Conditions were optimized to use as low as 20% neoplastic content with 5 ng of nucleic acid input. Evaluation of the data determined greater than 99% accuracy, sensitivity, repeatability, and reproducibility. The limit of detection was established to be 5% allele fraction for SNVs and INDELs, 5 copies for gene amplifications and 1,100 reads for gene fusions. Assay efficiency was improved by automation of library preparation. In conclusion, the CANSeqTMKids allows for the comprehensive molecular profiling of childhood malignancies from different specimen sources with high quality and fast turnaround time.

1 Introduction

Childhood cancers including leukemias, and tumors of the central nervous system and renal tumors are the leading disease-related causes of death in children in the United States (Siegel et al., 2018). General treatment of childhood malignancies is a combination of surgery, cytotoxic chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, with long term side effects (Kopp et al., 2012). The discovery of more personalized and less harmful therapies is a rising need, however, childhood cancers currently represent less than 1% of new cancer diagnosis (Siegel et al., 2014). Evidence demonstrates that the frequency, distribution, and types of genetic alterations of childhood cancer may differ from adult tumors (Vogelstein et al., 2013), demanding the need for a better understanding of the molecular landscape of childhood malignancies.

Molecular profiling for childhood cancer usually comes into play after diagnosis or failure to respond to standard therapy. Profiling studies using next-generation sequencing (NGS) have facilitated widespread investigation of the molecular landscape of childhood cancers in the recent years leading to the identification of a large number of biomarkers across multiple childhood cancers with both small mutations and copy number variants (Grobner et al., 2018; Ma et al., 2018). Specifically, 17% of driver genes were mutated in both leukemias and solid tumors. CDKN2A, IKZF1, ETV6, RUNX1, and FLT3 were the top genes mutated in leukemias, while somatic alterations in ALK, NF1, and PTEN primarily occurred in solid tumors, suggesting that the driver alterations are either common to cancer (e.g., cell cycle) or specific to pediatric cancer histotype (Ma et al., 2018). Given the uniqueness of childhood cancers, it is important to have a molecular profiling assay that is comprehensive and applicable across most if not all childhood malignancies.

In this study, we report the analytical validation of the CANSeqTMKids assay which uses a targeted NGS panel that interrogates both DNA and RNA to provide comprehensive genomic information across 203 unique genes known to be associated with childhood malignancies. The assay was validated across multiple specimen types including fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue, cell blocks, blood, and bone marrow prior to clinical implementation for the evaluation of pediatric tumors.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Panel content

CANSeqTMKids is a comprehensive molecular profiling assay that evaluates relevant DNA mutations (SNVs, indels and CNVs) across 130 key genes and RNA fusions across 91 fusion transcript driver genes associated with pediatric cancer, in a single NGS assay (Table 1).

TABLE 1

Hotspot genesCopy number genesFull length genesGene fusions
ABL1FBXW7NCOR2ABL2APCRUNX1ABL1KMT2CPAX5
ABL2FGFR1NOTCH1ALKARID1ASMARCA4ABL2KMT2DPAX7
ALKFGFR2NPM1BRAFARID1BSMARCB1AFF3LM O 2PDGFB
ACVR1FGFR3NRASCCND1ATRXSOCS2ALKMAML2PDGFRA
AKT1FLT3NT5C2CDK4CDKN2ASUFUBCL11BMAN2B1PDGFRB
ASXL1GATA2PAX5CDK6CDKN2BSUZ12BCORMECOMPLAG1
ASXL2GNA11PDGFRAEGFRCEBPATCF3BCRMEF2DRAF1
BRAFGNAQPDGFRBERBB2CHD7TET2BRAFMETRANBP17
CALRH3F3APIK3CAERBB3CRLF1TP53CAMTA1MKL1RARA
CBLHDAC9PIK3R1FGFR1DDX3XTSC1CCND1MLLT10RECK
CCND1HIST1H3BPPM1DFGFR2DICER1TSC2CICMN1RELA
CCND3HRASPTPN11FGFR3EBF1WHSC1CREBBPMYBRET
CCR5IDH1RAF1FGFR4EEDWT1CRLF2MYBL1ROS1
CDK4IDH2RETGLI1FASXIAPCSF1RMYH11RUNX1
CICIL7RRHOAGLI2GATA1DUSP22MYH9SS18
CREBBPJAK1SETBP1IGF1RGATA3EGFRNCOA2SSBP2
CRLF2JAK2SETD2JAK1GNA13ETV6NCOR1STAG2
CSF1RJAK3SH2B3JAK2ID3EWSR1NOTCH1STAT6
CSF3RKDM4CSH2D1AJAK3IKZF1FGFR1NOTCH2TAL1
CTNNB1KDRSMOKITKDM6AFGFR2NOTCH4TCF3
DAXXKITSTAT3KRASKMT2DFGFR3NPM1TFE3
DNMT3AKRASSTAT5BMDM2MYOD1FLT3NR4A3TP63
EGFRMAP2K1TERTMDM4NF1FOSBNTRK1TSLP
EP300MAP2K2TPMTMETNF2FUSNTRK2TSPAN4
ERBB2METUSP7MYCPHF6GLI1NTRK3UBTF
ERBB3MPLZMYM3MYCNPRPS1GLIS2NUP214USP6
ERBB4MSH6PDGFRAPSMB5HMGA2NUP98WHSC1
ESR1MTORPIK3CAPTCH1JAK2NUTM1YAP1
EZH2MYCPTENKAT6ANUTM2BZMYND11
FASLGMYCNRB1KMT2APAX3ZNF384
KMT2B

