Utility of different massive parallel sequencing platforms for mutation profiling in clinical samples and identification of pitfalls using FFPE tissue

Fassunke,Jana; Haller,Florian; Hebele,Simone; Moskalev,Evgeny A.; Penzel,Roland; Pfarr,Nicole; Merkelbach-Bruse,Sabine; Endris,Volker

doi:10.3892/ijmm.2015.2339

Utility of different massive parallel sequencing platforms for mutation profiling in clinical samples and identification of pitfalls using FFPE tissue

Authors:
- Jana Fassunke
- Florian Haller
- Simone Hebele
- Evgeny A. Moskalev
- Roland Penzel
- Nicole Pfarr
- Sabine Merkelbach-Bruse
- Volker Endris
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Institute of Pathology, University of Cologne, Medical Centre, D-50924 Cologne, Germany, Institute of Pathology, University of Erlangen, Medical Centre, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany, Institute of Pathology, University of Heidelberg, Medical Centre, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
Published online on: September 7, 2015 https://doi.org/10.3892/ijmm.2015.2339
Pages: 1233-1243
Copyright: © Fassunke et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

In the growing field of personalised medicine, the analysis of numerous potential targets is becoming a challenge in terms of work load, tissue availability, as well as costs. The molecular analysis of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has shifted from the analysis of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation status to the analysis of different gene regions, including resistance mutations or translocations. Massive parallel sequencing (MPS) allows rapid comprehensive mutation testing in routine molecular pathological diagnostics even on small formalin-fixed, paraffin‑embedded (FFPE) biopsies. In this study, we compared and evaluated currently used MPS platforms for their application in routine pathological diagnostics. We initiated a first round‑robin testing of 30 cases diagnosed with NSCLC and a known EGFR gene mutation status. In this study, three pathology institutes from Germany received FFPE tumour sections that had been individually processed. Fragment libraries were prepared by targeted multiplex PCR using institution‑specific gene panels. Sequencing was carried out using three MPS systems: MiSeq™, GS Junior and PGM Ion Torrent™. In two institutes, data analysis was performed with the platform-specific software and the Integrative Genomics Viewer. In one institute, data analysis was carried out using an in-house software system. Of 30 samples, 26 were analysed by all institutes. Concerning the EGFR mutation status, concordance was found in 26 out of 26 samples. The analysis of a few samples failed due to poor DNA quality in alternating institutes. We found 100% concordance when comparing the results of the EGFR mutation status. A total of 38 additional mutations were identified in the 26 samples. In two samples, minor variants were found which could not be confirmed by qPCR. Other characteristic variants were identified as fixation artefacts by reanalyzing the respective sample by Sanger sequencing. Overall, the results of this study demonstrated good concordance in the detection of mutations using different MPS platforms. The failure with samples can be traced back to different DNA extraction systems and DNA quality. Unknown or ambiguous variations (transitions) need verification with another method, such as qPCR or Sanger sequencing.

