2 resultados para Workflow Managment
Resumo:
INTRODUCTION: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a heterogeneous clonal disorder often associated with dismal overall survival. The clinical diversity of AML is reflected in the range of recurrent somatic mutations in several genes, many of which have a prognostic and therapeutic value. Targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) of these genes has the potential for translation into clinical practice. In order to assess this potential, an inter-laboratory evaluation of a commercially available AML gene panel across three diagnostic centres in the UK and Ireland was performed.
METHODS: DNA from six AML patient samples was distributed to each centre and processed using a standardised workflow, including a common sequencing platform, sequencing chips and bioinformatics pipeline. A duplicate sample in each centre was run to assess inter- and intra-laboratory performance.
RESULTS: An average sample read depth of 2725X (range 629-5600) was achieved using six samples per chip, with some variability observed in the depth of coverage generated for individual samples and between centres. A total of 16 somatic mutations were detected in the six AML samples, with a mean of 2.7 mutations per sample (range 1-4) representing nine genes on the panel. 15/16 mutations were identified by all three centres. Allelic frequencies of the mutations ranged from 5.6 to 53.3 % (median 44.4 %), with a high level of concordance of these frequencies between centres, for mutations detected.
CONCLUSION: In this inter-laboratory comparison, a high concordance, reproducibility and robustness was demonstrated using a commercially available NGS AML gene panel and platform.
Resumo:
AIMS: Mutation detection accuracy has been described extensively; however, it is surprising that pre-PCR processing of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples has not been systematically assessed in clinical context. We designed a RING trial to (i) investigate pre-PCR variability, (ii) correlate pre-PCR variation with EGFR/BRAF mutation testing accuracy and (iii) investigate causes for observed variation. METHODS: 13 molecular pathology laboratories were recruited. 104 blinded FFPE curls including engineered FFPE curls, cell-negative FFPE curls and control FFPE tissue samples were distributed to participants for pre-PCR processing and mutation detection. Follow-up analysis was performed to assess sample purity, DNA integrity and DNA quantitation. RESULTS: Rate of mutation detection failure was 11.9%. Of these failures, 80% were attributed to pre-PCR error. Significant differences in DNA yields across all samples were seen using analysis of variance (p