Variation in pre-PCR processing of FFPE samples leads to discrepancies in BRAF and EGFR mutation detection: a diagnostic RING trial

Joshua R Kapp, Tim Diss, James Spicer, Michael Gandy, Iris Schrijver, Lawrence J Jennings, Marilyn M Li, Gregory J Tsongalis, David Gonzalez de Castro, Julia A Bridge, Andrew Wallace, Joshua L Deignan, Sandra Hing, Rachel Butler, Eldo Verghese, Gary J Latham, Rifat A Hamoudi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

38 Citations (Scopus)
179 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

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<0.0001), and yield variation from engineered samples was not significant (p=0.3782). Two laboratories failed DNA extraction from samples that may be attributed to operator error. DNA extraction protocols themselves were not found to contribute significant variation. 10/13 labs reported yields averaging 235.8 ng (95% CI 90.7 to 380.9) from cell-negative samples, which was attributed to issues with spectrophotometry. DNA measurements using Qubit Fluorometry demonstrated a median fivefold overestimation of DNA quantity by Nanodrop Spectrophotometry. DNA integrity and PCR inhibition were factors not found to contribute significant variation.

CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we provide evidence demonstrating that variation in pre-PCR steps is prevalent and may detrimentally affect the patient's ability to receive critical therapy. We provide recommendations for preanalytical workflow optimisation that may reduce errors in down-stream sequencing and for next-generation sequencing library generation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)111-8
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Clinical Pathology
Volume68
Issue number2
Early online date27 Nov 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2015

Keywords

  • Cell Line, Tumor
  • DNA Mutational Analysis
  • DNA, Neoplasm
  • Diagnostic Errors
  • Fixatives
  • Fluorometry
  • Formaldehyde
  • Great Britain
  • Humans
  • Laboratory Proficiency Testing
  • Mutation
  • Observer Variation
  • Paraffin Embedding
  • Polymerase Chain Reaction
  • Predictive Value of Tests
  • Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf
  • Receptor, Epidermal Growth Factor
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Spectrophotometry
  • Tissue Fixation
  • Transfection
  • United States
  • Workflow

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Variation in pre-PCR processing of FFPE samples leads to discrepancies in BRAF and EGFR mutation detection: a diagnostic RING trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this