Panel content (203 unique genes).

2.2 Sample cohort

A total of 65 samples including FFPE tissue (n = 32), cell blocks (n = 2), whole blood (n = 8), bone marrow (n = 4), cell lines (n = 7) and commercial controls (n = 12) were used in the validation (Table 2). The size of the sample cohort was established based on recommended guidelines (Jennings et al., 2017). This study was performed using retrospective specimens with known molecular profiling results, known diagnoses and represented different tumor types (Table 3). Specimens were de-identified per IRB guidelines prior to inclusion in the study. Due to the diverse nature of childhood cancers, the CANSeqTMKids panel has been designed to evaluate both solid tumors and hematological tissues. An analytical validation plan outlining sample cohort, validation strategy and processes involved, was reviewed and approved prior to study start. This study was approved by the Medical College of Wisconsin Institutional Review Board.

TABLE 2

Sample sourceNo. of samplesFFPE (n = 32)Cell blocks (n = 2)Whole blood (n = 8)Bone marrow (n = 4)Cell lines (n = 7)Commercial controls (n = 12)
DNA only23502457
RNA only16126025
DNA & RNA262600000

Study Cohort. Summary of clinical specimens and commercial controls used in study (n = 65).

TABLE 3

Sample IDDiagnosisNeoplastic contentNucleic acid
FFPE tissue (n = 32)
 P-Validation 1anaplastic large cell lymphoma80%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 2inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor80%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 3CIC-translocation sarcoma20%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 4CIC-translocation sarcoma100%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 5giant cell fibroblastoma100%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 6mucoepidermoid carcinoma40%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 8cellular mesoblastic nephroma100%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 10Ewing sarcoma100%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 12Ewing sarcoma100%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 13desmoplastic small round cell tumor100%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 15alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma80%DNA
 P-Validation 17low-grade fibromyxoid sarcoma90%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 18low-grade fibromyxoid sarcoma100%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 19diffuse large B-cell lymphoma100%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 20myeloid sarcoma98%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 21pilocytic astrocytoma60%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 22pilocytic astrocytoma100%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 23B-ALL98%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 24double-hit lymphoma100%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 25high-grade B-cell lymphoma100%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 26lipoblastoma20%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 27lipoblastoma5%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 28ependymoma100%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 29synovial sarcoma100%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 30synovial sarcoma100%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 31alveolar soft part sarcoma100%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 32aneurysmal bone cyst100%DNA & RNA
 P-Validation 33Glioblastoma with biphasic morphology95%DNA
 P-Validation 34Optic Nerve Tumor95%DNA
 P-Validation 35Cystic botryoid rhabdomyosarcoma75%DNA
 P-Validation 36Round cell malignant neoplasm50%DNA
 P-Validation 39Likely NSCLC30%RNA
Cell Blocks (n = 2)
 P-Validation 37Likely NSCLC20%RNA
 P-Validation 38Likely NSCLC15%RNA
Whole Blood (n = 8)
 M_Validation_07AML UnspecifiedN/ADNA
 M_Validation_11AML UnspecifiedN/ADNA
 M_Validation_22AML UnspecifiedN/ARNA
 M_Validation_23AML w/MLLN/ARNA
 M_Validation_24APLN/ARNA
 M_Validation_26ALLN/ARNA
 M_Validation_33CMLN/ARNA
 M_Validation_37AML UnspecifiedN/ARNA
Bone Marrow (n = 4)
 M_Validation_01PancytopeniaN/ADNA
 M_Validation_03AML UnspecifiedN/ADNA
 M_Validation_10AML UnspecifiedN/ADNA
 M_Validation_16AML UnspecifiedN/ADNA
Cell Lines (n = 7)
 Coriell cell line NA12878HapMap lymphoblastoid cell lineN/ADNA
 Coriell cell line NA18507HapMap lymphoblastoid cell lineN/ADNA
 Coriell cell line NA19240HapMap lymphoblastoid cell lineN/ADNA
   Cell line RKOColon Carcinoma cell lineN/ADNA
 Cell line NCI-H1650Lung Adenocarcinoma cell lineN/ADNA
 Cell line NCI-H2228Lung Adenocarcinoma cell lineN/ARNA
 Cell line LC2/ADLung Adenocarcinoma cell lineN/ARNA
Commercial Contrived Controls (n = 12)
 AcroMetrix Oncology Hotspot Control8 (AOHC)N/A; catalog # 969056N/ADNA
 Seraseq Tri Level DNA Mutation Mix ControlN/A; catalog # 0710–0097N/ADNA
 SeraCare normal colon RNAN/A; catalog # AM7986N/ARNA
 SeraCare normal lung RNAN/A; catalog # AM7968N/ARNA
 Seraseq Fusion RNA Mix v3N/A; catalog # 0710–0431N/ARNA
 Seraseq FFPE NTRK Fusion RNA Reference MaterialN/A; catalog # 0710–1,031N/ARNA
 Seraseq Lung/Brain CNV Mix (x3)N/A; catalog # 0710–0415N/ADNA
 Seraseq Tumor Mutation DNA Mix v2N/A; catalog # 0710–0095N/ADNA
 AcroMetrix Hotspot DNA LadderN/A; catalog # 10026229N/ADNA
 AV Master CNV (x4)N/A; supplied by ThermoFisherN/ADNA
 AV Master HotspotN/A; supplied by ThermoFisherN/ADNA
 AV Master FusionN/A; supplied by ThermoFisherN/ARNA

Study Cohort. Details of specimens used in study.

2.3 DNA and RNA extraction

DNA and RNA from all specimens was extracted per established protocols. FFPE specimens were macro dissection-enriched prior to extraction. DNA quantification and quality was evaluated using the NanoDrop 2000 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) and considered acceptable if the resultant A260/A280 absorbance ratio was between 1.8 and 2.1. RNA quantification was evaluated using the Qubit 2.0 Fluorometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) and was considered acceptable if sufficient quantity of RNA to ensure a 10 ng input was obtained for downstream processing.

2.4 Library preparation, templating and sequencing

Libraries were prepared by both manual and automated Ion Chef process. For the DNA portion of library preparation, the manual library preparation requires 8 µL with a concentration of 2.5 ng/μL whereas the automated library preparation requires 15 µL with a concentration of 0.7 ng/μL. The RNA requirements are slightly less with 5 µL with a concentration of 2 ng/μL for manual prep and 10 µL with a concentration of 1 ng/μL for the automated process. The manual process followed the Oncomine™ Childhood Cancer Research Assay (OCCRA) (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA) and the Ion AmpliSeq™ Library Preparation user guide. The Automated library preparation used the Oncomine™ Childhood Cancer Research Assay, Chef-Ready kit on the Ion Chef (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Libraries were barcoded with IonCode™ Barcode Adapters 1–384 Kit and normalized to 100 pmol/L by the Equalizer kit (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA). DNA and RNA libraries were then combined and diluted at an 80:20 DNA:RNA ratio at ∼50p.m. and templated overnight on the Ion 540 chip using Ion 540™ Kit—Chef (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA).

Sequencing was performed using 540 chips on the Ion GeneStudioâ„¢ S5 Prime Sequencer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA). Raw reads from sequencing were processed and aligned to the reference genome hg19 on Ion Torrent Suite Software versions 5.12 and 5.14 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) and the run metrics of the Ion Torrent Suite used to determine quality control of sequencing runs. The minimum cutoff of ISP (Ion Sphereâ„¢ Particle) loading was 80% and the maximum of polyclonal ISPs was 50%, with threshold for total reads at 60M. The minimum percent usable reads were set to be 30%, and the minimum raw accuracy was 99%.

Variant calling and fusion detection was performed on Ion Reporterâ„¢ versions 5.14 and 5.16 server system by the OCCRA - w2.5 - IR workflow. The quality control and variant calling analysis were performed on the Ion Reporterâ„¢ (IR) software package. Tertiary analysis and report generation was established using the GO Pathology Workbench (GenomOncology, Cleveland, OH).

2.5 Analytical validation

Analytical validation studies were carried out per guidelines from the Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) and College of American Pathologists for the validation of Next-Generation Sequencing–Based Oncology Panels (Jennings et al., 2017). Details of the validation addressing STARD guidelines is presented in Supplementary Table S1.

2.5.1 Specificity

Three Coriell HapMap DNA samples NA12878, NA18507, NA19240 and two normal colon and lung RNA samples (SeraCare Life Sciences, Milford, MA) were used to determine assay specificity by evaluating positive and negative variant calls of SNV/MNV, INDELs across all targeted hotspots and fusions covered by the assay. The hotspot and fusion design files (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA) were used to extract variants from VCF outputs followed by manual variant review.

2.5.2 Sensitivity

Sensitivity was assessed using DNA and RNA from FFPE tissue, cell lines and contrived samples (Table 5). The true positive and false negative variants were determined by multiple commercial controls. Mean raw base calling accuracy was calculated for each of the samples with a target error rate <2%. The Coriell HapMap sample NA12878 is a well characterized benchmark sample for NGS validation studies. The AcroMetrix Oncology Hotspot Control (AOHC, Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA) is a synthetic control consisting of 555 variants, with 198 covered by the OCCRA. The Seraseq Tri Level DNA Mutation Mix (SeraCare Life Sciences, Milford, MA) is a comprehensive synthetic control consisting of 40 mutations at target allele frequencies of 10, 7% and 4%, with 29 covered by the OCCRA. This control was sequenced 14 times during the validation to assess the assays’ ability of detecting variants at different allele frequencies. The Seraseq Fusion RNA Mix v4 (SeraCare Life Sciences, Milford, MA) is a reference standard containing a total of 16 fusions (14 gene fusions and 2 oncogenic isoforms). Fourteen of the 16 fusions are targeted by the OCCRA. The variant calling PPA (TP/(TP + FP) and PPV (TP/(TP + FN) was established for all variant types with IR default setting of ≥5% allele frequency (AF) for SNVs and INDELs, ≥4 copies for CNVs and ≥20 reads for fusion detection.

Limit of Detection (LOD) was determined for each variant type (SNV/MNV, INDELs, CNV and Fusions) using the contrived AOHC DNA Ladder, Seraseq Lung/Brain CNV and Seraseq RNA control titrated in a background of normal RNA (Placenta RNA Thermo Fisher). Limit of Input (LOI) was determined by diluting FFPE DNA and RNA in nuclease-free water. Nucleic acid concentration was measured using the Qubit™ dsDNA HS Assay Kit (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA) and Qubit™ RNA HS Assay Kit (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA) and two input concentrations (5ng and 1 ng) were used for downstream processing.

2.5.3 Precision (repeatability and reproducibility)

Inter-assay repeatability was evaluated using three independent DNA and RNA libraries prepped from FFPE tissue and sequenced in triplicate on the same day, chips, and system. Two of the RNA samples were pooled from two different samples to increase the number of fusions assessed. To evaluate for inter-assay reproducibility, libraries from FFPE tissue and contrived controls were prepared for DNA (n = 5) and RNA (n = 4) and sequenced 2–5 times on multiple days, chips, and systems.

3 Results

3.1 Established thresholds and quality metrics

The run metrics of the Ion Torrent Suite were used to determine quality control of sequencing runs which included base score, average sequencing depth, fusion panel control reads, minimum sequencing depth for variant calls, uniformity of coverage (ISP Loading), and strand bias of SNV and INDEL (Table 4; Figure 1). The thresholds of DNA mapped reads were 3M with mean depth ≥800x. The minimum mean read length was 75bp with uniformity ≥80% and mean raw accuracy ≥99%. The minimum RNA mapped reads was 20,000 with mean read length of 60bp.

TABLE 4

Sample typeMapped readsMean read lengthUniformityMean raw accuracyMean depth
DNA300000075 bp80%99%800
RNA2000060 bpNANANA

Quality metrics and thresholds.

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 1

Run Summary Metrics obtained post sequencing. (A). Summary of metrics across the chip with loading density which is expected to be at ≥85% (left panel), total number of reads being ≥60M and usable reads being ≥35% (middle panel) and the average read length evaluated (right panel). (B). Run metrics for each sample on the chip. (C). Sequence alignment summary.

3.2 Analytical accuracy

Analytical accuracy was established using the reference Coriell cell line NA12878 with a mean raw accuracy of 99.8% (Table 5). The Seraseq Tri-Level mix control targets variants at different allelic frequencies (4%, 7% and 10%) establishing the limit of detection to be ≥5% allele frequency (AF) for SNVs and INDELs since variants in the 3%–5% allele frequency range are detectable but display variable reproducibility. The minimum AF for small deletions (6–15 nt) was 3.4% and for small insertions (3-4 nt) was 3.8%. and SNVs were detected at 3.5% AF (Table 6). CNVs were detected at about 4.86–6.64 copies, depending on the cancer type (Table 7). All 14 fusions of the Seraseq Fusion v3 Mix control covered by the OCCRA, were detected at 43 reads (Table 8), establishing the cutoff to be 45 for clinical implementation. Automation of library prep resulted in the fusion detection cut-off being increased to 1,100 fusion spanning reads reducing the sensitivity for fusion detection, no impact was observed on the detection of DNA variants. SNVs, INDELs and fusions were able to be detected with 1 ng DNA and RNA input respectively. Gene amplifications were only detected with 5 ng of DNA (Table 9). Results from the AOHC established a PPA of 97% and a PPV of 100% (Table 10), with the combined PPA and PPV of all variants type at 97.2% and >99% with a 95% CI of 93.3%–99%, respectively (Table 11).

TABLE 5

SampleTPTNFPFNAnalytical accuracya
NA1287812518203099.80%

Accuracy. Analytical Accuracy.

a

Calculated using formula (TP + TN)/(TP + FP + TN + FN).

TABLE 6

Gene IDCosmic IDIdentifierHGVS nomenclatureAmino acidLadder 1 (%)Ladder 2 (%)Ladder 3 (%)
EGFRCOSM6225Deletionc.2236_2250del15p.E746_A750delELREA9.20%5.70%3.40%
JAK224,440Deletionc.1624_1629delAATGAAp.N542_E543del10.80%5.70%2.20%
CEBPA18,099Insertionc.939_940insAAGp.K313_V314insK6.60%3.80%2.90%
EGFRCOSM12378Insertionc.2310_2311insGGTp.D770_N771insG7.10%4.30%1.50%
NPM117,559Insertionc.863_864insTCTGp.W288fs*1210.40%4.50%N/A
ABL112,560Substitutionc.944C>Tp.T315I5.70%4.70%2.20%
AKT1COSM33765Substitutionc.49G>Ap.E17K9.10%4.70%1.50%
BRAFCOSM476Substitutionc.1799T>Ap.V600E11.00%6.40%2.90%
CBL34,077Substitutionc.1259G>Ap.R420Q8.10%5.30%2.10%
CBL34,055Substitutionc.1139T>Cp.L380P8.20%5.40%0.80%
CSF3R1,737,962Substitutionc.1853C>Tp.T618I9.80%5.20%1.90%
EGFRCOSM6240Substitutionc.2369C>Tp.T790M7.40%3.80%1.50%
EGFRCOSM12979Substitutionc.2573T>Gp.L858R8.10%5.30%2.30%
FLT3COSM783Substitutionc.2503G>Tp.D835Y10.40%6.80%2.90%
IDH1COSM28747Substitutionc.394C>Tp.R132C8.20%5.30%2.50%
JAK2COSM12600Substitutionc.1849G>Tp.V617F9.20%4.30%1.30%
KITCOSM1314Substitutionc.2447A>Tp.D816V7.40%4.60%1.80%
KRASCOSM521Substitutionc.35G>Ap.G12D5.60%4.40%2.80%
MPLCOSM18918Substitutionc.1544G>Tp.W515L7.70%5.10%1.40%
PIK3CACOSM775Substitutionc.3140A>Gp.H1047R10.30%5.90%1.90%
PIK3CACOSM763Substitutionc.1633G>Ap.E545K8.60%5.20%3.50%
PIK3CACOSM760Substitutionc.1624G>Ap.E542K8.30%5.20%2.10%

Accuracy. The LOD of variant AF (SNVs and INDELs).

TABLE 7

GeneExpected detectionDetected copy number 1Detected copy number 2Detected copy number 3Detected Copy Number T1
METYes6.946.566.95—
MYCYes5.355.015.26—
MDM2Yes4.864.94.95—
ERBB2Yes8.418.548.41—
MYCNYes11.4611.5310.626.94
EGFRYes10.1610.0310.276.64
METYes10.6210.4910.856.87

Accuracy. The LOD of CNV detection.

TABLE 8

Fusion5′fusion5′exon3′fusion3′exonOCCRA targetedDetectedT1T2T3T4
CD74-ROS1CD746ROS134YesYes812584124ND
EGFR vIIIEGFR1EGFR8YesYes1,822NDNDND
EGFR-SEPT14EGFR2414-Sep10YesYes1,03344515143
EML4-ALKEML413ALK20YesYes54338677ND
ETV6-NTRK3ETV65NTRK315YesYes4,2432,186846119
FGFR3-BAIAP2L1FGFR317BAIAP2L12YesYes2,3022,116271ND
FGFR3-TACC3FGFR317TACC311YesYes1,3693,545184ND
KIF5B-RETKIF5B24RET11YesYes2,8282,821611ND
LMNA-NTRK1LMNA2NTRK110YesYes9287028168
MET Exon 14 SkippingMET13MET15YesYesa249 READ_COUNT ≤ 1,000
NCOA4-RETNCOA48RET12YesYes25812163ND
SLC34A2-ROS1SLC34A24ROS134YesYes756570NDND
SLC45A3-BRAFSLC45A31BRAF8YesYes201160NDND
TPM3-NTRK1TPM37NTRK19YesYes4,5313,9622,047ND

Accuracy. The LOD of fusion detection.

a

Cutoff for MET, Exon 14 skipping is ≥ 1,000 fusion spanning reads.

TABLE 9

5 ng resultDepth at variant call/Fusion control reads5 ng AF/CN/Fusion reads1 ng resultDepth at variant call/Fusion control reads1 ng AF/CN/Fusion reads
Detected3,24647.20%Detected1,50745.30%
Detected2,03050.70%Detected95851.70%
Detected3,37346.20%Detected1,73448.50%
Detected10,52347.00%Detected6,31845.40%
DetectedN/A5.72Not DetectedN/A5.23
Detected294,68314,463Detected127,42218,723
Detected88,40510,296Detected62,55818,829
Detected301,8547,658Detected65,0463,945

Accuracy. The LOI of DNA and RNA.

TABLE 10

ComponentAOHC (n = 1)
True Positive Variants192
False Positive Variants0
False Negative Variants6
Total Variants198
PPA97%
PPV>99%

Accuracy. PPA and PPV established by AcroMetrix Oncology Hotspot control.

TABLE 11

ComponentSNP, MNPINDELCNVFusion
Criteria≥5% AF @ 100X Depth≥5% AF @ 100X Depth≥4 Copies≥20 Reads
True Positive6218755
False Positives0000
False Negatives0004
Min AF/CN/Reads4.80%5.20%4.86184
Max AF/CN/Read Counts98.80%66.10%11.46462,174
Average AF/CN/Read Counts19.40%23.00%8.2632,067
Min depth at variant call7381,074NANA
Max depth at variant call5,9513,885NANA
Average depth at variant call2,7812,561NANA
PPA>99%>99%>99%93.20%
PPV>99%>99%>99%>99%

Accuracy. Overall PPA and PPV of different variant types.

3.3 Specificity

A total of 3,640 negative variants were identified in both NA12878 and NA19240 samples with 772 INDELs and 2,869 SNVs/MNVs. Total 1820 negative variants were identified in NA18507 sample with 386 INDELs and 1,434 SNVs/MNVs. There were no positive variants detected across all hotspots, giving a specificity of ≥99% for all HapMap DNA samples (Table 12). Two normal colon and lung RNA samples were used to establish specificity of fusion detection of the assay. There was one false positive non-targeted fusion FHIT-TIRAP. F8T4 detected at 2,827 reads in one of the normal colon RNA replicates, resulting in the specificity greater than 99% in fusion detection (Table 13).

TABLE 12

ComponentNA12878 (n = 2)NA18507 (n = 1)NA19240 (n = 2)
Positive Variants000
Negative Variants3,64018203,640
Total Variants3,64018203,640
INDEL Pos000
INDEL Neg772386772
SNV, MNV Pos000
SNV, MNV Neg2,8681,4342,868
Specificity>99%>99%>99%

Specificity. Analytical specificity of DNA samples.

TABLE 13

ComponentNormal colon RNA (n = 2)Normal lung RNA (n = 2)
Total Fusion Positivea10
Total Fusion Negative3,4063,406
Total Fusions3,4063,406
Average Control Reads176,59272,522
Specificity>99%>99%

Specificity. Analytical specificity of RNA samples.

a

Positive non-targeted FHIT-TIRAP. F8T4 @ 2,827 reads.

3.4 Repeatability and reproducibility

A total of 39 true positive variants of SNV/MNV, INDEL, CNV and fusions were detected across the samples and all replicates, resulting in an overall combined variant repeatability of >99% (95% CI of 91.0%–100%) (Table 14). A total of 73 true positive variants of SNV/MNV, INDEL, CNV and fusions were detected in the combined samples and all replicates resulting in an overall combined variant reproducibility of >99% (Table 15).

TABLE 14

ComponentSNV/MNVINDELCNVFusion
Criteria Cutoff≥5% AF @ 100X Depth≥5% AF @ 100X Depth≥4 Copies≥20 Reads
True Positive156315
False Positive0000
False Negative0000
Repeatability>99%>99%>99%>99%

Repeatability and Reproducibility. Intra-assay Repeatability.

TABLE 15

ComponentSNV/MNVINDELCNVFusion
Criteria Cutoff≥5% AF @ 100X Depth≥5% AF @ 100X Depth≥4 Copies≥20 Reads
True Positive1872226
False Positive0000
False Negative0000
Reproducibility>99%>99%>99%>99%

Repeatability and Reproducibility. Inter-assay Reproducibility.

4 Discussion

The present study describes the analytical validation and implementation of a pan cancer NGS panel CANSeqTMKids for the detection of clinical actionable variants in childhood malignancies. Using a total of 65 samples, the study determined that the assay performed with greater than 99% accuracy, sensitivity, repeatability, and reproducibility, across different specimen types. Assay was optimized to use low input DNA (1–5 ng) and RNA (1 ng). Limit of detection of the assay was established to be ≥5% allele fraction for SNVs and INDELs, ≥4 copies for gene amplifications and 1,100 reads for gene fusions with automated library preparation. The study is presented in line with STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) guidelines (Cohen et al., 2016), details are provided in Supplementary Table S1. The validated assay implemented for patient testing is listed on the National Institute of Health Genetic Test Registry (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gtr/labs/500088/), associated with the clinical test menu of the Precision Medicine Laboratory.

