Abstract 5601: Identification of critical steps involved in optimization of next generation sequencing (NGS) using a retrospective meta-analysis of a large clinical testing cohort
Authors: Danielle A. Murphy, Christopher Scott, Kerry Fitzgerald, Maya Panjikaran, Yu Xia, Armin Graber, Julie Kines, Adam Baer, Matthew McGinniss, Jason Christiansen
Journal: Cancer Research (2014)

Abstract Introduction: There is increased use of NGS technology in clinical applications. Promise of this platform's applicability in the assessment of somatic mutations is seen in improvements in sensitivity over other sequencing methods, higher throughput and rapidly decreasing cost. We analyzed a large cohort, n=1210, of sample data from routine testing since 2012 and find that results are robust. However, there are several areas that users of NGS technology can optimize to assure the highest levels of accuracy for clinical-grade sequencing results. Methods: NGS was performed as targeted sequencing of multiple exons (132 amplicons) from 5 genes (ASXL1, RUNX1, ETV6, EZH2, and TP53). Patients had a prior diagnosis of, or were suspected of having, myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS). Validated sample types included bone marrow aspirates and peripheral blood. DNA was extracted from samples and processed in duplicate using a clinically validated testing procedure. Libraries were created using a Fluidigm Access Array system and sequencing was performed on the Illumina MiSeq platform. The limit of detection of this assay is 5% mutant allele with a minimum depth of coverage of 500x. Alignment and variant calling was performed using NextGENe software. Custom Perl software was used to provide quality checking of results, duplicate run comparisons, and annotation from existing databases for known germline and somatic variants. Results: From 1210 random patient samples run in duplicate, 738 (61%) samples demonstrated 2081 variant calls in only one of the two replicates. The quality and quantity of input DNA is paramount to achieving stable results (DNA input accounts for 75% of singlicate results in this study). In addition, specific regions of sequence have been identified as ‘hot spots’ of high variability, accounting for 21% of the singlicate calls in this study. For example, RUNX1 accounts for 46% of the singlicate calls and 84% of those are concentrated in exon 3, a 254bp, GC-rich region. Finally, the resulting data must be well managed by analytical and bioinformatics tools to assure accuracy but meet the requirements of the high throughput and robust clinical setting. Although these factors can be mitigated, the use of duplicate testing of a large cohort of hematologic patient specimens allowed identification of these sources of variation, providing a cautionary note to others using NGS in a clinical setting. Conclusions: Duplicate NGS runs from about a year of clinical testing demonstrate robust results. However, laboratories need to address factors that may confound results such as input sample quantity/quality, amplicon design, and post-analytical processing. These can introduce the potential for false-positive/negative results in routine testing without additional confirmation. Citation Format: Danielle A. Murphy, Christopher Scott, Kerry Fitzgerald, Maya Panjikaran, Yu Xia, Armin Graber, Julie Kines, Adam Baer, Matthew McGinniss, Jason Christiansen. Identification of critical steps involved in optimization of next generation sequencing (NGS) using a retrospective meta-analysis of a large clinical testing cohort. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 5601. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-5601