View Figures

View References

1	Endris V, Penzel R, Warth A, Muckenhuber A, Schirmacher P, Stenzinger A and Weichert W: Molecular diagnostic profiling of lung cancer specimens with a semiconductor-based massive parallel sequencing approach: feasibility, costs, and performance compared with conventional sequencing. J Mol Diagn. 15:765–775. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Clinical Lung Cancer Genome Project (CLCGP); Network Genomic Medicine (NGM): A genomics-based classification of human lung tumors. Sci Transl Med. 5:209ra1532013.PubMed/NCBI
3	Ulahannan D, Kovac MB, Mulholland PJ, Cazier JB and Tomlinson I: Technical and implementation issues in using next-generation sequencing of cancers in clinical practice. Br J Cancer. 109:827–835. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Hagemann IS, Devarakonda S, Lockwood CM, Spencer DH, Guebert K, Bredemeyer AJ, Al-Kateb H, Nguyen TT, Duncavage EJ, Cottrell CE, et al: Clinical next-generation sequencing in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Cancer. 121:631–639. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar
5	Tops BB, Normanno N, Kurth H, Amato E, Mafficini A, Rieber N, Le Corre D, Rachiglio AM, Reiman A, Sheils O, et al: Development of a semi-conductor sequencing-based panel for genotyping of colon and lung cancer by the Onconetwork consortium. BMC Cancer. 15:262015. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Han JY, Kim SH, Lee YS, Lee SY, Hwang JA, Kim JY, Yoon SJ and Lee GK: Comparison of targeted next-generation sequencing with conventional sequencing for predicting the responsiveness to epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) therapy in never-smokers with lung adenocarcinoma. Lung Cancer. 85:161–167. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	de Koning TJ, Jongbloed JD, Sikkema-Raddatz B and Sinke RJ: Targeted next-generation sequencing panels for monogenetic disorders in clinical diagnostics: the opportunities and challenges. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 15:61–70. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Meldrum C, Doyle MA and Tothill RW: Next-generation sequencing for cancer diagnostics: A practical perspective. Clin Biochem Rev. 32:177–195. 2011.PubMed/NCBI
9	Sikkema-Raddatz B, Johansson LF, de Boer EN, Almomani R, Boven LG, van den Berg MP, van Spaendonck-Zwarts KY, van Tintelen JP, Sijmons RH, Jongbloed JD and Sinke RJ: Targeted next-generation sequencing can replace Sanger sequencing in clinical diagnostics. Hum Mutat. 34:1035–1042. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Snow AN, Stence AA, Pruessner JA, Bossler AD and Ma D: A simple and cost-effective method of DNA extraction from small formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue for molecular oncologic testing. BMC Clin Pathol. 14:302014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Marchetti I, Iervasi G, Mazzanti CM, Lessi F, Tomei S, Naccarato AG, Aretini P, Alberti B, Di Coscio G and Bevilacqua G: Detection of the BRAF(V600E) mutation in fine needle aspiration cytology of thyroid papillary microcarcinoma cells selected by manual macrodissection: an easy tool to improve the preoperative diagnosis. Thyroid. 22:292–298. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar
12	Heydt C, Fassunke J, Künstlinger H, Ihle MA, König K, Heukamp LC, Schildhaus HU, Odenthal M, Büttner R and Merkelbach-Bruse S: Comparison of pre-analytical FFPE sample preparation methods and their impact on massively parallel sequencing in routine diagnostics. PLoS One. 9:e1045662014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Peifer M, Fernández-Cuesta L, Sos ML, George J, Seidel D, Kasper LH, Plenker D, Leenders F, Sun R, Zander T, et al: Integrative genome analyses identify key somatic driver mutations of small-cell lung cancer. Nat Genet. 44:1104–1110. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Ihle MA, Fassunke J, König K, Grünewald I, Schlaak M, Kreuzberg N, Tietze L, Schildhaus HU, Büttner R and Merkelbach-Bruse S: Comparison of high resolution melting analysis, pyrosequencing, next generation sequencing and immunohistochemistry to conventional Sanger sequencing for the detection of p.V600E and non-p.V600E BRAF mutations. BMC Cancer. 14:132014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Wang JH, Gouda-Vossos A, Dzamko N, Halliday G and Huang Y: DNA extraction from fresh-frozen and formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded human brain tissue. Neurosci Bull. 29:649–654. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Frey KG, Herrera-Galeano JE, Redden CL, Luu TV, Servetas SL, Mateczun AJ, Mokashi VP and Bishop-Lilly KA: Comparison of three next-generation sequencing platforms for metagenomic sequencing and identification of pathogens in blood. BMC Genomics. 15:962014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Loman NJ, Misra RV, Dallman TJ, Constantinidou C, Gharbia SE, Wain J and Pallen MJ: Performance comparison of benchtop high-throughput sequencing platforms. Nat Biotechnol. 30:434–439. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Warth A, Penzel R, Brandt R, Sers C, Fischer JR, Thomas M, Herth FJ, Dietel M, Schirmacher P and Bläker H: Optimized algorithm for Sanger sequencing-based EGFR mutation analyses in NSCLC biopsies. Virchows Arch. 460:407–414. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Moskalev EA, Stöhr R, Rieker R, Hebele S, Fuchs F, Sirbu H, Mastitsky SE, Boltze C, König H, Agaimy A, et al: Increased detection rates of EGFR and KRAS mutations in NSCLC specimens with low tumour cell content by 454 deep sequencing. Virchows Arch. 462:409–419. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	Hlinkova K, Babal P, Berzinec P, Majer I, Mikle-Barathova Z, Piackova B and Ilencikova D: Evaluation of 2-year experience with EGFR mutation analysis of small diagnostic samples. Diagn Mol Pathol. 22:70–75. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