Targeted sequencing of a subset of genes is the most common test in clinical molecular diagnostic laboratories. However, given the various tumor types and molecular profiles of childhood malignancies, small gene panels that only covers genes of certain tumor type cannot satisfy the needs for appropriate disease management. The validation of the CANSeqTMKids included over 30 childhood tumor types/subtypes (Table 2) and includes comprehensive screening of 230 unique genes known to be associated with childhood malignancies across FFPE, whole blood and bone marrow specimens. The CANSeqTMKids evaluates both RNA and DNA for exonic hot spot regions of 86 genes, complete exonic regions of 44 genes, copy number of 28 genes and 91 fusion genes with variant types such as SNVs, INDELs, gene amplifications and gene fusions being detected. Overall, the assay covers a wide range of clinically actionable genes for a multitude of childhood tumor types and has greater than 99% accuracy, sensitivity, repeatability, and reproducibility with lower nucleic acid input amounts.

Statements

Data availability statement

The data presented in the study are deposited in the https://submit.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/subs/sra/SUB12695707/overview repository, accession number SUB12695707.

Ethics statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Institutional Review Board, Medical College of Wisconsin.

Author contributions

HR conceived the study and obtained IRB approval. KS, BS, and QN conducted the study under oversight of HR. JF was the pathologist on the study. JJ provided de-identified clinical specimens for the study. All authors reviewed, commented, and edited later drafts of the manuscript, and approved the final version.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2023.1067457/full#supplementary-material

References

  • 1

    CohenJ. F.KorevaarD. A.AltmanD. G.BrunsD. E.GatsonisC. A.HooftL.et al (2016). STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: Explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open6 (11), e012799. Cited in Pubmed; PMID 28137831. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012799

  • 2

    GrobnerS. N.WorstB. C.WeischenfeldtJ.BuchhalterI.KleinheinzK.RudnevaV. A.et al (2018). The landscape of genomic alterations across childhood cancers. Nature555 (7696), 321–327. Epub 2018/03/01. 10.1038/nature25480

  • 3

    JenningsL. J.ArcilaM. E.CorlessC.Kamel-ReidS.LubinI. M.PfeiferJ.et al (2017). Guidelines for validation of next-generation sequencing–based Oncology panels: A joint consensus recommendation of the association for molecular Pathology and College of American pathologists. J. Mol. Diagn19 (3), 341–365. Cited in Pubmed; PMID 28341590. 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2017.01.011

  • 4

    KoppL. M.GuptaP.Pelayo-KatsanisL.WittmanB.KatsanisE. (2012). Late effects in adult survivors of pediatric cancer: A guide for the primary care physician. Am. J. Med.125 (7), 636–641. Epub 2012/05/09. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2012.01.013

  • 5

    MaX.LiuY.LiuY.AlexandrovL. B.EdmonsonM. N.GawadC.et al (2018). Pan-cancer genome and transcriptome analyses of 1,699 paediatric leukaemias and solid tumours. Nature555 (7696), 371–376. Epub 2018/03/01. 10.1038/nature25795

  • 6

    SiegelR.MaJ.ZouZ.JemalA. (2014). Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J. Clin.64 (1), 9–29. Epub 2014/01/09. 10.3322/caac.21208

  • 7

    SiegelR. L.MillerK. D.JemalA. (2018). Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J. Clin.68 (1), 7–30. Epub 2018/01/10. 10.3322/caac.21442

  • 8

    VogelsteinB.PapadopoulosN.VelculescuV. E.ZhouS.DiazL. A.Jr.KinzlerK. W. (2013). Cancer genome landscapes. Science339 (6127), 1546–1558. Epub 2013/03/30. 10.1126/science.1235122

Summary

Keywords

pan cancer assay, childhood cancer, next generation sequencing panel, molecular profiling, clinical implementation, assay validation

Citation

Schilter KF, Smith BA, Nie Q, Stoll K, Felix JC, Jarzembowski JA and Reddi HV (2023) Analytical validation and implementation of a pan cancer next-generation sequencing panel, CANSeqTMKids for molecular profiling of childhood malignancies. Front. Genet. 14:1067457. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2023.1067457

Received

11 October 2022

Accepted

20 January 2023

Published

09 February 2023

Volume

14 - 2023

Edited by

Jiannis (Ioannis) Ragoussis, McGill University, Canada

Reviewed by

Parul Singh, Immunology Center, United States

Ammar Husami, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, United States

Updates

Copyright

*Correspondence: Honey V. Reddi,

†These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

This article was submitted to Genomic Assay Technology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Genetics

Disclaimer

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Outline

Figures

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Article metrics