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

Abstract

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.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Extraction results.
Fig. 2: Molecular recovery.
Fig. 3: Linearity of mutation detection.

References

  1. 1.

    Corcoran RB, Chabner BA. Application of cell-free DNA analysis to cancer treatment. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1754–65.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Leon SA, Shapiro B, Sklaroff DM, Yaros MJ. Free DNA in the serum of cancer patients and the effect of therapy. Cancer Res. 1977;37:646–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bettegowda C, Sausen M, Leary RJ, Kinde I, Wang Y, Agrawal N, et al. Detection of circulating tumor DNA in early- and late-stage human malignancies. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6:224ra24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Newman AM, Bratman SV, To J, Wynne JF, NCW Eclov, Modlin LA, et al. An ultrasensitive method for quantitating circulating tumor DNA with broad patient coverage. Nat Med. 2014;20:548–54.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    De Mattos-Arruda L, Weigelt B, Cortes J, Won HH, Ng CKY, Nuciforo P, et al. Capturing intra-tumor genetic heterogeneity by de novo mutation profiling of circulating cell-free tumor DNA: a proof-of-principle. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:1729–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Zhang Y, Chang L, Yang Y, Fang W, Guan Y, Wu A, et al. The correlations of tumor mutational burden among single-region tissue, multi-region tissues and blood in non-small cell lung cancer. J Immunother Cancer. 2019;7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6448263/.

  7. 7.

    Fenizia F, Pasquale R, Roma C, Bergantino F, Iannaccone A, Normanno N. Measuring tumor mutation burden in non-small cell lung cancer: tissue versus liquid biopsy. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2018;7:668–77.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Friedlaender A, Nouspikel T, Christinat Y, Ho L, McKee T, Addeo A. Tissue-plasma TMB comparison and plasma TMB monitoring in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors. Front Oncol. 2020;10. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2020.00142/full.

  9. 9.

    Del ReM, Vivaldi C, Rofi E, Vasile E, Miccoli M, Caparello C, et al. Early changes in plasma DNA levels of mutant KRAS as a sensitive marker of response to chemotherapy in pancreatic cancer. Sci Rep. 2017;7:7931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Carpinetti P, Donnard E, Bettoni F, Asprino P, Koyama F, Rozanski A, 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. Oncotarget. 2015;6:38360–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Sakai H, Tsurutani J, Iwasa T, Komoike Y, Sakai K, Nishio K, 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. Breast Cancer. 2018;25:605–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Chabon JJ, Simmons AD, Lovejoy AF, Esfahani MS, Newman AM, Haringsma HJ, et al. Circulating tumour DNA profiling reveals heterogeneity of EGFR inhibitor resistance mechanisms in lung cancer patients. Nat Commun. 2016;7:11815.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Thress KS, Paweletz CP, Felip E, Cho BC, Stetson D, Dougherty B, et al. Acquired EGFR C797S mutation mediates resistance to AZD9291 in non-small cell lung cancer harboring EGFR T790M. Nat Med. 2015;21:560–2.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    O’Leary B, Hrebien S, Morden JP, Beaney M, Fribbens C, Huang X, et al. Early circulating tumor DNA dynamics and clonal selection with palbociclib and fulvestrant for breast cancer. Nat Commun. 2018;9:896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Diehl F, Schmidt K, Choti MA, Romans K, Goodman S, Li M, et al. Circulating mutant DNA to assess tumor dynamics. Nat Med. 2008;14:985–90.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Tie J, Wang Y, Tomasetti C, Li L, Springer S, Kinde I, et al. Circulating tumor DNA analysis detects minimal residual disease and predicts recurrence in patients with stage II colon cancer. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8:346ra92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Fernando MR, Chen K, Norton S, Krzyzanowski G, Bourne D, Hunsley B, 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. Prenat Diagn. 2010;30:418–24.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Reinert T, Schøler LV, Thomsen R, Tobiasen H, Vang S, Nordentoft I, et al. Analysis of circulating tumour DNA to monitor disease burden following colorectal cancer surgery. Gut. 2016;65:625–34.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kohler C, Radpour R, Barekati Z, Asadollahi R, Bitzer J, Wight E, et al. Levels of plasma circulating cell free nuclear and mitochondrial DNA as potential biomarkers for breast tumors. Mol Cancer. 2009;8:105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Nikolaev S, Lemmens L, Koessler T, Blouin J-L, Nouspikel T. Circulating tumoral DNA: preanalytical validation and quality control in a diagnostic laboratory. Anal Biochem. 2018;01:34–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Alidousty C, Brandes D, Heydt C, Wagener S, Wittersheim M, Schäfer SC, et al. Comparison of blood collection tubes from three different manufacturers for the collection of cell-free DNA for liquid biopsy mutation testing. J Mol Diagn. 2017;19:801–4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Koessler T, Addeo A, Nouspikel T. Implementing circulating tumor DNA analysis in a clinical laboratory: a user manual. Adv Clin Chem. 2019;89:131–88.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Xu C, Gu X, Padmanabhan R, Wu Z, Peng Q, DiCarlo J, et al. smCounter2: an accurate low-frequency variant caller for targeted sequencing data with unique molecular identifiers. 2018;281659. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/281659v1.

  24. 24.

    Lee B, Moon T, Yoon S, Weissman T. DUDE-Seq: fast, flexible, and robust denoising for targeted amplicon sequencing. PLOS ONE. 2017;12:e0181463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Zhao L, Chen Q, Li W, Jiang P, Wong L, Li J. MapReduce for accurate error correction of next-generation sequencing data. Bioinformatics. 2017;33:3844–51.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Peng Q, Vijaya Satya R, Lewis M, Randad P, Wang Y. Reducing amplification artifacts in high multiplex amplicon sequencing by using molecular barcodes. BMC Genom. 2015;16:589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Vidal J, Muinelo L, Dalmases A, Jones F, Edelstein D, Iglesias M, et al. Plasma ctDNA RAS mutation analysis for the diagnosis and treatment monitoring of metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1325–32.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Tie J, Cohen JD, Wang Y, Christie M, Simons K, Lee M, et al. Circulating tumor DNA analyses as markers of recurrence risk and benefit of adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5:1710–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Xu C. A review of somatic single nucleotide variant calling algorithms for next-generation sequencing data. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2018;16:15–24.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thierry Nouspikel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koessler, T., Paradiso, V., Piscuoglio, S. et al. Reliability of liquid biopsy analysis: an inter-laboratory comparison of circulating tumor DNA extraction and sequencing with different platforms. Lab Invest 100, 1475–1484 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41374-020-0459-7

Download citation

Search