21	Portier BP, Kanagal-Shamanna R, Luthra R, Singh R, Routbort MJ, Handal B, Reddy N, Barkoh BA, Zuo Z, Medeiros LJ, et al: Quantitative assessment of mutant allele burden in solid tumors by semiconductor-based next-generation sequencing. Am J Clin Pathol. 141:559–572. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Ausch C, Buxhofer-Ausch V, Oberkanins C, Holzer B, Minai-Pour M, Jahn S, Dandachi N, Zeillinger R and Kriegshäuser G: Sensitive detection of KRAS mutations in archived formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue using mutant-enriched PCR and reverse-hybridization. J Mol Diagn. 11:508–513. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Pirker R, Herth FJ, Kerr KM, Filipits M, Taron M, Gandara D, Hirsch FR, Grunenwald D, Popper H, Smit E, et al: Consensus for EGFR mutation testing in non-small cell lung cancer: results from a European workshop. J Thorac Oncol. 5:1706–1713. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Dundas N, Leos NK, Mitui M, Revell P and Rogers BB: Comparison of automated nucleic acid extraction methods with manual extraction. J Mol Diagn. 10:311–316. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Esona MD, McDonald S, Kamili S, Kerin T, Gautam R and Bowen MD: Comparative evaluation of commercially available manual and automated nucleic acid extraction methods for rotavirus RNA detection in stools. J Virol Methods. 194:242–249. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	van Eijk R, Stevens L, Morreau H and van Wezel T: Assessment of a fully automated high-throughput DNA extraction method from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue for KRAS, and BRAF somatic mutation analysis. Exp Mol Pathol. 94:121–125. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar
27	Do H and Dobrovic A: Sequence artifacts in DNA from formalin-fixed tissues: Causes and strategies for minimization. Clin Chem. 61:64–71. 2015. View Article : Google Scholar
28	Marchetti A, Felicioni L and Buttitta F: Assessing EGFR mutations. N Engl J Med. 354:526–528. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
29	Wong SQ, Li J, Tan AY, Vedururu R, Pang JM, Do H, Ellul J, Doig K, Bell A, MacArthur GA, et al: CANCER 2015 Cohort: Sequence artefacts in a prospective series of formalin-fixed tumours tested for mutations in hotspot regions by massively parallel sequencing. BMC Med Genomics. 7:232014. View Article : Google Scholar
30	Udar N, Haigis R, Gros T, Kerry N, Barnes B, Pokholok D, Ross M, Lucio-Eterovic AK, Zhang Q, Zenali M and Jaeger E: A novel technique that distinguishes low-level somatic DNA variants from FFPE-induced artifacts in solid tumors by next-generation sequencing (NGS). International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. 2013.
31	Oxnard GR, Arcila ME, Sima CS, Riely GJ, Chmielecki J, Kris MG, Pao W, Ladanyi M and Miller VA: Acquired resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in EGFR-mutant lung cancer: distinct natural history of patients with tumors harboring the T790M mutation. Clin Cancer Res. 17:1616–1622. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar :
32	Nguyen KS, Kobayashi S and Costa DB: Acquired resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors in non-small-cell lung cancers dependent on the epidermal growth factor receptor pathway. Clin Lung Cancer. 10:281–289. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
33	Mok TS, Wu YL, Thongprasert S, Yang CH, Chu DT, Saijo N, Sunpaweravong P, Han B, Margono B, Ichinose Y, et al: Gefitinib or carboplatin-paclitaxel in pulmonary adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 361:947–957. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
34	Rosell R, Molina MA, Costa C, Simonetti S, Gimenez-Capitan A, Bertran-Alamillo J, Mayo C, Moran T, Mendez P, Cardenal F, et al: Pretreatment EGFR T790M mutation and BRCA1 mRNA expression in erlotinib-treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients with EGFR mutations. Clin Cancer Res. 17:1160–1168. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
35	Su KY, Chen HY, Li KC, Kuo ML, Yang JC, Chan WK, Ho BC, Chang GC, Shih JY, Yu SL and Yang PC: Pretreatment epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M mutation predicts shorter EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor response duration in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 30:433–440. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI